Postmodern Mindset
So, when you hear word like Postmodern are you tempted to think that is the way people way out there think, but not me. Think again. I am amazed at the invasiveness of such logic and thinking in my own mind and so many I know. I in no way consider myself a relativist. I believe in absolute truth, but I have learned to speak in a way that is not absolute. When it comes to religion and theology do you find yourself using any of the following phrases:
- Well I believe that means
- We have different convictions
- I interpret that to mean
- My church believes
Maybe someone can help add to the list. We seem afraid to say, “God’s Word says”. We claim doctrine is important, but speak as if one can choose what truth one wants to hold and what truth one wants to exclude or tweak. It sounds good; it is soft. However, we offer the absolute truths of God’s word as an alternative way of thinking rather than the only way. It leave room for us to be humble and admit we may be wrong. However, it leaves room for what I was warned about 15 years ago as being completely liberal, letting the reader determine the meaning of the text. Relativism seems to even be invading conservatives by presenting absolute truth as optional truth. We speak as if certain doctrines are optional, non-essential. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” Where is the optional in that?
Print This Post
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
The problem is not with God’s word being the absolute truth; the problem becomes when our interpretation and exposition of the “word” become absolute truth. Most postmodern Christians will tell you that. This debate over truth and certainty actually revolves around the particular personal interpretations of individuals as having priority over other particular and personal interpretations of other individuals.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Understood, but the reality still comes in that both individuals cannot be right if the interpretations differ. We seem to fail to work towards unity in truth. We only seem to want to have unity in a nondenominational, ecumenical way.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Andy,
I see where Virgil is coming from and I also understand and agree with your reply. But out of curiosity what does “working toward unity” actually mean? Most often it means ‘fighting’ for others to see that “our” interpretation is the correct one (or at least the better one). So again, when you say “working toward unity” in this issues what does that actually mean to you and how does one practically do this?
May 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Andy, I don’t see how you can get away from using some of those lines you listed in your post. For instance, is John Macarthur or is RC Sproul being postmodern if they sit around discussing eschatology? They have completely different interpretations and one might say “I interpret Revelation this way” or “That’s not what I think” etc… or, in another example, in our church you have sabbatarians and non-sabbatarians, abstainers of alcohol and partakers of alcohol, etc… Good people have come to different conclusions on these matters and Paul seems to tell us in Romands 14 and other places that we will differ on these things. I’m just not sure that would or should be labeled as post-modern thinking though?? This is a difficult subject and maybe I’ve misunderstood what your saying. Would like to hear more of what your thinking on this.
Just thinking out loud.
Todd
May 6th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Todd, I love your examples! Andy, The question that I have is this:
When MacArthur and Sproul sit down and discuss eschatology, are they confident in what they believe? I would argue that they are!
When they discuess it, are they open to what the other person has to say? I don’t know them, nor do I know their hearts, but again I would argue that they do based on what I have seen of them!
I would like to know what “working toward unity” means also?
I have percieved unity to happen when men who have a solid foundation of knowing who God is (MacArthur and Sproul) come together to discuss a debated issue (eschatology) with an open mind and they leave not embittered because they have beaten each other down tryin to convince each other of their interpretation(I think that causes disunity), but leave encouraged (not because they have come to an agreement but) because they have seen God in a different light, and grown in the knowledge of who He is together.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I have to throw my 2 cents in. (Brace yourselves for a windy response.)
Part-1
The statement “both individuals cannot be right if the interpretations differ” implies that God’s inspired word is equally clear in both covenants, and in every verse and word, in every kind of passage (historical, wisdom, prophecy, Gospel, epistle, Revelation, etc.). If so, the conclusion might be: we differ in understanding only because of (let me guess) sin.
Are you asking for the impossible, a Bible with no grey areas of interpretation? To be sure, some doctrines are plain and their Truth is clear. Jesus is God, savior of all who repent and believe, etc. So many statements are likewise clear.
Some are not. Why would angels be confused about a woman not wearing a covering on her head? Is Satan presently bound? Does anyone understand the Hipostatic Union? Can we know whether Infralapsarianism is superior to Supralapsarianism? Does God love all people? Is the Christian under the Law? What Law? As touching Christian liberty: Can I see a movie? Play Go-Fish? Being dogmatic on the grey areas can’t promote unity.
Even if we had the original autographs, we are at least 2,000 years removed from the idiomatic use of the languages. Secondly we have English as our native tongue. Thirdly, we are not all as learned or bright or CALLED as others to rightly divide the word of truth.
One should be asking, rather: What principles of interpretation are being used by those who differ? How sound (derived from the Bible itself) are those principles even though they differ?
Part-2
We often use terms like those in question as shorthand for more precise formulations that might sound bombastic when speaking in other than a formal lecture (and when showing indifference to some kind of Blog protocol about long-windedness, oops).
“Well I believe that means…” could be stated as, “Well [after years of diligent study by one who is trying to be a worker that needs not be ashamed, comparing scripture to scripture, and (forgive my impertinence in thinking I know anything (because he who thinks he knows something knows nothing as he aught)) I can offer the undoubtedly imperfect fruit of my feeble efforts to be as the Boereans, who searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things be so, and without consulting a Romish priest (who reserves to himself and to the RC Church the sole authority to interpret the scriptures, thus violating the Reformation principle of the Priesthood of all believers), and guided by the Spirit of the living God] I believe that means…”
“We have different convictions…” could be stated as, “We have [by employing the various principles of interpretation we have been taught to follow, and after years of musing upon which have made a settled conviction as to their probity, we employ with respect to various texts whose cumulative effect has informed our understandings as to their meaning; the which I am confident you, as well, have endeavored to engage, although with] different convictions….”
“I interpret that to mean…” is similar to the first two examples.
“My church believes….” Could be stated as, “My church [which has embraced by way of its Constitution and whose members pledge adherence to the same, whose doctrinal position was developed during the Reformation as practiced by the Waldensians, formalized by Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, continued by many such as John Calvin, and codified in such confessions of faith as the Heidelberg, the Savoy, the Westminster, the London of 1689, and as embraced by former and contemporary organizations and seminaries, and by various Reformed pastors both dead (though they yet speak) and living] believes…”
Post Modernism declares that the only person who has a right to interpret a text (secular or religious) is the READER, not even the Author. It’s a vapid assertion.
What says the Scriptures about its own interpretation? Many things, of which this verse is but one.
II Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: 18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. 21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
The word of prophecy that became more sure (certain) was what the OT Prophets spoke. They weren’t equally clear, and some prophecies are still not clear. Yet after Pentecost when the Spirit enlightened the Apostles and the Church, we know what the OT Prophets meant far more clearly than ever before, fulfilling the promise of:
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you. 26 But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.
II Peter 1:20 declares that when we interpret Scriptures in a novel way (of private interpretation), something is wrong. But neither should the Christian neglect or relegate the interpretation of Scripture to Priests or even the Pastors of any church. We are to submit to the RULE of Godly elders, but our conscience and understanding must be formed by good teaching, personal study (like the Boereans), and walking according to the light we presently have.
Wonderfully the private study of Scripture proves that the Scriptures are alive, giving fresh insight to the texts, especially when guided by trusted commentaries and interaction with those who are mature in the faith, and ourselves enabled by the Spirit.
I John 2:20 And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
The NT authors, the Spirit-infused books and messages of the reformers and contemporary Godly men, and especially the Spirit within (the day-star) can enlighten the Christian to become mature, full-grown.
I Cor 2:6 We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: 9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. 10 But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Don,
Thanks for the comments. I believe them to be helpful. Did anyone hear the question mark that could or could not be in that sentence? I should have said they are helpful.
Todd, your questions are valid and I expected someone to ask. First, Don rightfully acknowledges there may be an appropriate time to use one or two of those phrases. However, I believe we often hide behind the false humility of these phrases. It is proper to admit we may be wrong in our humanity, but when it comes to proclaiming the truth of God’s word it is never humble to present it as something that is debatable, questionable, or possibly wrong. I had a professor one time who said, He believed in Jesus, but he was not going to be so arrogant as to say that God would not let anyone in heaven who did not believe in Christ. False Humility. I fear we do the same thing, but on lesser truths. We have watered down the gospel, not by what we believe, but what we believe to be undeniable and absolute. One may say, they believe the doctrines of grace, but feel it is optional for others to believe. So we present it that way. As I read the Christians of the past they did not speak in terms of what they believed, what their church believed, how they interpreted, but rather spoke in terms of what God’s word said. Luther is a great example.
It is not that we do not give others room to grow, or are not patient and loving with them, but we present the word of God as the word of God.
When we go to a friend and say, I believe the bible says Homosexuality is wrong, it opens a door and they no longer have to struggle under the word of God. However, when we say, the bible says Homosexuality is wrong, then they are forced to deal with the Bible, not what we believe the bible to say. Do you see a difference?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Todd & Shane (Part 2)
What about Sproul and MacArther. First, I have never had the privilege of being a fly on that wall. Second, these men are examples to me, because for the most part they do offer up what the Bible says, and rarely say I believe or I interpret that to mean. Dr. Mohler would be another that seems to speak so clearly in this manner. I would guess that if they sat and talked of end times that they would be going back and forth with theology and scripture, not well I believes.
With that said, I think it needs to be said, that while they stand together for the gospel, they function in separate denominations and local churches.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Andy, thanks for your responses, I have a better understanding now of what you were saying in your original post, and “I believe that I have come to a conviction and interpret it to mean that my convictions tell me that I agree”…..
Todd
May 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Me too, Thanks Andy!
May 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I thank the Lord for the men of Edgewood. Wow, I feel like I just took a class! This HAS been helpful, of that I am confident.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Andy,
While I appreciated your thoughts I still have concerns with what you are saying. Some may use those phrases as false humility to be sure, but i think what is actually lacking in humility as well is failing to recognize (and wrestling deeply with) that none of us (including “people of the past”) come to a text free of bias, previous shaping through preaching, teaching, etc., or cultural conditioning. This is not to be given over to a “post-modern” mindset but a living reality. Most of the time when people say that we should just “preach the Word” what they mean is “preach my interpretation of it” or preach “what I am comfortable with” or “preach the Word how it has been taught to me through previous teaching/preaching or with what I have read”.
I think your example of homosexuality is a good one. To say “I believe the bible says homosexuality to be wrong” is not necessarily bad but can leave the wrong impression. However, to say “the bible says homosexuality is wrong” while true in one sense leaves so much out and neglects other aspects that it becomes “untrue” in another sense. Can one be a celibate Christ-following homosexual? (In other words, one who struggles with thoughts and desires but does not act on those desires). When you say “homosexuality is wrong” what are you implying? That one who struggles with homosexual thoughts, tendancies is wrong? One who has engaged in that practice, repented and lives a celibate life but still considers himself/herself a homosexual to be wrong? Or that one who engages in repeated, unrepentant acts of homosexuality is wrong? It is this third area to which scripture speaks. Yet in our culture because we have so distanced ourselves from gays and lesbians (yes, the church specifically) that we have simply said “the bible says homosexuality is wrong.” Period. No, the bible is communicating that repeated, unrepentant acts of homosexuality is wrong.
I too believe that we have watered down the Gospel, but probably for different reasons that yourself. However, just because someone says, “this is what God’s Word says” doesn’t mean they are right. Luther and Calvin disagreed strongly at times over issues of baptism, grace, Communion…so who was right? For they both spoke in terms of: this is what God’s Word says. So do we now baptize children because God’s word dictates it and in the process equate this baptism with salvation because of how closely Luther connected the two simply because Luther was informing us of: this is God’s Word. Or how about Zwingli’s idea that communion is simply a memorial view - or do we go with other Reformers who said that it is more that just symbolic, we can’t explain but there is something happening when we eat the bread and drink the cup - or do we go with Luther who said that the body of Christ is somehow “under, above, around, in” the wafer and wine - all views claiming to be “God’s Word” and nothing more.
I guess when you start equating “watering down the Gospel” with not speaking simply “what God’s Word says” you start to have a lot of Godly men and women at odds with each other, watering down the Gospel, and we tend to side with those who, surprise, surprise, hold to that which we are already strongly convinced scripture is saying. Which goes back to my original thought that we all have and bring our biases into our theological discussions and thoughts. This is not necessarily bad or wrong, what is not healthy is our blindness to them or rejection of the idea that we have them. Knowing them can help us draw closer to the heart of what God is communicating in his Word but being blind to them can cause us to say something dogmatically that may or may not be “truth.”
By the way, I like Sproul (not so much MacArther) but you can’t seriously believe that just because they rarely say, “this is what I mean Scripture to say” that they are always communicating what scripture actually says on any given topic. What they say may be good and insightful (and at times, dead on right) but of course they offer up their interpretations on what the Bible says! They got a certain understanding about a doctrine from a combination of a couple of different ideas that those people got from someone, that they got from someone, that they got from someone who was upset because of how someone else was interpreting it differently and not “right.” I could easily say that McKnight or Carson, or Witherington, offer up what the bible says but what they offer up may be different than Sproul….now who is “right”? Probably the one who agrees with our biases and interpretations. I know you said that when it came to them perhaps talking about the end times you would imagine them using theology and scripture and not “I believe” statements….yet, to some extent our theologies are “I/We believe” statements concerning scripture.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Credo = I believe
Creeds are not “wrong” while only the Word is “right”. We are careful to declare that only the Bible in its original autographs is infallible, and to the degree that men are accurate when we restate Biblical truth are we correct. That goes for authors and preachers and all who would teach.
James 3:1 Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment. For in many things we all stumble.
To state the obvious, we have no choice but to read, digest, condense, expand, pray over, and restate the truth when writing, preaching and teaching - otherwise preaching would just be reading aloud the passage. The Spirit enlightens our understanding (ICor2:12). An application is that He gives us the message to bring to his people from the text. Let us not become dead orthodox by denying that God speaks to us through suitable application. Let us not be charismatic and claim that God speaks outside the Bible.
Since Peter had trouble understanding some of what Paul wrote, should we not expect to have to labor to find the proper meaning of many passages?
IIPeter 3:15 … even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
IITim 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
Tom suggested, ‘we all have and bring our biases into our theological discussions and thoughts. This is not necessarily bad or wrong. What is not healthy is our blindness to them or rejection of the idea that we have them. Knowing them can help us draw closer to the heart of what God is communicating in his Word….” ‘
It would be most profitable to discuss what things are “biases” in contrast to what are valid principles of interpretation. There are many principles of interpretation and some seem to contradict others and some fit well together. A Presbyterian has different principles than a Baptist. Both could be reformed, or not. A dispensationalist has different principles than a Covenantalist… etc. In fact, the principles one uses will pretty much pre-determine what he believes. The concept is similar to pre-suppositional apologetics, except it is pre-suppositional hermeneutics. (my term)
Sproul and MacArthur would disagree, but rather than Christians debating who is “right” and who is “wrong”, lets examine the underlying hermeneutics. We will take away principles that will strengthen our faith and edify others for a lifetime.
Why not start a class on the subject?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The issue of Creeds:
Good point Don. The difference between creeds and our conversation and saying I believe this means needs to be noted. When we state in a Creed, “We believe” we are essentially saying, I affirm this truth. To put it more strongly. We affirm these absolute truths. Creeds are not spring boards for debate as much as affirmation of truths.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:55 am
DON,
When you say “Tom said ‘we all have and bring our biases into our theological discussions and thoughts.’ This is not necessarily bad or wrong. What is not healthy is our blindness to them or rejection of the idea that we have them.”
Would you suggest that if we are blind to our biases in our discussions, then our discussions will turn into a right/wrong debates and instead of “drawing closer to the heart of what God is communicating in his Word…” we leave discouraged with and by each other and cause more disunity among our brothers than unity?
May 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
What Tom has said is a set back. It takes us to error, rather than truth.
Do we have biases, Yes. But in the Postmodern culture the focus is on the bias rather than the truth. Setting truth in front of believers is our only hope. Setting truth in front of non-believers is our only hope.
Rather than even examining the hermeneutics, let us examine truth. It really does not matter who is right and who is wrong, but truth always matters.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Shane,
The entire paragraph is Tom’s quote. The next paragraph is my response, which is a plea to drop the term “bias” so that we might explore what principles of interpretation are being used when people differ.
Andy,
Hermeneutics is just another way of saying that principles of interpretation will determine what we think is the “Truth”, in the final analysis. We can’t set hermeneutics aside in a quest for Truth when God has revealed what principles are to be used. The texts that speak of principles (hermeneutics) are as much truth as John 3:16.
All,
We can’t avoid the fact that we employ principles of interpretation whenever we read a text. The term “bias” is what PostModerns claim is the problem with understanding what the author meant. He had his biases and the reader has perhaps another set of biases. So there is no absolute truth in that system.
But Christians don’t want to be compromised by biases, so we must identify what principles of interpretation we are using. Can’t we discuss what they are?
I cited II Peter 1:16-21 to show that God has given principles to us. That is the truth. Lets unpack what they are.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Don,
Your comments to all was well put. Thank you for that.
After I typed that I realized that the hermeneutic is the tool we use to dig for the truth, but I wanted to re-enforce that truth is the bottom line. We don’t want to get into the argument, we simply have different hermeneutics. With that said, Hermeneutics are like Systematic Theology, they are vital to keep our view of scripture and God from being blown to and fro.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
What happens when we have two God-fearing, God-seaking, biblically centered people who “interpret” things differently? That is when we have to go back to what is truth and I have to say that Don, you are absolutely right that that is where “‘bias’ is what PostModerns claim”. I know we have to hold firm to what we believe and be confident in the knowing we have based our “credos” on scripture. But we also have to have a teachable spirit because we know we’re not perfect and could in a sense be wrong in our interpretations.
To be honest, this is a question that I don’t have an answer for and a question that I am struggling with.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I fear we are dealing with two separate but related subjects here:
One is how we handle a situation where we disagree about truth
The other is how we state truth
This is important to note.
I also want to point out that the phrase I found problem with was not “I believe”, but “I believe that means”.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Andy,
You say what I have said is a set-back and leads to error (I wish you had engaged more of what I wrote than just one or two sentences and then pronouncing judgment on me). I agree with you that truth is what is ultimately matters….and in the postmodern culture many can become sidetracked, however, unless we recognize our biases we may remain at an arm’s distance from truth rather than getting closer to it. By wanting myself to realize what I come to the text with I am not moving towards error but hopefully moving towards truth.
Don, I am not sure that postmoderns (at least not all of them by any means) would say that because we come with biases, etc. to the text that absolute truth doesn’t therefore exist. But rather our ability to fully know, or get a complete handle on absolute truth. Again, that is not to deny absolute truth but rather to make room for humility in our understanding of it and seeing that there might be a little less of it than what we really want.
I mean is it really that far out there to know that my 21st century modern/post-modern, western, logical mind comes to a text in a different way than a 1st century, pre-modern, eastern, circular mind?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Tom,
I went back and re-read and apologize. Let me try and restate. In terms of stating truth, what you have said about our bias is a set back. I did not mean it leads to error, but rather it focuses on the error or possible error of any biases.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Wow Andy, this might be a new record for comments on one of your blog posts!!!
Anyhow, I would second Don’s mention of a discussion and/or class on hermeneutics. I know I need it!
Andy, also, you could break down the two separate but related subjects even further by saying there are essential truths (fundamentals?!) and non-essential truths. It seems we as Christians get as worked up about the non-essentials as the essentials.
Shane, you mention your struggling with this question. I know I have (and still do too!), especially with some of the non-essentials. It can actually rob you of your joy if you get too wrapped up in proving somebody else wrong or defending your own conviction in a matter (again, more specifically in what I would call non-essentials). May I recommend this
THIS message by Piper on Romans 14. It is really good and my help others as it did me. (not sure if the coding for the link will work in this post, so just pick out the URL if it doesn’t)
have a great day gentlemen, this is a great discussion.
Todd
May 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Todd,
That may have to be another post in itself. Non-essential theological truths? Is that what you are asking? Parts of Scripture or teachings about God that it really does not matter what we believe? I want to be clear before I answer.
I think I know what you are asking, but I want to be careful with my terminology.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Essential beliefs, without which there is not salvation, vs matters of liberty vs matters of duty or works. This is a large question, and very important. Somebody take it up.
Meanwhile:
Tom
Since I don’t know any self-professed PostModerns but do know many who are in practice, I grant that some/many/all accept certain things as being absolutely true. Many would declare that gravity is universally true, as is the speed of light in a vacuum. Most would fear to step in front of a speeding buss. The truth of any text (secular or Biblical), however, the people I know would reject. Let’s say that my own experience of them must include a huge sampling error. So I rely upon the scholarly works of other men who make such declarations.
Yet PostModerns might entertain the notion that absolute truth exists, at the same time declaring that no one can know what it is, including the author. We accept that God is the author of Scripture and they do not. They would rightly conclude from their assumptions that the various authors of scripture could never have written a message that is coherent and consistent – each author’s own cultural biases being so vastly different, and progressing from those of Moses through the Greeks and Romans and finally Judaism. But their assumptions are incorrect. God is one. The message is one, and its certainty is 100% !
Of course PostModerns (as well as we) accept many unproven and unproveable things in our lives. We rely on rules of evidence, testimonial evidence, forensic evidence, experiential evidence, and for the Christian this includes the testimony of the Spirit within (Rom 8:16).
I suppose most people who have adopted the “true for you but not true for me” philosophy of the hippies don’t know that they are PostModerns. What that philosophy does for them is to dull their consciences and turn away the arrows of conviction sent by those who proclaim God’s judgment and the offer of forgiveness. I used to be one such.
Your point is well taken, that we need humility as we seek to learn the truth – especially when the truth shines light on areas of our lives that must change, including the biases that we can’t defend from Scripture.
We have been trained in the West to reason. That is consistent with Romans 12:2 And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Or perhaps the West has come into being BECAUSE of this command! In any case, the circular reasoning of Yin and Yang do not help a person understand God who has revealed Himself in propositional truth. We are called to “prove”, not to “thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis”. Thanks for your comments. They stimulate this good thread.
All
Perhaps it is time to define the philosophy of PostModernism. In general terms it is the successor to Modernism, which could be Architecture, Science, Philosophy itself, etc. But we are discussing the term as applied to Bible understanding. Concepts such as “absolute truth” are disallowed, and “bias” is the means to discredit those who claim that truth is absolute. I copied below a few paragraphs from the following site: http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/logicpostmodern.html
Having studied the technical definitions of PostModernism, these paragraphs are accurate for this discussion. The entire article is well worth absorbing.
”The first tenet of postmodernism that I want to note is its rejection of the idea of objective knowledge or that we can know things with certainty. Gone is the confidence often found in modernism that we can know things with certainty. Knowledge, on the whole, is seen as uncertain, subjective, relative, and hence tentative. Postmodernism rejects the idea that our knowledge is an accurate representation on how thing are–of reality.”
“Second, postmodernism views logic as being at best only true for a given individual, community or certain communities or “interpretative community[ies].” In other words, logic is not universally valid or applicable; it is relative only to a given context–person(s), place, or time–or only true for certain individuals or societies or cultures. For example, it is generally true for individuals or communities or societies that have been influenced by Western or Aristotelian thinking. Thus, Westerners should not impose their modality of thinking on Easterners or Eastern cultures or on anyone else who does not grant logic’s validity.”
“Third, truth is relative. It is not always true or true for all times or for everyone or situation, but is contingent on the context. There is no such thing as universal truth or a universally true statement. What is true for one individual or community or “interpretative community” is not necessarily true for any other. Something may be “true for you” or “for them,” but not for others. Note that postmodernism does not deny that there is truth or any truth, but that there is any absolute or universal or universally true truth.”
Again, my suggestion is that we embark on identifying what principles of interpretation are contained within the Bible itself so that we can get beyond unsubstantiated “beliefs”.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I’m interested in hearing that post. I understand the caution in calling truth non essential, because we have to know what we believe and hold to it tightly. But, I also understand the reasoning behind “non essential” truth because within our interpretation and determining what we believe we have to leave room for our finiteness, humanity, and inperfection. To not leave room for that will lead us down a path of being “there” and “knowing it all perfectly”. That is a path that I have a hard time going down too.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I will wait on Todd’s reply before I develop a post, but I do think we need to give real thought to a term like “non-essential truth”.
I understand there are going to be things we will disagree upon, but in what other study would “non-essential truth” be entertained? Math? Biology? For that matter when it comes to delighting in our wives do we make such a division? Why when it comes to the study of God do we want to narrow truth down so much?
By the way Shane, did you misspell Imperfection on purpose? If so, I give you the Comment of the Day Award
May 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
It was an accident…I think it was between telling Chelsey to move a card, and sitting everyone down to read the end of the day story that I was writing that, so i didn’t really proof it much.
I agree non-essential is not what we should use to approach disagreed upon interpretations.
no post of the day, just busy mind, but enjoy learning!
May 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I wasn’t really asking anything, just stating that your above comment about this really being able to be broken down into 2 different posts, could really be broken into 3 because your first line “How we handle situations where we disagree about truth” could be categorized into essential and non-essential. I know many who would classify their view of eschatology as about as important as the virgin birth or deity of Christ! They would list both as theological truths. That’s all I was really saying. I have even heard people say “If you don’t have a proper view of end times, then you don’t have a proper view of God, therefore, maybe you aren’t really having a relationship with the same God I am” or “Since the Holy Spirit teaches us through his Word, and obviously you don’t see the Truth of -INSERT BELIEF ABOUT NON_ESSENTIAL HERE- you may not be saved”
I know this is really opening up a whole new issue, so I will drop it for now until you post a big thread on “differences that play out in everyday christian life” or or something along those lines!
Todd
May 8th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Todd,
I will work on that Post. It has great possibilities. Thanks for the clarification. It may take more than one post.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:40 am
this is an interesting article that attacks the perspective of not having absolute truth.
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/12/rob_bell_atramp.html