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 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.
It occurred to me again today that the world doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
Before I continue, I want to say that this post contains some uneasy and potentially offensive material. Normally, I try to keep everything here friendly to everyone, but this may provoke uneasiness in you. However, I will do my best to keep it brief and clean. I will also refrain from including any pictures.
If you’re like me, you have heard tons of arguments for and against “gay marriage” in America. They range from the absurd to the practical. One particular charge is that “gay marriage” will lead to more perverse and troubling behaviors. On the one hand, I don’t think that state sanctioned behavior necessarily encourages an escalation of sinful activities. On the other hand, I’m not so sure that a society that encourages homosexual behavior does not stimulate a desire to explore more risque and dangerous behaviors such as polygamy, pedophilia, etc. Truth be told, I just don’t know.
However, I have seen many things that seem to suggest that when the world says we’re not deteriorating in our sexual desires, they’re just wrong. Case in point: animal brothels. Yeah, you read that right. There are animal brothels. In fact, they are on the rise in Germany, according to the Daily Mail. I don’t plan to go into this much. Yet, I want to make one simple point. The world and people who live according to its values work very hard to convince us that these sexual desires are rare or nonexistent. They suggest that we as a society know what is normal behavior and we can police ourselves morally. They insist that if anything comes up that threatens our society’s mores, then it will be met with extreme legal force and social pressure. To them, I ask one question: “What about the bestiality brothels?”
It occurred to me today that we don’t always respect history.
As one who received his B.A. in history, this truth occurs to me fairly regularly, but sometimes it strikes me more intimately. I recently discovered an online gallery of modern-day photos blended with photos from World War II. This is my favorite:
I have in that park, while looking directly at Brandenburg Gate. So, it struck me once again how real history is. To be honest, I often think of history as something between real and fantasy. Even worse, many times I even act like history is nothing but fantasy. Thankfully, we have reminders like these photos everywhere.
Maybe we ignore history, because it has a way of shattering many of the myths we believe. By truly appreciating historical events like World War II, I can think of two major myths that get debunked.
We are not as great as we think we are. I hate to admit it, but I’m not the first person to struggle with doubt, suffer catastrophic loss, experience overabundant happiness, think critically about my life and surroundings, make mistakes, achieve beyond my dreams, and more. In fact, for each of these experiences and every other possibility, there is at least one person out of all the people in history who has experienced it greater than I have. There’s also at least one person who has experienced them to a lesser degree than I have. What does this mean practically? It means that in the grand scheme of history, this blog means very little. There are far greater published and unpublished works in existence than my random meanderings. Any greatness we think we achieve pails in comparison to those in history. However, do not hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that we are not valuable. In fact, I’m saying just the opposite.
We are not as advanced as we think we are. See, the great myth of our world is that we are much more advanced than the people of history. This myth gains tremendous power from scientific advancements, especially in medicine. And, it’s true that in some ways we are better off than people of history, but it’s also true that we are worse off in other ways. We would be wise to remember this, because the problem with this myth is that we tend to look down on those who have gone before us. We devalue them tremendously when we think we’re better than they are, not to mention we display our arrogance in full force. We’re also fooling ourselves if we think future generations won’t look at us with anachronistic eyes. Therefore, instead of thinking we’re so much more advanced, maybe we can try to learn from people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago. Maybe, just maybe, they have more to say to us than our twitter feed.
History teaches us that people are not all that different, even if their circumstances are. Everyone has value and everyone deserves respect. So, when I think of World War II, I can wonder how an entire nation came under the influence of Adolf Hitler. However, by asking that question, I cannot assume I would be any different. If I do, then I just buy into the myths that are hurting me. Worse, I shut out the people of history and ignore what they can teach me.
Before I make this post, I just want to say that I plan to restart my daily posts immediately. I needed to adjust to my new life circumstance. Now that I have, I can continue writing!
It occurred to me that speciation is rather insane.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s often very cool when a new species is discovered. However, there are times when I wonder why we make such a big deal about it. Take, for instance, the most recent story about a new carnivorous raccoon being discovered in the Americas. The olinguito is so similar to the olingos that their discovery remained elusive until now. In fact, many bones, samples, and even live specimens are intermixed with olingo counterparts. In other words, they’re so similar that people who live with and study olingos as part of their career had not noticed the difference. For those caring for live specimens, they simply wondered why the two creatures were not mating.
Now, I say all this not to speak poorly of these people, who are just doing their jobs. I simply want to point out the absurdity of it all. It seems we are going through hoops just to convince ourselves that the mere fact that two animals cannot breed means that speciation and, thus, evolution has taken place. To put it another way, it seems we are trying so hard to find differences between animals that we fail to recognize their similarities. In other words, maybe there’s more to the fact that olinguitos remained concealed as olingos for so long. Maybe there’s irony hidden in there somewhere.
For now, I write this to suggest that maybe we shouldn’t put so much stock in speciation. When we do, it seems we support a narrative just grasping for proof.
It occurred to me today that I’m thankful for Marshall McLuhan.
I thought of this when my little girl discovered the television for the first time this week. Of course, this was not unforeseen though it did happen much earlier than I expected. As my wife and I awaited her discovery, we constantly discussed the impact television has on us. Integral to our conversations is McLuhan’s theory. More precisely, we depend on Neil Postman’s work, which utilizes McLuhan. For those who don’t know, McLuhan is famous for arguing that the way we receive a message is as important as, if not more important than, the message itself. He coined the saying, “the medium is the message.”
Postman argues that the television medium does only one thing: entertain. Therefore, when you watch television, no matter what type of program, you are being entertained. This explains a bunch! It explains why “the news” no longer informs us about the world. It explains why the seriousness of the courtroom no longer exists. It explains why we can’t seem to turn it off. Concerning this post, it also explains why even babies are drawn to it. It stimulates us unlike anything else to offer nearly endless entertainment. More importantly, television dominates the way we think about entertainment.
I’m thankful for McLuhan and Postman, because now we can be deliberate about introducing television to our daughter. If we introduce it too early, then she will want to be entertained by it. Not only that, but she’ll also learn that television is the only desirable form of entertainment and, thus, the only way to be truly entertained. Unfortunately, this means she’ll have a hard time appreciating other forms of entertainment like reading, talking, or traveling. If we wait to introduce television viewing, then she may enjoy quiet times in the house. She might get some quality time with her pets. She might appreciate long drives. She might love listening to the air blowing through the house. Whatever she learns to appreciate, our hope is that she’ll love time away from the screen more than we do. Who knows, maybe we’ll start to learn to appreciate that time too.
It occurred to me today that tomorrow I start my life as a stay-at-home dad.
Now, that’s not entirely true. I’m starting a Ph.D. program in September. So, as a student, I’m much more free during the day than my wife, who works at a job she loves to give us what we need and want. Nevertheless, I will be spending my non-class days taking care of our daughter until her mom comes home. To be frank, I’m incredibly nervous. Not only because my wife is gentler and probably more suited to do it, but also because I’m adding something new to my life. It was hard enough to do my graduate work with just my wife and I. I have no idea what to expect.
Additionally, I’ve been taught and I believe that God created women to desire and be suited for raising children. Yet, already in three months, I have seen my wife handle our with more patience and care than I have. She deals with crying better than I do. Her first thought when Rachel’s upset is, “What’s wrong?” My first thought is, “Why won’t she stop crying?” My wife’s tenderness and kindness has proven to me that God knew what he was doing. I realize such a statement is viewed as misogynistic by our culture, but let me be clear. Obviously, I’m not saying women have to do it nor am I saying men cannot. If I believed that, my wife and I would have some serious and difficult conversations. I’m simply saying women have a natural God-given proclivity, desire, and ability to raise children.
Yet, our situation demands that I take care of our daughter during the day. So, I will be interested to see how the next four years will develop. How can I learn from my wife to improve upon the weaknesses I have as a man when it comes to watching our daughter? How will my daughter change me as a father and a person? It’ll be fun to explore these questions and many more as we try to live faithfully as children of God with our daughter in our lives.
It occurred to me today that it’s rare when things are as neat and simple as we often make them.
I’m certainly guilty of simplifying the complex. Many posts on this blog single out one simple issue within a complex and complicated milieu. The reason for this is simple: time. It takes too much time to explore an issue entirely. Not to mention I’d probably bore myself as I wrote it and anyone who read it. But today, I want to give it a shot, because the Olympic buzz around Sochi is proving to be a perfect storm of several issues about which I am invested and interested.
Personhood: First and foremost, nobody should have to live in fear for their life or well-being. Whatever your beliefs, feelings, or thoughts concerning homosexuality, the fact that people are beaten, harassed, and even killed because they are gay should horrify you. Have you seen the pictures coming out of Russia with people beaten, bruised, and bloody? The somber snapshots should remind us that we’re all human beings. We all deserve the integrity bestowed on us as people by our Creator. Pushing it further, no matter your own personal opinions about homosexuality, the last thing God wants from us is to treat them with disdain, hatred, or violence. I think Jesus said something about that (Matt. 7:12).
Yet we shouldn’t compare human rights to political rights.
Westernism/Americanism: As I read the situation, Putin is limiting what we in America call “free speech.” In other words, it seems he’s limiting the political rights of Russians. He’s accomplishing this by fining anybody who speaks “propaganda to minors.” A bit harsher for foreigners is the 15 day time in jail as they await their inevitable deportation. Hearing this law appalls many Westerners, especially Americans and more especially gay Americans. In general, however, there’s nothing really wrong with this law from a non-western perspective. It is simply an attempt to support and defend those relationships that produce children (It’s important here to note that Russia suffers from a unique problem of demographic disparity due to the actions of officials during the Second World War). What is “wrong” with the law is that it is utterly unAmerican or non-western. (Note: One exception may be raised concerning conversations parents have with their children. And if anyone cares to make that argument, I’ll be happy to hear it.)
Public Relations: So what do I think about George Takei’s recent appearance on MSNBC’s Last Word concerning the Russian Olympics? Or, more broadly, what do I think about the rising drama surrounding Sochi’s Olympic Games? Frankly, this is a difficult question. It seems to me that if people believe Olympiads and their supporters are in physical danger, extreme or otherwise, because they identify as gay, then there needs to be a serious discussion. More accurately, since there is some physical threat to individuals who identify themselves as gay, we need to not only discuss what that means but act to rectify it. However, part of me cannot escape the feeling that most of this is a huge public relations (PR) movement from the homosexual community (though probably not organized, a shared lifestyle has created a community with a shared worldview and shared perceptions on what to do). In other words, and I hope clearer ones, much of what is said about the Olympics in Russia revolves around Westerners’ demand to be able to do what they want. Unless I’ve read the laws incorrectly (and I very well could be), then all that people (athletes, “news” organizations, companies, sponsors, spectators, etc.) need to do for the brief period of time in Russia is not use the Olympics as a stage for homosexual PR. Of course, this is a huge problem for Americans, since we are accustomed to saying and doing almost whatever they want. Yet, perhaps we need to act as if we’re a guest in a friends house rather than as if we’re in our own.
Fear Mongering:In the interview, George Takei said, “This is an example of good versus evil.” He also uses the Olympics of 1936 within Nazi Germany as a comparison to what’s happening now. On both counts, I cannot agree. On the first count, it seems to me as a mixing of human rights and political rights. To be sure, wherever human rights are violated or endangered, then action must be taken (security seems like a reasonable response). However, most of what’s going on in the public square is a confusion of political rights for human rights. Or, more precisely, demanding American rights be transposed on all nations. On the second count, pulling out the Nazi card is never good. The historical phenomenon known as Nazism was new at the time and has yet to be repeated. Making the comparison to such a horrible period in time only serves to create and feed fear. At this point in time, nothing being done in Russia compares to the atrocities leading up to the Holocaust.
Overall, I should once again state that I am sympathetic to protecting and supporting the personhood of all individuals. The violence occurring in Russia against homosexuals is just as appalling as any violence against people. We must always remember this truth: they are people too. Yet, we cannot let our emotions (fear, sympathy, anger, etc.) cloud the real issues at hand. I make this post not as an attempt to finalize the conversation about Sochi, but to open the door to the real questions and concerns at hand. If anything, Sochi represents a perfect storm of many of the issues we face in our American context today.
It occurred to me today that I want things to happen faster than they normally do or even can.
As a new father, I have unrealistic expectations for my daughter. She should be holding her head up by now, right? At least she should be sleeping through the night. No? Well, I know she has enough experience now not to cry at tiny discomforts. Of course, all of this is foolish. More than that, it’s dangerous. My high expectations have made me very impatient. Whenever I’m impatient, I also get angry. I hope my anger doesn’t have long lasting implications in my daughter’s life, but it probably does. I’m trying to curb my anger with the hopes to eventually stop it altogether.
I love the animated shows: “Justice League” and “Justice League Unlimited.” They represent the high point of superhero animation and Saturday morning cartoons. There’s this episode (two-part, of course) where the League runs into a rather menial villain known as Doctor Destiny, who infiltrates the heroes’ minds and plays them their worst nightmare. Of particular interest is the Flash’s nightmare. For those who don’t know, the Flash has a superpower that makes him fast in everything he does. He’s even faster than Superman! So, when Doctor destiny gets a hold of the Flash, he makes the superhero live in a world that is so slow that it looks as though it has stopped. Naturally, this upsets the Flash. More importantly, it incapacitates him from doing his superhero “gig.”
Flash’s nightmare can very well be a metaphor for my own life. I am so busy with adjusting to the new addition to our family, contemplating and planning for my new life as a student in a few short weeks, and taking care of the day to day tasks of life that I often feel like the Flash. I just run through life towards my next objective. Being forced to slow down may not be a nightmare, but it’s certainly out of the ordinary. Taking two minutes to burp my little girls seems like an hour sometimes. Waiting for her to settle down into her sleep pattern can feel like an eternity. Realizing that she needs more time to adjust to changes has proven difficult for me.
Yet, I am thankful for these lessons. Not only do they reinforce the age old adage, “stop and smell the roses.” But, they also show me that anything worth doing takes time. This ranges from having a conversation with someone I care about to raising a daughter to be a happy and healthy young woman. It ranges from doing the exercises that will heal my body to fostering the discipline to be a better disciple. They also show me that the poverty of time I believe I experience is an illusion of my own making.
I just hope I can learn to slow down before it’s too late.
Thought of the Day 
