This is a direct comment from a reader, left on a previous post here at the The Battle Cry:

“The God of Abraham, which is also Jesus, is a God who draws me to him, who created me so that I would have a chance to know love and serve him, who sent his son to die for my sins so that I could be forgiven, but who also loves me enough to allow me to decide whether I will accept his gift.”

I lifted it out of the earlier post to address the thought that ‘God loves us so much he allows us to decide whether or not to accept His gift of salvation’.

Well, it’s true! God does love us so much that he gives us a choice to accept or reject the precious gift of salvation.

The inescapable question is WHY does one person accept the gift and another reject it? 

It is certainly true that any person who receives God’s gift of salvation by faith in Christ, needs to have made a decision to do so. The above comment’s author makes it sound like a person’s salvation ultimately depends on his/her ‘decision’, making the decision the determiner of one’s salvation, and God beholden to mere mortals, if He would have a people for Himself. Salvation is therefore a matter of man cooperating with God, and in essence, saving himself! 

This ‘man cooperating with God’ in salvation’ paradigm is also known as ‘synergism’. While ‘synergistic’ salvation is not to be found in scripture, it has been valiantly ‘prooftexted’ for hundreds of years, and is in fact the most loved theory of how God saves men.

The contrasting theory of how men are saved is called ‘monergism’ , meaning that it is God who saves men, from beginning to end. Yes, there is still a decision, but it is not an autonomous human decision, but nevertheless a decision of human will.

The difference is the nature of the human will. In synergism, man has sufficient resources to figure it all out and make an autonomous decision, in and of himself. In monergism, man has been so affected by the sin of Adam that every part of his being has been corrupted, including the human will. It takes a supernatural act of God to so affect the human will, that a person formerly in rebellion against God, unwilling and unable to even seek God, will not only seek God, he/she will find God and eternal salvation will result.

In contrast to synergism, monergism is taught explicitly in scripture and needs no prooftexting. The truth that salvation is of the Lord is taught from Genesis through Revelation!

I would therefore like to modify the comment with which I began this post to say:

“God loved me SO MUCH that, since left to my own devices, I would never accept His gift of salvation, He so changed my depraved human will, that I could and indeed would ‘freely’ choose Christ!”

______________________

NOTE: I intentionally omitted specific scripture references that teach the monergistic view of salvation. After all, the theme that it is God who saves men, without our ‘help’, runs throughout the entire Bible. Should you be reading this and thinking otherwise, it is my sincere prayer that you will not rest until you have examined scripture and discovered the truth of the matter.

May God richly bless you –  now and throughout the upcoming new year!

-Albert Mohler, Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

As the celebration of Christmas fast approaches, our attention quickly goes to the familiar words of the infancy narratives found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  This is a healthy reflex.  After all, the Gospel of Jesus Christ rests upon the historicity of the events that took place in Bethlehem as Christ was born. Our understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ is directly rooted in these narratives and our confidence is in the fact that Matthew and Luke give us historically credible and completely truthful accounts of the events surrounding the birth of Christ.

A closer look at the narratives in both Matthew and Luke reveals a richness that familiarity may hide from us. Matthew begins with the genealogy of Christ, demonstrating the sequence of generations as Israel anticipated the birth of David’s Son — the Messiah. Luke, intending to set forth “an orderly account” of the events concerning Jesus, begins with the anticipation of the birth of John the Baptist and then moves to tell of the virgin conception of Jesus.

A careful reading of Matthew and Luke reveals both the elegance of detail and the grand expanse of the story of Christ’s birth. Matthew gives particular attention to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The virgin birth, the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea, the Herodian massacre of the innocents, the flight to Egypt, and the role of John the Baptist as forerunner are all presented as the fulfillment of specific Old Testament prophecies.

Every word of the Old Testament points to Christ. He is not only the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies concerning him, he is the perfect fulfillment of the law and the prophets — the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Christmas story does not begin in Bethlehem, for Israel had been promised the Messiah. As Luke reveals, Simeon beheld the baby Jesus in the temple and understood this infant to be “the Lord’s Christ” — the Davidic Messiah.  Simeon understood this clearly — the Christmas story did not begin in Bethlehem, or even in Jerusalem.

So, where does the Christmas story begin? In the Gospel of John we read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” [John 1:1-3]

The prologue to John’s Gospel points to creation and to Christ, the divine Logos, as the agent of creation. Yet, with language drawn directly from Genesis, John begins his gospel “in the beginning.”

In other words, the Christmas story begins before the creation of the world. As we celebrate Christmas and contemplate the Christmas story, we must be very careful not to begin the story in Bethlehem, or even in Nazareth, where Mary was confronted by Gabriel with the message that she would be the mother of the Messiah.

We must not even begin with Moses and the prophets, and with the expectation of the coming Son of Man, the promised Suffering Servant, and the heralded Davidic Messiah. We must begin before the world was created and before humanity was formed, much less fallen.

Why is this so important? Put simply, if we get the Christmas story wrong, we get the Gospel wrong. Told carelessly, the Christmas story sounds like God’s “Plan B.” In other words, we can make the Christmas story sound like God turning to a new plan, rather than fulfilling all that he had promised.  We must be very careful to tell the Christmas story in such a way that we make the gospel clear.

Christmas is not God’s second plan. Before he created the world, God determined to save sinners through the blood of his own Son. The grand narrative of the Bible points to this essential truth — God determined to bring glory to himself through the salvation of a people redeemed and purchased by his own Son, the Christ. Bethlehem and Calvary were essential parts of God’s plan from the beginning, before the cosmos was brought into being as the Son obeyed the will of the Father in creation.

The Christmas story does not begin in Bethlehem, but we appropriately look to Bethlehem as the scene of the most decisive event in human history — the incarnation of the Son of God. Even as we turn our attention to Bethlehem, we must remember that the story of our salvation does not begin there. That story begins in the eternal purpose of God.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” That is where the Christmas story begins, and John takes us right to the essence of what happened in Bethlehem: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” [John 1:14]

Let’s be sure to get the Christmas story right, start to finish.

This is the fourth in a series concerning postmodernism, based on articles written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois. This material is drawn from the fourth article in the series, and focuses on postmodernism’s effect on the church.

“Postmodernity and the Church”

At certain points in history the church has served as a rebuke to the secular mindset of society. At such times Christians have challenged and exposed the popular fads that ruled the day, revealing those fads for what they were, shallow and empty, mere “broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13). Sadly, now is not one of those points in history. Rather, the Christian community at the present time appears to be in lock step with the world system. Whatever the world is selling Christians seem to be buying. They may perfume it a bit, hang some religious ornaments on it, and throw some scriptures into the mix, but when stripped to its essence evangelicals frequently find themselves mimicking the world’s philosophy.

Culture has always influenced the church, but in a real sense the postmodern culture has engulfed the church – and in many cases defined the church. We see its fingerprints everywhere we turn. We want to investigate some of the most obvious evidence of postmodernity’s influence within the evangelical community in this paper. It will not be a pretty sight. In what ways has the postmodern worldview, which has only been in full bloom for less than two decades, impacted the evangelical community? Consider the following:

A Felt Needs Gospel

Gene Veith tells the story of an evangelical church which wanted to grow numerically and decided to use postmodern strategy. First came the market survey, which pinpointed a number of steps necessary to implement such growth in a postmodern age. For example, it was determined that the church must change its name because the term “Baptist” was a turn off in the community. And people would only come to church if it were convenient, so it was necessary to relocate to a prime location off the freeway. A modern facility was erected with all the bells and whistles that reflect a materialistic society. On the other hand religious symbols, such as the cross, were offensive to some, so the symbols were expunged. Not only symbols but words are offensive as well; it became necessary, therefore, to eliminate terms such as redemption and conversion. Of course, negative subjects such as hell and judgment had to be replaced with positive ones. “In abandoning its doctrine and its moral authority and in adjusting its teaching to the demands of the market place, the church embarked on a pilgrimage to postmodernism.”

Read some of the observations by respected Christian leaders who see what has happened. D. A. Carson writes,

Weigh how many presentations of the gospel have been “eased” by portraying Jesus as the One who fixes marriages, ensures the American dream, cancels loneliness, gives us power, and generally makes us happy. He is portrayed that way primarily because in our efforts to make Jesus appear relevant we have cast the human dilemma in merely contemporary categories, taking our cues from the perceived needs of the day. But if we follow Scripture, and understand that the fundamental needs of the race are irrefragably tied to the Fall, we will follow the Bible as it sets out God’s gracious solution to that fundamental need; and then the gospel we preach will be less skewed by the contemporary agenda…. If you begin with perceived needs, you will always distort the gospel. If you begin with the Bible’s definition of our need, relating perceived needs to that central grim reality, you are more likely to retain intact the gospel of God (emphasis in the original).

Douglas Groothuis laments, “Some Christians are hailing postmodernism as the trend that will make the church interesting and exciting to postmoderns. We are told that Christians must shift their emphasis from objective truth to communal experience, from rational argument to subjective appeal, from doctrinal orthodoxy to ‘relevant’ practices. I have reasoned throughout this book that this move is nothing less than fatal to Christian integrity and biblical witness. It is also illogical philosophically. We have something far better to offer.”

Veith is on the mark when he comments,

Instead of preaching that leads to the conviction of sin and salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ, the churches preach ‘feel-good’ messages designed to cheer people up. Some have described postmodernist culture as a ‘therapeutic culture,’ in which a sense of psychological well-being, not truth, is the controlling value. The contemporary church likewise faces the temptation to replace theology with therapy…. Evangelism, according to this model, does not involve proclaiming God’s judgment against sinners and His gracious offer of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Rather, evangelism simply educates people as to how much God loves them. God really does not want to punish anyone; He wants all to feel good about themselves, to lead a full life, to be happy. Those who turn away from God will miss out on this abundant life, though the Holy Spirit may well bring them to Heaven even though they never knew Christ.

It is no wonder then that Groothuis shares one of my concerns: “One great danger of postmodernity is false conversions and the consequently hollow praise offered to God for saved souls that, in fact, are not saved. Those holding to a postmodernist view of truth may appear very ‘spiritual,’ and to go along with Christian belief to a point, just so long as religion meets their felt needs. Nevertheless, unless one knows Jesus Christ and his gospel to be true, one cannot be a Christian at all. One remains entrapped in the kingdom of darkness.”

Inclusivism

Following closely on the heels of the new age gospel message is the necessary rise in the popularity of inclusivism, or the idea that the Lord has sheep in other religions – some who will never hear the name of Christ. Inclusivism teaches that adult adherents of other religions can be saved by being good adherents of their own religions. This is the natural conclusion of pluralism. If no one is right, then everyone is right. Who are evangelical Christians to make the absurd claim that only they have found the key to eternal life? Such an attitude we expect from the unbeliever but as postmodernism invades the church, inclusivism is rapidly being accepted there as well. We might expect Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and maybe even John R. W. Stott to be inclusive adherents but some are surprised to discover J. I. Packer and Billy Graham among the ranks. Packer writes, “We can safely say (i) if any good pagan reached the point of throwing himself on His Maker’s mercy for pardon, it was grace that brought him there; (ii) God will surely save anyone he brings thus far; (iii) anyone thus saved would learn in the next world that he was saved through Christ.” Billy Graham agrees. He stated in a television interview with Robert Schuller, “Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.”

A Mystical/Pragmatic Faith

If truth is nonexistent, as the post modernist insists, then by default we are left with religious experiences, devoid of objective content, and pragmatism. Biblical Christianity has always run counter to both these errors. Colossians chapter two, for example, warns of trading in the substance found in the true knowledge of Christ for the shadows of mysticism and empty philosophies of a godless age. We dare not allow our times to mold our theology. Os Guinness warns, “Whereas both the Bible and the best thinkers of Christian history invite seekers to put their faith in God because the message conveying that invitation is true, countless Christians today believe for various other reasons. For instance, they believe faith is true, ‘because it works’ (pragmatism), because they ‘feel it is true in their experience’ (subjectivism), because they sincerely believe it is ‘true for them’ (relativism), and so on…. The Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true. It is not true because we experience it; we experience it – deeply and gloriously – because it is true.”

Postmodern Christians have reversed this order and now evaluate all truth claims and doctrine by experience. The notion that we know certain things to be true (at least true for us) because we have had some experience is running rampant within Christendom. And woe to the one who would insinuate that someone’s experience does not meet the test of Scripture. Such a person is judgmental and critical, and worst of all negative. So when experience and mysticism become the litmus test for truth in our personal life, we would expect that it would shape our corporate worship as well – and it has.

Worship Services

If experience is the chief goal of our personal spiritual lives, then we should expect that experience would become the chief goal of our public worship as well. Too often the music, the prayers, and even the sermons are attempts to arouse emotions and provide an experience rather than convey truth. Monte Wilson is correct when he writes,

For the modern evangelical, worship is defined exclusively in terms of the individual experience. Worship, then, is not about adoring God but about being nourished with religious feelings, so much so that the worshiper has become the object of worship. When we study the ancient approach to worship, however, we see that the church did not overly concern itself with feelings of devotion, but rather with heartfelt and biblically informed obedience…. Probably the majority in modern American evangelicalism – having utterly neglected any commitment to the content of the Word and have ended with narcissistic “worship” services where everyone drowns in a sea of subjectivism and calls it “being bathed in the presence of the Holy Spirit.” These people come to church exclusively to “feel” God (emphasis in the original).

Postmodernity has even changed the preaching. In an article advocating leaving expository preaching for story-telling, George Barna says, “Busters are non-linear, comfortable with contradictions, and inclined to view all religions as equally valid. The nice thing about telling stories is that no one can say your story isn’t true.” And so Christian postmodernists advocate leaving the authority of the Word of God because Busters will not believe it, and replacing it with the authority of “my story.” We have to wonder, as the modern unbeliever takes a look at the modern church, are they seeing anything but their own reflection?

Which of the two statements below presents a more powerful demonstration of the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of men?

A. God sent His own Son to earth to live a sinless life and die to save those who would make an all on their own, “fee will” decision to receive Christ.

B. God sent His own Son to earth to live a sinless life,  to die and suffer the punishment due those He would have for His own people,  give life to the spiritually dead, supernaturally draw to Christ those He would make His own, and in such a manner that their decision for Christ is indeed their own, but from a “freed” will.

Consider the above a hypothetical question, based on the words on the page, not on preconceived notions.

This is the third in a series concerning postmodernism, based on articles written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois. This material is drawn from the third article in the series, and focuses on postmodernism’s effect on society.

“Postmodernity and Society”

Since absolute truth has been rejected, how does a postmodern society function? There exists a number of identifiable pillars propping up the postmodern vision – each of these pillars depend upon the others to prevent collapse of the system. As we will see, postmodernity is an inconsistent philosophy at best.

Truth Is Communal

We mentioned an earlier that while postmodernity rejects absolute, universal truth, it does not reject all standards of truth. Drawing from the well of existentialism, which championed individualized truth, this newer worldview (which by the way claims to reject worldviews) believes in communal truth. That is, each culture creates its own truth, and the citizens of that culture are expected to adhere to their community’s concept of truth with its attached morals and values.

Of course, it does not take a genius to recognize that such a view is fraught with irresolvable problems. First, if multitudes of communities each have their own version of truth and those versions are at odds on many issues, then “true truth”, as Francis Schaeffer used to say, cannot exist. Postmodernists recognize this little problem which is why they claim there is no true truth, only stories (or narratives). All pronouncements of truth are ultimately fiction. There is no final truth. If this is the case, the next problem to be faced is the dialogue between communities. As Groothuis states, “With these assumptions locked in place, any meaningful communication between, say, Aborigines and white Australians or white Americans and Native Americans would be impossible in principle. This leads to a third problem. What happens when cultures, with their own fictional version of truth, clash? Americans call terrorism murder, but Islamic fundamentalists call it justifiable casualties during time of war. Who is right? Under postmodernism right or wrong can’t be determined because each culture operates under a different system of truth.

Pluralism

It must first be admitted (and postmodern thinkers do so) that Western culture is still deeply dependent upon the borrowed capital of Christianity, along with its moral fiber and handle on truth and values. For example, a consistent postmodernist would have to agree that if a subculture found it morally acceptable to murder babies, gas Jews or enslave Blacks, then no one has the right to object. But of course postmodernists can’t live with such consequences of their own philosophy. They are grateful, for the time being, that they have a backup system such as Christianity, or else total anarchy would reign.

Still, the postmodernists cling gamely to the ideal of pluralism. We are told regularly by the media that we live in a pluralistic society, thus we must live and let live. At all cost, we must not even insinuate that we have the truth, for not only are such pronouncements offensive to others, they are downright arrogant. Carson writes, “Philosophical pluralism has generated many approaches in support of one stance: namely, that any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong. The only absolute creed is the creed of pluralism. No religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true, and the others false, or even relatively inferior.”

Once again this reduces all of life to the telling of fictional stories. How can people with such an understanding of life make decisions and navigate without extreme frustration? They can do so only because they have accepted the idea of contradictory thinking.

By the way, a new understanding of tolerance is in vogue under postmodernity. Tolerance of people, even while rejecting their ideas was one of the linchpins of early democracy. Tolerance now means we must accept everyone’s ideas as equally valid. To be critical of anyone’s ideas is a sign of intolerance – which cannot be tolerated.

Contradictory Thinking

D. A. Carson gives the following example of the first generation raised in a postmodern age: “It is said that baby busters do not want to be lectured; they expect to be entertained. They prefer videos to books; many of them have not learned to think in a linear fashion; they put more store than they recognize in mere impressions. As a result, they can live with all sorts of logical inconsistencies and be totally unaware of them. How many times have I tried to explain to a university-age young person who has made some profession of faith that it is fundamentally inconsistent to claim to know and love the God of the Bible, while cohabiting with someone?”

The ability to believe contradictory things simultaneously is a hallmark of postmodern thinking. A few years ago Barna Research Group documented that two thirds of Americans do not believe in absolute truth (this number has recently risen to 78%). To claim to believe absolute truth does not exist is a self-contradiction in itself, for that claim must be based on a belief in something that is true – in this case that truth does not exist. So the one absolute allowed in postmodern thought is that absolutes do not exist. But it gets worse, for the same Barna poll showed that 53 percent of evangelical Christians believe there are no absolutes. Veith makes this comment: “This means the majority of those who say that they believe in the authority of the Bible and know Christ as their Savior nevertheless agree that ‘there is no such thing as absolute truth.’ Not Christ? No, although He presumably ‘works for them.’ Not the Bible? Apparently not, although 88 percent of evangelicals believe that ‘The Bible is the written word of God and is totally accurate in all it teaches.’ Bizarrely, 70 percent of all Americans claim to accept this high view of Scripture, which is practically the same number of those who say ‘there are no absolutes.’”

This kind of contradictory thinking would be unacceptable in any other age but is common place today, even among Christians. Only in such an intellectual environment could the very same people embrace scores of competing ideologies. Take the field of psychology, which is almost universally trusted in the West. “If you need psychiatric help, you might be treated by a Freudian, a Jungian, a humanist, or a behaviorist. Your treatment might consist of telling about your childhood, recording your dreams, getting in touch with your feelings, or exposing yourself to operant conditioning. The philosophies behind these psychological theories are incompatible – Freud and the behaviorists cannot both be right – and the methodologies are untestable.” But little contradictions like these do not matter in a postmodern era. It does not matter if competing therapies are mutually exclusive, all can be believed, although rational thinking would tell us that this is impossible.

Postmodernity is a ridiculous and unworkable worldview, but while it moves its way through our society it will leave much carnage in its wake. Its impact on the church will be our next subject.

__________________________________

NOTE: The next article will address postmodernity’s effect on the church.

As with the previous article, the following was excerpted from a series of articles written in 2002 concerning postmodern thought and its effect on the church written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois. This material is drawn from the second article in the series, and focuses on postmodernism and truth.

“Whatever Happened to Truth?”

Postmodernism has been called the offspring of  the philosophy of existentialism, a leading proponent of which was Jean-Paul Sartre was a leading proponent. Existentialism was a reaction to the materialistic optimism of modernity with its infinite faith in reason and science. The existentialist measured life by other criteria and decided that it really was meaningless and absurd. Truth and purpose could not be found in science or reason, for that matter, it could not even be found in revelation. Truth, if truth exists at all, could only be found within the individual. Truth, then, is a personal matter. It is not something one searches for and finds; it is something one creates for himself. Your truth may not be truth for me and I may therefore reject it, for truth is not universal, it is individualistic. But this fact does not negate that truth for you. You can embrace your truth and I can embrace mine, but we dare not attempt to impose our truth on anyone else. To claim to have found truth is a deceitful tool by which we attempt to manipulate and control one another. It is a power play, pure and simple.

It is from this fountain of existential philosophical thought that postmodernism has sprung. Postmodernity has adjusted and expanded the teachings of existentialism, but its connection is unquestionable, as we will see as we outline some of the basic tenets of the system. The reader might be warned that much within postmodernism is complicated, ridiculous and contradictory. It is a system that makes little sense and is basically unworkable. Nevertheless it is the mood of the moment and has infiltrated the thinking of countless people in our society.

Rejection of Universal Truth

That the rejection of truth lies at the center of postmodernity must be grasped to have any kind of handle on what is being taught. As with existentialism, there is a rejection of absolute truth. As in existentialism, truth is not found. It is created. But unlike existentialism, truth is constructed not individually but socially. That is, individual societies, cultures and subcultures develop their truth to which members of that community must adhere. However, this socially constructed truth is subject to change and is highly subjective.

So what does postmodernity propose? Kruger answers, “What are the postmodernists’ criteria for ‘truth’? Simply what works. Postmodernists are not concerned about absolute truth like the modernist; they define their ‘truth’ by more pragmatic concerns: What makes me feel good? What solves my problems? What is attractive to me?” Os Guinness is therefore right when he observes that due to postmodernism’s assault on truth and reason “objective, experimental, scientific data [has been replaced] with personal, anecdotal experience [as the source of truth in society].” In the Christian world, as we will see next time, things are not a lot better.

Of course, if truth, at the end of the day, is unknowable in any objective sense, and is reduced to what is good for “me,” where does that lead us? To chaos, confusion and the “grand sez who.” Groothuis writes, “If God is not invoked as the ultimate evaluator, the One whose words constitute moral truth… why should a given legal system be endorsed? Why should selves legislate morality…? Why should we seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number? What makes the Constitution the proper glue for our society? Says who?”

Relativism

Postmodern societies seem workable as long as communities, with their individualized brand of truth, stay isolated. But what happens when societies, each packing their own understanding of truth, collide? How is a country like America, with its melting pot of religions, ethnic backgrounds and the like, going to exist? By adopting a relativism mindset, which recognizes everyone’s truth as equal. Since there is no absolute truth anyway, your view is as good as mine. We should all live and let live; and by no means ever impose our understanding of right, wrongs, morals, and ethics on those of another philosophical community. This is the ultimate sin, perhaps the only sin, in a postmodern world. To a postmodernist an individual culture really does not traffic its truth, it tells stories – something they like to call narratives. To these thinkers, claims of truth are fictional, hence stories. When people develop a worldview all they are doing is telling a story (fiction) about stories (fiction), which is called a metanarrative. When all the dust has settled and the fancy words and ideas are reduced to their essence, what we have is a worldview that denies worldviews. In other words a true universal worldview is impossible because absolute truth is impossible. We may have values, morals, and concepts that work for us, or our subculture, but we cannot expect other subcultures to adopt our understandings for they may not work for them. Truth is simply that which works for a particular community and nothing more.

__________________________

NOTE: The next article will address postmodernity’s effect on society and western culture.

The following was excerpted from a series of articles written in 2002 concerning postmodern thought and its effect on the church written by Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, an Independent Bible Church in Springfield, Illinois.This article presented an overview of the three philosophical and religious eras that have dominated Western civilization. It’s a great starting point, if we want to understand our current culture and be effective witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Premodern

During the premodern era, which extended from Medieval times until the French Revolution of 1789, the Western world believed in the supernatural. No one doubted the existence of God (or gods). Spirits, demons and other beings existed beyond the realm of the senses; and this spiritual world somehow controlled and dominated life in the physical world. Of course there were many worldviews thriving under premodernism. Animism, mythology, Greek philosophy and Christianity all flourished and battled during the premodern era, but as diverse as they were all held firmly to a belief in some form of a supernatural spirit world. Biblical Christianity is obviously premodern in this sense. When presenting the gospel it was not necessary to convince people that spiritual beings or gods existed – everyone believed this. The challenge was to persuade individuals that there was only one true God, who sent His Son into the world as the God-man to die for their sins. In many ways the premodern worldview (which still exists in numerous places throughout the world) was a more fertile environment for the spread of the gospel than either modernism or postmodernism.

Modernism

The foundations of premodernism began to shake a bit with the arrival of first the Renaissance and then the Reformation, but it was the Enlightenment that proved to be its undoing. Influential philosophers such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) began questioning not only the dogmas of the past but also all sources of authority. By this time the Western world’s authority was to be found primarily either in the church (Roman Catholicism) or in the Scriptures (Protestantism), or in the case of Islam, in the Koran. The architects of the Enlightenment challenged these authorities, including the beliefs founded upon them, and offered in their place human reasoning. “The goal of the ‘Enlightenment project’… was to free humanity from superstition and found a philosophy and civilization on rational inquiry, empirical evidence and scientific discovery. The term ‘modernism’ is often identified with this overall project. The modernist vision presupposed the power of rationality to discover truth.”

The date of modernity’s death has been a matter of much speculation. Some believe it was at the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 (exactly 200 years after its birth) since, of all social experiments, Marxism most fully attempted to implement the concepts of the Enlightenment. When Communism crumbled so did the last vestiges of the optimism in human ability that for so long propelled modernity. Others believe that, at least in America, modernity died on July 15, 1973, with the demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing projects in St. Louis. It was at that moment that Americans threw in the towel on their own utopia experiments, recognizing that reason, science, and technology had failed to enhance the lives of the poor and had actually brought more misery.

Whether modernity died in 1973 or 1989 may be debatable, but that it is dead is not. That is not to deny that many aspects of our society still operate under the vestiges of modernistic principles (and premodern for that matter), but an obvious shift has taken place in the mindset and worldview of the Western civilization. The new worldview is called postmodernism.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is born out of the ashes of the failure of modernity. It is the reaction of the disillusioned. If the optimistic projections of the last two hundred years of the best efforts of reason, science and technology has failed; and if the tenets of premodernism with its foundation of revelatory truth is preposterous, then all that is left is the pessimism of nothingness, emptiness and uncertainty.

Postmodernity is relatively complicated, so it is necessary to probe carefully both its worldview and its effect on cultures as well as the church. At this point we simply want to recognize that at the hub of this philosophy, as well as all philosophies, is the issue of truth. To the premodernist, truth was found in revelation. To the modernist, truth can be found in reason and science. To the postmodernist truth is not found (indeed it is not capable of being found), it is created. Absolute truth is a fable. It is possible for me to create my own truth, and for cultures and subcultures to create their truth, but it is not possible to find universal truth that is applicable to all people. Such truth does not exist and should not be sought. Those who claim to possess absolute truth only do so in order to assert power over others.

Seminary professor and author Michael Kruger writes, “Postmodernity, in contrast to modernity, rejects any notion of objective truth and insists that the only absolute in the universe is that there are no absolutes. Tolerance is the supreme virtue and exclusivity the supreme vice. Truth is not grounded in reality or in any sort of authoritative ‘text,’ but is simply constructed by the mind of the individual [or socially constructed].” Professor of philosophy and Christian apologist Doug Groothuis elaborates, “For these postmodernist thinkers, the very idea of truth has decayed and disintegrated. It is no longer something knowable…. At the end of the day, truth is simply what we, as individuals and as communities, make it to be – and nothing more.” If this is so, then how do people make decisions and develop values, or even create their own truth? Kruger answers, “What are the postmodernists’ criteria for ‘truth’? Simply what works. The postmodernist is not concerned about absolute truth like the modernist; he defines his ‘truth’ by more pragmatic concerns: What makes me feel good? What solves my problems? What is attractive to me?”

The reader may properly wonder, is not all of this postmodern philosophy a mere intellectual football being tossed about by the elite? Has this mentality really trickled down to masses? Unfortunately, surveys confirm that while the majority may be unable to define postmodernity they are increasingly becoming products of it. For a number of years Barna Research Group has been telling us that belief in absolute truth hovered at around 38% in America. That means that almost two out of every three adults in America deny the existence of absolute truth. But things have gotten worse. At the end of 2001, just a few months after the infamous 9/11 attacks, an alarming survey was conducted by Barna that found confidence in absolute moral truth had dropped to a mere 22%. Barely one in five Americans claim to believe in absolute truth, which is amazing considering, that according to Barna’s research, one out of every three Americans claim to be an evangelical Christian.

In other words, we not only live in a postmodern era (we can’t help that) but most of us have become postmodernist – even many who claim to be Christians.

______________________________

NOTE: The entire series of articles about postmodernism can be found here by scrolling down the page. You can’t miss them, and they are well worth the read. The next few posts here at The Battle Cry will focus on the issue of postmodernism and the the church.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Romans 4:5: “To the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

Notice how many different ways (7) this Scripture teaches justification by faith alone in one verse:

1. The justified one does “not work.”

2. The justified one “trusts.”

3. The justified one trusts not in himself but in another: “God.”

4. The justified one confesses himself to be “wicked.”

5. The justified one does not have faith in his faith.

6. The justified one sees his faith only as “credited” to him.

7. The justified one sees his faith credited as “righteousness.”

______________________

From Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine By Which the Church and the Individual Stands of Falls, published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications; Morgan PA, 1995,Chapter 4.

Maybe the last question was too deep? I have no idea if it was or wasn’t, actually. Let’s see if this one will result in a comment or question. After all, when anyone makes a decision for/about anything, there are reasons driving the decision, aren’t there?