The shortcomings of Christian Modernity
Abraham Piper weighs in on some of the shortcomings of Christian modernity… in 22 words:
Opponents of postmodernism often judge texts according to what they would’ve meant, not realizing this is the self-creation of meaning they deplore.
In the comments he opines further:
I run into it almost every time I read an anti-postmodernist’s review of anything he disagrees with.
For example, every negative review I’ve ever seen of Rob Bell or Donald Miller, interprets their words to mean what the reviewer would have meant if he’d written them.
And, of course, since the reviewer would never in a million years write anything like Velvet Elvis or Blue Like Jazz, then they must be full of heresy.
Ooooh if you thought Steve Camp was anti-Abraham Piper before you can just imagine the capillary busting trauma that will result from this.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Is this one of those things you can’t say in church? (or at least in Johnny Mac’s church)
May 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
So, Tim, why is filed under “Women”?
Are trying to tell us something?
May 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Ha! I thought I selected “Uncategorized”.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
A siamese twin:
If Scripture (truth) cannot be understood transculturally then it can be read and interpreted within any historical and cultural context one chooses. One can say this verse means this (within medieval contexts) and another says no, it means this (early father’s context) and finally one says every interpretation before post modernism has now outlived its usefulness, those interpretations are now extinct historical lessons.
So truth morphs and vacillates with the passing of time and the emerging of every new culture. Truth is no longer the pillar on which everything else is tethered eternally, truth is now moored to the culture and historical context. And if we accept that then we must also accept that the truth we are teaching today will be unacceptable 100 years (or much less) from today.
In essence, we are not teaching truth at all, we are teaching revelations spawned by our culture and accented by religious terms. But it sure is agreeable to the post modern palate, and after all, isn’t that what we are after? Truth then becomes our servant rather than our eternal landmark with which to sharpen our lives in a desire to please Him who IS truth..
May 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Yes, Rick, but if Scripture is not just a dry set of concepts that can be dissected, systematized, rationalized, objectified and ordered into nice neat definitions, then perhaps “truth” is the kernel around which interpretation is formed.
There are some parts of Scripture which are rather cut-and-dried, but other parts which are not - which require translation into the present culture.
The sin of modernism is the sin of Eve - the desire for the perfected knowledge of good and evil. The sin of postmodernism is the one of Adam - the desire to avoid offense at all costs.
The key is discerning the kernel from the cultural interpretation of the time. Examining interpretations from prior cultures aids that discernment. The danger in a modernist approach is assuming that most everything is transcultural and literal (mistaking cultural interpretation as part of the kernel of truth). The danger with the postmodern approach is assuming that most everything is interpretation and that the truth is malleable (mistaking the kernel of truth as being part of the cultural interpretation).
May 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“truth is malleable”
Yes, but I would say truth is applicable within all contexts. The malleable you suggest is very dangerous in that the essence or remarkability of truth is softened and even changed because the sharpness itself is part of what makes truth - truth.
And it cannot be overlooked that when the entire catalogue of Biblical truth is manipulated within a different culture then some of the essential elements are removed or added. For instance, when the atmosphere of fear, even as an ingredient, is removed then it must be observed that some part of Biblical truth, as understood in past interpretations, has been removed/changed.
That is either a result of greater Biblical accuracy or it is a result of greater inaccuracy, but it is a wholesale change. And usually when that happens it is because a shift in literalism has taken place, and this culture has subliminally sculptured the truth that once naturally elicited fear and softened the edges and molded it into something much less dramatic and eternally frightening.
That is only one aspect of the cultural massage of what should be stark and immutable truth. If that truth, though communicated in different cultural conduits, does not elict the same response from the humans in every different cultures, then that truth has not been clearly revealed and understood. If a man shouts “Get out there is a bomb” and everyone runs out, he has been understood.
But if another man shouts the same truth in a different way and nobody moves, somehow the truth has changed and has not been understood to those people’s peril, regardless of the shouter’s protest that he is saying the same thing as the other man. He is not.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about, but what exactly do you mean by “atmosphere of fear”? It seems you might be referring to the other thread where we’re talking about the wrath of God. I would say that in that case that a lot of extra-Biblical stuff has been read into certain passages, especially in Romans. So I would say rather than adding or taking away, I think people have a desire to get back to what the author’s original intent was.
I really see very few authors who take a relativistic stance that you seem to be fighting against. I would say there are some but, in reality, there are very few people who really say anything like “everyone makes their own truth”. That is largely a strawman.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Phil - You missed it. What I mean, and only as one example, is that people/believers are no longer ever afraid or frightened about eternity. That is a seismic change as it pertains to generations gone by. I do not say that fear should be the prevailing atmosphere, but fear should be a component in a Biblically inclusive atmosphere.
And some of us see that change as the fruit of making truth fit the culture and the desires of the people in that culture. That is my point, that one way that is a litmus test concerning truth is when the supposed same truth does not elicit the natural corresponding response. If people are never afraid then that part of Biblical truth has been altered.
And even when some protest that they haven’t changed any truth others see it differently. Some men who “make their own truth” deny they do.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Rick - I would note that the “truth”, itself, changed significantly when the medium that conveyed it changed in the first century. Most of the gospels were part of the oral record, and the epistles were shared orally within communities - the printing press was 1400 years away and paper/parchment was too valuable a commodity for scriptures to be personally owned and studied.
Simply by losing the communal nature and discussion of it - during its transmission - and by losing the context (what questions were asked of Paul that he was responding to?, for instance) we lost a LOT of the original “truth”.
As for prevailing fear about eternity, that was not a luxury afforded for several centuries, as the primary fear was over severe persecution - not the eternity that followed. Instead, ‘to live is Christ and to die is gain’ had a real, practical meaning that we cannot understand because of our vastly different circumstance. Also, to the disciples and to Paul, service has no prevailing component of fear. Perfect love drives out fear - and perfect service is through love, not fear.
In point of fact, the only ‘medium’ of sharing the gospel that has not changed from Jesus’ time to the present is the church, as a community and as individuals. It is the lives of the individual believer and the fruit of the church which provides light in darkness and salt in tastelessness. Systematic theologies didn’t arise until much later. The Roman Road wasn’t even an inkling. It was the lives of Christians which lived out the message.
Truth is not doctrine… Truth is not words on a page… Truth is belief in action modeled after the living Word. All else is superfluous window-dressing to be argued over until Christ’s next return.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
There are many references to fear in the New Testament. I have stated that doesn’t mean that should preoccupy a believer, but we now live in an ecclesiastical atmosphere that rejects even godly fear, and sinners desire Jesus to help them here and most have no fear of eternal judgment. Of course that truth has generational ebbs and flows, however it seems that this is no longer a part of Biblical Christianity.
Now maybe that is because we have arrived at a more accurate view of Biblical truth, but there can be no denying that element has been chipped away at for decades until it is almost non-existant, and in fact the end times as well as the future of lost sinners has now many possibilities, some of which would not make anyone afraid.
So what used to be taught as truth, has changed because of many earthly particulars. Truth is no longer transcultural, it is pliable and intellectually “malleable”. And even someone like Pastor Piper’s offspring represents a form of this.
I wonder what Spencer Burke’s kids believe?
May 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Rick,
The problem with the way you’re viewing this is you’re starting off by believing that previous to say 1940 there was some sort of purity there that has been lost. While we can probably identify times and places that would be preferable to other times and places its much more accurate to acknowledge that as cultures change so does their emphasis on various theologies. We’re emerging (OH NOES!!) from a time in which the church put a huuuuuge emphasis on eternity, often at the expense of the here and now, so its, at least, understandable that we’d see the pendulum swing the other direction.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
my question is this.
What good is learning to love your neighbor now, if being in heaven and that is our only focus.
Don’t you think that there must be a lesson now we must learn to prepare us for eternity? If we cannot forgive now, will be able to then? If we cannot love one another now, why do we expect to do so then?
Jesus stated:
We either accept Jesus at His word or we reject Jesus and His words…
iggy
May 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
My feeble attempt at communicating my thoughtful assertions have become substantive examples of the disconnect between the dispersion of information and the processing of the same.
What goes in as a cow comes out as a horse.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Rick,
Oh, OK, I guess I was a bit confused by your first comment.
I would say that there some branches of Christianity that have historically emphasised the here and now above the eternal. This was a criticism rightly brought against liberal theologians of the 20th century. Oddly enough, this branch of Christendom is the one that probably bought into the myth of modernity the most.
So in repsonse to this liberalization, fundamentalism was born, and it seems it over-corrected to a big degree by asserting that life on this earth was basically not important, and that “it’s all gonna burn”.
I think there is a move today to get these ideas into some sort of balance. I like the term a “realized eschatology” - living with the hope of the future affecting everything we do today. Hope doesn’t just make us content to sit and do nothing, it motivates us to move forward.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Some of the most eternity minded believers in history, Moravians, Wesleys, Carey, Livingston, and others come to mind, were some of the most selfless believers ever born. They helped people on this earth in countless ways and yet they were consumed with the message of eternity and the everlasting gospel.
I do not believe that eternity must be the focus, not at the expense of earthly help, but just the word eternity carries focused weight. But truth from were I sit is not being refocused, it is being redefined.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:35 am
–The sin of modernism is the sin of Eve - the desire for the perfected knowledge of good and evil. –
Wow, there’s a new twist, at least for me.
Does this mean I can say the sin of postmodernism is the temptation of the serpent, to ask “Did God really say?”
In fact, considering that was the temptation that Eve stumbled on, perhaps the sin of Eve has more in common with postmodernism then with modernism.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I would disagree - the greatest affront to a modernist is uncertainty, to say “we can’t know for certain…” Thus, the chief sin of modernism would be that of Eve and her desire for the knowledge of good and evil.
The greatest affront to a postmodernist is intolerance, to say “you’re wrong”. Thus the sin of postmodernism would be that of Adam, who refused to confront Eve when she was clearly going astray.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Chris - any chance of moving the “recent comments” side bar up?
May 29th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Again,
I am amazed when someone attacks post modernism to defend modernism.
Both are not biblical in their undiluted forms… yet both have tools we can use to understand our world and bring the Gospel to those who are in those world views.
So to be a “modernist” is just as bad as being a “postmodernist” yet to deny we take from each of those views and/or let them color our understanding of the gospel is a plain lie and self deception.
So to see Jazz or someone defend modernism… is to me just as bad when someone defends postmodernism as at both their core values God is not a factor…
So you who cling to modernism cling to a system that denies God in the end and core of its values… so you have no real right to attack post modernism from that stance.
It is like the Pharisees bringing the woman caught in adultery… Jesus points out they are all sinners. A modernist is a sinner as well as the postmodernist… both need Jesus.
iggy
May 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Can you send me a screenshot? I’ve tested the new layout vs. 6 different configurations, and “Recent Comments” appears at the top of all of them.
How wide is your screen set?
May 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am
They’re at the bottom of mine, too. We still have IE6 here at work, so that could be part of the problem.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Not only do I stongly dislike labels like modernism and postmodernism etc., I never feel as if I completely understand the definition of all of them.
I like:
Scriptural … semi-Scriptural … unScriptural
Those I can understand and even put them to a Scriptural test even while acknowledging some subjectivism.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
–I am amazed when someone attacks post modernism to defend modernism.–
Do you feel as amazed by all the postmodernists attacking modernism, at least as they call it?
–So to see Jazz or someone defend modernism–
I was responding to the accusation the modernists are like Eve. I simply found it another half-baked way of trying to bashing people who believe that we can have sure knowledge of what is right and wrong.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
A little off topic here, but is anyone else not getting a comment box on the “on the road with Tony Jones” thread? Is that one closed now, or is that just a snafu?
May 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Yeah, comments auto-close after 10 days.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Well, I guess that’s the new thing I’ve learned today.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Jazz,
Nope I am more amazed when a person of modern mindset like yourself cannot grasp that he is actually post modern my default as this is the post modern age.
It is like the people who lived in the Renaissance… not all we of the “up to date thought” of the day… but we refer to them as of the Renascence period… or those in Medieval times… not all thought in that way… some still thought in pre-medieval ways, but by default they are still of the medieval period…
So friend, you are of the post modern period in time thus you are by default post-modern… though you may not think that way. I am in the post-modern period, reaching post-moderns for Jesus and you are attacking people like me as post-moderns though I am not. I am emerging/emergent not post modern as if I was I would nto be a Christian as pure post-modernism is not compatible with Christianity… it is atheistic as modernism is…
I am amazed at how many of you guys do not grasp the simplest of historical understanding and promote lies against people like me out of your ignorance… and when gentilly confronted, attack more vigorously and become more mean!
I think I am stating most of what i already stated…
iggy
May 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I am a Culminated Post Modernist. That means that I have come full circle and again connected with the Apostle Paul constructing a perfect circle with no breaches.
Ahhh…
May 29th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Rick,
Wow! That. makes. you. emergent!
= )
iggy
May 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
OE
Orthodox Emergent
May 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Contrary to some’s opinions we are very generous when it comes to orthodoxy… = )
iggy