Last time, I referred to the problem of postmodernism as it relates to Christianity. I also offered a sign that you may, in fact, represent some notion of postmodernity in your own lived faith. In order to continue helping you find these warning signs in your own life, I offer the second for your consideration.
You might be a postmodern Christian (or, at least, a Christian with postmodern tendencies), if you believe that the text of Scripture is paramountly important.
Of course, this statement might seem a bit strange. Don’t all Christians believe in the importance of Scripture? I suppose it all depends on how you define Scripture. Sadly, many people define Scripture as that which stands behind the text. In other words, we read the text to find these “holy words” behind it, whether they come to us as rules or guidelines for life, or as historical and cultural fascinations and lessons, or as theological doctrines and dogmas. In fact, one could suggest that much of the battles concerning theology have surrounded whether or not a particular reading “behind the text” is correct or appropriate. For example, do we read the inn keeper as someone who made room for Jesus even though everything was booked up and, therefore, learn that we should make room for him too? Or, do we read the inn keeper as a sinner who didn’t recognize the glory of God about to dwell among man and, therefore, label him as part of “the world”? (By the way, both readings were in sermons this past Christmas). This is the job, or Wittgensteinian “game,” of the modern. As a modern, he only needs to find creative ways to make the case for the better reading behind the text. (For example, most “conservative” church-bodies have deemed the historical critical reading behind the text as woefully unhelpful and inappropriate).
A postmodern looks at this “game” and wants nothing to do with it. He wonders why we must move beyond the text, when we hardly understand it in the first place? Further, he wonders why moderns want to eschew the story so quickly. Doesn’t a good story get better each and every time you hear it? Even further, how much of the story do we actually know? Personally, I haven’t heard the story about Daniel for a very long time. Maybe if you are part of another tribe, you haven’t heard the story of Moses since you were young. How about David? Timothy? John? The prophets? A postmodern Christian values the narrative of Scripture, the ebb and flow of the people of God, the grand story. He challenges those who think they can see behind the text and urges them to return to the narrative. In short, he defines Scripture as the text. But, he also knows that such text requires interpretation. The philosopher Derrida (in)famously stated, “there is nothing outside the text.” Part of what he meant is what I’ve already discussed. The other part is the truth that “everything is interpretation.” Before getting worked up about this statement (as most moderns will), it is important to note that “the fact that something is a matter of interpretation does not mean that an interpretation cannot be true” (James K. A. Smith said this wonderful line). Therefore, we must ask, “where do we get our interpretation?” The answer is simple: the historic and universal Church. A postmodern Christian depends on this Church for his guide for interpretation of Scripture.
Ultimately, you might be a postmodern Christian (or, at least, a Christian with postmodern tendencies), if you want to hear, discuss, and explore the text, the narrative, the story that is Scripture as interpreted by the Church.
If you’re into theology at all, you may have noticed a little debate going on about something called postmodernism. Some people in my tribe have declared it the worst thing to happen to the Christian faith since Mormon– excuse me, Arianism. Because the last thing we want is to be called “postmodern Christians,” I thought I’d write up a few signs to help anyone interested avoid it. In the interest of time (not to mention keeping my interest and your attention), I will write about the signs here and there.
You might be a postmodern Christian (or, at least, a Christian with postmodern tendencies), if you use presuppositional apologetics as you “evangelize.” Allow me to explain.
When talking to non-Christians about Christ, many Christians employ techniques from two different forms of apologetics. On the one hand, there are the tradition apologetics, which aim at proving the events of Scripture from a scientific or historical perspective. Even if you’ve never heard of the word “apologetics,” you’ve certainly heard the types of arguments coming from this traditional branch. For example, the creationism as found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ or the crucifixion evidence as found in Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ” both, for the sake of simplicity, characterize a “modern” approach to evangelism. That is to say, the assumption behind traditional apologetics is that you can bring people to faith through an appeal to logic, which can prove certain aspects of Scripture.
Presuppositional apologetics, however, assumes that behind every belief system is an assent to something else. That is to say, one could argue that the evolutionist doesn’t just believe in evolution, but also (and perhaps primarily) believes in a materialism that drives the belief in evolution. Therefore, the goal of the presuppositional apologist is to show where someone roots their beliefs and, at the same time, suggest the problems with such a foundation. In the end, there is no neutral third party (whether it’s logic, reason, or something else) that we can appeal to for legitimacy. That is to say, instead of appealing to science, history, or reason in order to evangelize, a presuppositional apologetic relies on the narrative.
Most people are unaware that a presuppositional apologetic flows from the work of Jean-François Lyotard, who wrote The Postmodern Condition. In it, he makes the precise claim that nothing exists as a “meta-narrative,” that is, a neutral party we can all appeal to as objective and universal. Instead, he showed that all peoples rely on different narratives for their source of belief.
As a summary, you might be a postmodern Christian (or, at least, a Christian with postmodern tendencies), if you attempt to show others where they put their faith, while, at the same time, tell the story that gave you yours.
It seems appropriate to offer a remembrance of the day of infamy, which occurred 72 years ago.
Life has a wonderful photo gallery here. It might paint the picture of that day a bit better than any words can.
As for words, I offer those of another: “We are losing 2,000 World War II veterans every day. But even when the last survivor passes over, the story will not end, nor will the memories of those who served be lost. They will be kept alive by us, their descendants — a labor of love and respect for those who sacrificed in ways that seem to us remarkable.”
Some time has passed since Thanksgiving, so I thought I could safely offer a small critique about how it was handled. Whether you’re attuned to the “culture wars” or not, you probably heard some form of outrage about the leaking of Black Friday into Thanksgiving day. The main argument (that I heard) typically went like this:
“Thanksgiving is a day for family! I hate how companies are open this Thursday. They’re taking away from the spirit of the day. Not to mention, they’re making their employees miss Thanksgiving with their families. It’s just awful and I refuse to participate!”
Or, as Tommy the Turkey says:
Here’s my thought: “So what?”
Americans love buying stuff. Black Friday is the most ironic day of the year. Christians have noticed this for many years, but now others have seen the following too:
Besides, haven’t we already made other things a priority on Thanksgiving? Christians once thanked God on this day, especially by serving those who have less to be thankful. Now, we gather around the table and eat much more than we should only to sit on the couch to watch a football game. What’s a little more “sacrilege”? Oh, and if you’re worried about retail employees, why not fast food employees, gas station employees, restaurant employees, and the many other that have no choice to work on Thanksgiving? Why is it okay for them but not retail?
If anyone has been following this blog or cares about its updates, you may have noticed my lack of activity. And by lack, I mean absence. The reason for this is multifarious: I’m lazy. I read nearly 200-500 pages a week for class. I have a newborn daughter. Did I mention I’m lazy? Also, do you know how hard it is to craft a thought in words every day?
Anyway, I’ve decided to return. I want to keep sharing my thoughts to the ambiguous hoard and its unique individuals out there. Although I cannot promise to do so every day, I will certainly try to give coherent thoughts as regularly as possible.
It occurred to me today that I’m glad when people share my sensitivities.
Comedian Louis C.K. made an appearance on Conan this past week. As Conan interviewed him, the topic of cell phones came up and they discussed why one shouldn’t let children have cell phones. The interview actually went further as Louis C.K. began talking about the impact cell phones have on us.
I’ll mostly just let the interview speak for itself, but there are two things I feel obligated to mention. First, Louis C.k. is a crude comedian. I don’t like most of his stuff. However, every once and a while, he shows glimmers of profound intelligence beyond the attempts to shock his audience. So, be forewarned that some of his comments may fall in line with his crudeness. Second, I wouldn’t necessarily say we’re escaping sadness as he puts it. Yet, his story is a great example of how technology demands that we ignore our basic human-ness.
It occurred to me today that Christianity has suffered from the soundbite culture just as much as anything else.
I recently found the following video. If you haven’t seen it yet, take a quick look.
This video contains many of the tired old arguments and caricaturizations I have heard ad nausea for years. Frankly, I am a bit weary of hearing my faith reduced to a soundbite (an incorrect one at that) and then used to justify something so counter to it. Because this video is so succinct and pithy, I thought I would take a few moments to dissect and address the many points that compose these old arguments.
1) Starting at 0:37 – Do not be fooled. When the Prime Minister is using the word “conscience,” he is not using it the same way as the Church has used it. He is making an emotional argument here. We’ll see this throughout the points made as the prime minister effectively portrays himself as “loving” and those opposed to “marriage equality” as “unloving.” This is no small point. The world in which we live is something other than modern. By modern, I mean privileging and honoring logic and logical arguments above everything else. Whatever we are now, whether it be postmodern or something else, the world now privileges and honors emotion above all else. As a result, arguments take place in the sphere of emotion more than logic. This is a problem for everyone. Once someone makes an emotional argument, there’s very little you can say, especially in a “politically correct” society. It takes time to appreciate the emotions being expressed while trying to show the incoherence in using it as an argument. Of course, in a soundbite culture, this is nearly impossible. Therefore, arguments are won in the sphere of emotion more than logic. They even border on the logical fallacy. By keeping this in mind, you can be ready for it and, perhaps, even be immune to the ad hominem attacks being made against you.
2) At 0:47 “it was the right thing to do” – After laying his emotional argument (undeveloped as it is at this point) on the table, he supports it with the concept of “right.” However, stop and think about this for a moment. What makes something “right”? I assume he means morally right. So, where does he go to find the standard of morality? Well, I’ve already tipped my hand by suggesting he finds it in his emotions. Whether or not I’m right, we Christians ought to be mindful of people claiming moral “rightness.” There is only one place it comes from: the Lord of creation. He set the law for His creation to operate smoothly. Anyone claiming “rightness” apart from this law is effectively saying they don’t want to live by it.
3) Starting at 0:50 – Sadly, this argument has won the day, because of Christians who do not take seriously the reality of sin. Simply put, if people are born gay (note: nobody can really know this, since homosexuality doesn’t manifest until sexual puberty), then it has everything to do with sin and nothing to do with “how we’re built.” I know our culture has effectively blocked out these words, but God created man and woman for marriage (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, Matthew 19, to name a few). We were built for that type of relationship. Sin has permeated creation so entirely that we are born into sin. Thus, we have abnormalities like birth defects, babies born before term, chromosome problems, “natural” tendencies, and more. Now, this argument should highlight a place where the Church has failed. We have expected people to be blameless before accepting them. We have expected holiness before acknowledging the sanctity of all life. We have expected perfection before helping people through their struggles. We must strive to do better. We do so by taking sin a bit more seriously.
4) Starting at 1:20 – To be honest, this is probably the slickest rhetorical move the Prime Minister makes. He does not differentiate the way “we’re built” from the way “we are.” As discussed in the last point, a serious attitude towards sin can help us differentiate these two states of being. When we do, we can then say, “I accept who you are and where you are, but I also want you to see what God sees and love what God desires for your life. He wants you free from the burden of sin.” In the American Church, I believe this is our chief struggle: accepting people for who they are, loving them for who they are, not expecting them to change, yet praying for the Holy Spirit to show them what God sees and desires. To put it as a question, “Why do we expect people outside the Church to act like the Church?” Maybe a bit more bluntly, “Why do we expect people outside the Church to live by the law of God — when we don’t even do it — before giving them the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ?
5) Starting at 1:25 – This is probably the stickiest part of the whole argument for Christians. It actually contains the both parts of the soundbite that has come to define Christianity: one, it should have no say in the public realm; two, it only speaks of “love.” I’ll get to the second part later. As for the first part, I must be abundantly clear. I am not suggesting the Church establish a theocracy. There are numerous aspects of the public realm that remain gray, even for Christians. For example, should the government run healthcare? Faithful Christians can come down on both sides. However, there are some aspects in the public realm that are not gray. In fact, the Church is even called to insist on God’s order of things. For example, the state should protect it’s citizens. (Note: Though the answer to the question, “How?” is another gray area, the fact that countries provide safety for their citizens remains absolute). Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with the Prime Minister, when he says that the Church has no business telling two people of the same gender they cannot get married. More than that, I disagree with the Prime Minister, who implicitly suggests the state need not listen to the Church on this matter. The Church is simply insisting that God created the world in a particular way. When we ignore this order, we do so to our own peril.
6) Starting at 2:00 – I feel bad for this pastor. He seems to live as many Christians live in this world. He assumes that people will recognize God’s will/law when they hear it. The sad truth is that the Fall has handicapped all people, even Christians, from recognizing God’s will. Again, taking sin seriously could have helped him tremendously here. As a quick comment, notice the smirk on the man’s face behind the pastor and the accompanying low murmur as the pastor brings up Jesus. This should simply remind us that Christendom is dying. We can no longer expect the words of Jesus or the Bible to hold the same authority in our culture and world as they once did.
7) Starting at 2:35 – The Bible does not say slavery is a natural condition. Instead, it takes it as a reality of the world and tells people how to live within such a condition. I actually agree with the Prime Minister, when he says social conditions change. Clearly, in the western world, slavery is no longer a social condition. Therefore, we rightly look upon it as abhorrent. Sadly, not everyone in the past, present, or future world knows this. In Ephesians 5, Paul tells Christians how they ought to live within this social condition. If you want to see what Paul thinks of Christian slave owners, read Philemon. Most people who make this argument have never done so. (For a much better and somewhat technical look at this particular argument, click here.)
8) Starting at 3:05 – The coup de grâce of the Prime Minster’s argument is here. In a soundbite, he declares the centrality of the gospel as universal love, which put into the form of a command expresses itself as “love your fellow man.” The Church actually has a name for this soundbite theology. It’s called gospel reductionism. This means two things. One, the gospel has been reduced to a single quality: love. Sadly, it isn’t even reduced to the love of Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for all sinners. Instead, it’s reduced to a vague and subjectively defined love. In other words, instead of being specific in a time and place, the love of gospel reductionism is general and redefined based on “human and social conditions.” Two, the gospel is the only thing that matters in Scripture. So, you can throw out Adam and Eve, since it doesn’t really speak of the gospel (or so they say). You can remove any notion of sin, since it’s uncomfortable to talk about anyway. You can also throw out the goal of holiness, because if we truly “love” one another, then we’ll let people do whatever they want. As long as you keep the “gospel” of universal “love,” all else is fair game for dismissal.
To put these two points together: not only is the gospel reduced to a soundbite of subjective universal love, but the entirety of Scripture is reduced to the soundbite of this “love.” The truth of the matter is that everything in the Bible, in time itself, flows to and from the cross, which is the true expression of love. There we find that we are sinners in need of salvation; a salvation we cannot achieve. There we find God made man dying in an act of sacrificial love unlike anything we had seen before and have seen since. There we find the true meaning of love: God did not want us to live a life headed for separation from him, so He sent His Son to pay the debt we owe in order that we may live with him eternally. That’s the love of the gospel. And this gospel, the true gospel, does not reduce Scripture. It expands it. It shows us that the rest of the Bible cannot be ignored. It shows us that the law of God is not some arbitrary or unfair list of rules, but is really the will of God, the way He created us and everything around us to operate. It shows us that holiness is ours through Christ and we ought to live like it.
With all this in mind, I encourage you to resist the temptation to believe the soundbite.
“Did you hear what the pope said?” is probably a question you have already heard or will hear sometime in the future. “Apparently, you don’t need to believe in God in order to go to heaven. You simply need to follow your conscience and do good. Don’t believe me? It’s in papers like this one and this one.” If you have heard words like these, it’s probably from someone antagonistic, apathetic, or curious about the Church and/or pope. Why? Because anyone within the Church will think about that statement for just a little bit and conclude the “summary” is wrong.
This is where I am confused. Why would anyone think that the pope, who is elected to serve the Church as if he were Christ himself (that’s what “vicar of Christ” means), could/would/should say, “You know that Jesus fellow? Well, he’s not all that important. You just need to follow your conscience. Go ahead and believe what you want, but be true to it and you’ll be fine!” Stop and think about how ridiculous it is to think or even expect such words. You don’t even really need to know what Pope Francis really said to make such a conclusion.
Just for fun, what did Pope Francis actually say? It might be interesting to know that you must deliberately search for the translation. All of the English papers reporting on the letter Pope Francis wrote to a newspaper columnist remain void of a link or reference to it. They simply have quotes that they want you to trust are authentic and not taken out of context. (To be fair, one article I found had a link to the Italian letter.) Fortunately, a translation does exist and can be found here. If you take the time to read it, you’ll notice at least the two things I noticed. First, Pope Francis talks about Jesus, faith, and the Church a whole lot. Seems strange for someone who supposedly said they don’t matter anymore. Second, the paragraph getting play in the media is the second to last paragraph in a nineteen paragraph long reply.
Finally, what did he mean? I could write my thoughts, but I thought the words of a Catholic would be better:
Okay, so I’m starting to get a bit frustrated about having to do this every other week. Here’s yet another of my “what the Pope really said” posts.
The mainstream media is going wild about a letter that Francis has written about atheists and agnostics, in which he appears to say that belief in God isn’t a requirement to get into Heaven. Of course, it absolutely is. If you arrive at the pearly gates and still refuse to accept that God exists then the odds are that St Peter won’t let you in. Everyone has to confront that reality at some point in their lives – so only the mad and the stubborn are likely to spend an eternity as unbelievers.
But putting that simple point aside, here’s the controversial bit of the Pope’s remarks:
“The question for those who do not believe in God is to follow their own conscience. Sin, even for a non-believer, is when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen and to follow your conscience means that you understand the difference between good and evil.”
He added that, “the mercy of God has no limits.”
We Catholics believe that nobody should be compelled to share our faith, hence atheists are at liberty to “follow their own conscience.” But we also believe that “conscience” is not a relativist thing that varies from individual to individual. The conscience is the seed of truth implanted in us by God when we are born and anyone who listens to it opens themselves up to the possibility of doing good and – eventually – to finding God. When we see someone in pain, our conscience tells us to help them. That is the “good” in us. If we feel nothing and do nothing for them, that is the “evil” in us. Ergo, the Pope is entirely right to advise atheists to follow their conscience, because that is the path to enlightenment.
What if someone’s conscience tells them that God doesn’t exist and the Pope is a silly man in white peddling antiquated nonsense? Well, we would say that a truly tested conscience will always conclude that the Church offers salvation. But if an individual continues to assert the opposite then they are best advised to be honest about their feelings. One of the greatest sins in the world is to participate in the Church and not really believe in its teachings. That’s a sure way to get to Hell.
Finally, the phrase “the mercy of God has no limits” is important. In the same way that Catholics have faith that the Almighty will forgive them of their sins, so we have faith that he will do the same for others. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t – we don’t know what he’s thinking so we don’t try to second guess him. Believing that the Church offers the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, we do our best to be good Catholics. We often fail.
Is all of the above really so hard to grasp? I’m getting tired of the media’s constant reinterpretation of the Pope’s words, usually with the spin that he’s “liberalizing” the Church. They used to do something similar to Benedict, although in his case they said that he was turning back the clock and was one encyclical away from burning a witch. But maybe the problem isn’t helped by Francis’s constant, hyper-energetic desire to speak to anyone and everyone about everything. For his own good, and the good of all his Church, the Pope needs to let his pen rest for a few days.
Twelve years ago, the World Trade Center towers came tumbling down, part of the Pentagon was destroyed, and a plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. It was the first time anything like this was captured on camera. All of America, indeed the entire world, witnessed the events of that day. They were truly horrific.
This anniversary of that horrific day reminds us of all we still need to do. We still need to care for those who lost loved ones that day. We still need to remember those who went into certain death to save others. We still need to encourage our policemen, firemen, armed servicemen, and more for all they do for us. All of these are probably obvious. One is not so obvious: We still need to pray for our enemies.
Today, while you remember 9/11 and go about your daily life, take time to pray for our enemies. Here’s one you can pray:
“O almighty, everlasting God, through Your only Son, our blessed Lord, You have commanded us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who persecute us. We therefore earnestly implore You that by Your gracious visitation all our enemies may be led to true repentance and may have the same love and be of one accord and one mind and heart with us and with Your whole Christian Church; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.”
It occurred to me today that Pope Francis is a marvelous model for us Christians.
Of course, this is no surprise for Roman Catholics. But, for Protestants like myself, this may be unexpected. Yet, the Church has only one pope and we ought to respect and honor him. To be sure, I do not mean all Christians ought to submit to the authority of the papacy. If I believed that, I would cease to be a Lutheran. However, like it or not, the pope represents Christianity to many people in our world. Like it or not, most people probably don’t notice much of a difference between “Catholic” and “Protestant.” Like it or not, Pope Francis is our pope, whether we’re Lutheran, Roman, or Baptist catholic.
So far, Francis has been a wonderful pope to call our own. I won’t use this post to talk about everything I like about him. Instead, I will let one example speak for itself. Last Tuesday, he called Anna Romano, who had written Pope Francis concerning her recent pregnancy. She wrote him, because she had become pregnant out of wedlock. Not only that, but the father was already married to another woman. Probably out of fear, he demanded and pressured her to get an abortion. She refused: “‘I told him that I would not have an abortion and told him to get out of my life.” According to the Daily Mail, “Anna added how she was ‘in a desperate and anguished state’ and that she was writing to Pope Francis because she had ‘no-one else to turn to, after being left humiliated and betrayed.'”
Remarkably, Pope Francis called to praise, reassure, and encourage her that Christ would remain with her. Romano tells us, “He told me I had been very brave and strong for my unborn child.” Yet, he said something more profound. Romano continues, “I told him that I wanted to baptize the baby when it was born but I was afraid as I was divorced and a single mother but he said he would be my spiritual father and he would baptize my baby.”
Wow!
Though this may warm the hearts of Christians and non-Christians alike, there’s more going on here than warm fuzzies. This is pure unadulterated grace! You see, the pope essentially told Romano that it doesn’t matter what’s in your past. It doesn’t matter how your child came to exist. What matters is he/she still receive the grace of God. Jesus Christ still died for the unborn child AND mother. Jesus Christ is still her savior and the child’s. Jesus Christ still offers his grace to Romano through the words of Pope Francis and to the child through the waters of baptism. How awesome is that!?
Today, I’m thankful for the reminder Pope Francis gave me by giving the grace of Christ to a woman who desperately needed it.
Thought of the Day 