The Dearth (and Death) of Common Sense

Am I the only one who feels like he has been transported to an alternate universe?  Transported to a universe where the rules of logic have been suspended.  A place where black is white, hot is cold, and apparently right is wrong while wrong is right... and for fans of 20th century literature, I really should add the Orwellian references, "War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength." (from the book, 1984)

Illogical?  Ironic?  Ridiculous?  Confusing?  Non-sensical?  "Yes", five times "yes", but sadly, that's where we now find ourselves as a nation in serious moral decline - if not all out ethical freefall.

In this same strange universe, a man is equally and completely free to self-identify himself as a woman, and by logical extension, a kumquat, a green bean, or perhaps even a pretty pink polka-dotted pony; and no longer even have his mental health or sanity challenged.  While it has been oft-repeated that ideas have consequences, now we are simultaneously learning that national elections have consequences, as well.  Obama and his merry band of 'Looney Leftists' are now in charge and they are demanding nothing less than full compliance with the latest politically correct pish posh.

And just in case you aren't quite sure where I am going with this, I am referring to the Obama Administration's Justice Department's announcement earlier this month that the Federal Government is now seizing extra-Constititutional powers under the guise of nebulous 'civil rights' law to dictate restroom, locker room, and shower policies at the state and local level and decreeing that every kind of practitioner of (what used to be called) perversion and deviance can now share your restroom - and you have no say-so in the matter.  This 'putsch' in the name of civil rights was followed a week later by Department of Education threats to withhold funds from those schools who don't jump on their nonsensical bandwagon, and turn the athletic programs, bathrooms, and locker rooms of your sons and daughters into gender dysphoric free-for-alls.

In a country where common sense is increasingly uncommon, it is not surprising that we are actually discussing that fact that the Federal government would tell us that it a violation of civil rights to prevent a man who decided to be a woman and share the public restroom with your wife or mother.  Or that it would be a grievous act of discrimination to deny a boy who insists he's a girl from just hanging out in your daughter's locker room.  The bearer of this kind of twisted logic is no radical lesbian women's studies professor, the ACLU, Child Molesters Anonymous, or a sexual predator advocacy group (although they all would wholeheartedly favor this mandate).  Indeed it carries the weight of nation's highest-ranking law enforcement official - Attorney General Loretta Lynch - who proclaimed that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people would be suing the state of North Carolina for attempting to protect it's citizens from such nonsensical behavior.  (She was, no doubt, taking a break, from the relentless prosecution of 'thoughtcrime' deniers of man-made global warming, cooling et al.)

Employing grandiose words invoking Brown v. Board of Education, the Three-Fifths Compromise, Jim Crow laws, and other such nasty things, Loretta 'Napolean' Lynch applied tortured legal logic, heavy-handed executive branch brown-shirtism/hooliganism, and the threat of Federal blackmail to advance one of the most strange and logically devoid legal arguments yet proposed from the increasingly power hungry Obama regime.

But what should we expect when from our elite institutions of higher learning down to our middle schools have been teaching postmodern thought and denying moral absolutes for at least two decades now.  Why would we even question this as the logical next step following the Supreme court's shameless redefining of the common understanding and plain meaning of the word "marriage" that was held for millenia.  In the unenlightened old days, one's sex was based on their appearance, a birth certificate, or more scientifically, based on the makeup of one's chromosomes.  Apparently in this brave, new - and politically correct - world, a simple feeling of 'identification' with a particular sex is all that's necessary.

We are living in a country where the ruling elites and a growing number of our institutions are completely out of control - and completely void of common sense.

We are told by the chief law enforcement official in the land that the Federal government will from this point forward be dictating local and state bathroom, locker room, and shower policies, without regard for privacy, modesty, personal safety, societal norms, or common sense.  In other words, if I decide tomorrow morning to self-identify as a woman, a unicorn, a  leprechaun, or perhaps Bigfoot - you have to accept me and play along with my little games, and grant me special privileges under the threat of financial and/or legal consequences.  You must accept and affirm me in my self-delusional choice or you will not only be accused of being a "bigot" and a "hater", but sooner or later, big brother government will be knocking on your door with a civil rights lawsuit or an arrest warrant in hand.  That said, I can't help but think of the definition of the term 'doublespeak', again from the book 1984:


"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies."  George Orwell.

Other than the fact that it sounds strikingly post-modern, I circle back around to Orwell only because the dissonance of holding contradictory views apparently goes unnoticed by card-carrying members of the revisionist 'Looney Left'.  On the one hand, they are telling us, "Don't you dare 'discriminate'." - or you will either persecuted or prosecuted - yet on the other hand, we are told that protected classes - including women - must be identified and given special consideration in the form of reverse discrimination.  We are legally mandated to treat differently - or legally discriminate, if you will - between women and men in federal hiring quotas, government contracts, and for collegiate sports teams purposes (e.g. Title IX), among other things.  At the same time, they pretend to not even notice (or perhaps lack the mental capacity to notice) the illogical contradictions of their views, all the while demanding - with the force of law backing them - that we must give assent to their self-contradictory views.




Addendum 1:  At the time I was researching this piece, I stumbled upon a great speech given by Dr. Everett Piper, President of Oklahoma Wesleyan University.  Piper is on the forefront of Evangelical Christian response to troubling cultural trends.  Check out Dr. Piper's take on this subject at: http://www.okwu.edu/blog/2016/05/13816/

Addendum 2:  Another blog citing evidence further illustrating the absurdity of the government position:  http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2016/03/gender-ideology-harms-children-says.html

Addendum 3:  Reading Constitutional Lawyers Herb Titus and William Olson's legal opinion on the Obama Administration's actions is also insightful reading:    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/herbert-w-titus/obamas-threat-defund-schools-over-trans-bathroom-issue-violates-federal

Postmodernism and our Post-Christian Culture (Part 2)

“Ours is a post-Christian world.”   Francis A. Schaeffer, Death In The City

Last week, I attempted to define and explain what we mean by the term postmodernism.  This week I want to continue in that vein and hope to take a bit of time to explore some of the implications that the postmodern mindset has on our society – particularly in the realms of our religious life together.  But before I delve into the specifics, I want to share just one more helpful way to understand postmodern thinking, which will launch us into some specific applications.

I owe the following example to something I stumbled upon a couple weeks ago which piqued my curiosity when I was helping my son with a theology assignment.  Joshua was reading selections from the book, To Know and Love God by David K. Clark.  Dr. Clark is an author, theologian, former professor and the current Vice President and Dean of Bethel Seminary in St. Paul.

In the writing I was most interested in, Dr. Clark was recounting a conversation he had with student, the account (and his interpretation) of which seems to perfectly illustrate the difference between modern and postmodern thinking.

His student started out by stating, “Christians in my generation don’t think like older Christians.”  She went on to describe how her generation believes “Jesus is the center” and that they focus on growing “closer to Jesus”, while “Older Christians focus on secondary issues,” (or boundaries).  We weren’t told exactly what theological issues she thought were secondary.

She described herself as a postmodern thinker, while accusing those of the older generation of being modernist.  Her implication being that postmodernist thinking was good, while modernist thinking was bad, outdated, possibly even dangerous.  Unwittingly, (and hypocritically) by making such a claim, she herself was setting boundaries of her own.

The young woman had stumbled upon a widely recognized distinction between so-called “centered-set thinking” and “bounded-set thinking,” first borrowed from set theory and applied to theology in 1978 by missiologist Paul Hiebert.  These days, academics have used these categories to distinguish modernistic thinking Christians from postmodern thinking Christians.

According to Clark, centered-set/postmodern thinkers describe a set (a set is merely a collection objects) by locating its center and mark the members of the set “by identifying objects that are moving closer to that center.”  They don’t focus on the outer boundary, but what is moving toward the center, or in the case of this young woman, those moving “closer to Jesus.”  “It’s less concerned about sharply defining a line in order to divide what’s ‘in’ the set vs. what’s ‘out’,” or what they consider “minor theological commitments.”  Instead, such thinkers would ask the question, “Is the trajectory of a person’s life and thinking toward Christ?”  At first glance this appears to be okay… but more about that, later.

On the other hand, bounded-set/modernist thinkers determine the members of a particular set based on a boundary.  The boundary, Clark continues, is what “identifies who’s ‘in’ and who’s ‘out’ by using litmus test issues” to define the outermost limits of the set or group.  It is the boundary that determines who is or is not included in a particular group.

Although Dr. Clark uses this explanation to make a slightly different point, I think he’s on to something here.  This distinction explains why moderns and postmoderns are talking past each other in so many areas.  And it explains the rise and influence of the church for the postmodern mind - what is called the Emergent Church.

As the leader of a seminary dedicated to the study of God’s truth, I trust Dr. Clark realizes the dangers of postmodern thinking.  And if he is right, Christians - while carefully acknowledging the limits of human reason - must be bounded-set thinkers at the very least in regards to the importance of divine revelation and absolute truth.  

While it is certainly a good thing for our lives to be moving towards Jesus, that in itself is too simple – deceptively so.  Don’t get me wrong, in a world full of distraction and temptation, oh that we all could have Jesus as our center toward which we are drawing closer every minute of every day.  But still, you have to admit, moving in a direction “closer to Jesus” is a fairly imprecise and nebulous journey.

There is more to the Christian life than that – including responding to the truth of the Gospel with right belief and right action.  Or as the Apostle Paul says in Romans 10:9, one must speak and act accordingly, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (NASB)

Paul sharply contrasted (or drew sharp boundaries) in comparing living according to “the flesh” with that of living in accord with “the Spirit” in Romans 8:4-6 and Galatians 5:17.  Jesus drew sharp distinctions (or boundaries) between those that were ‘in’ – his “sheep” (John 10:27, Luke 15:6) – and those that were ‘out’ such as “the thief” (John 10:10), “false prophets” (Mt. 7:15), and “wolves” (Mt. 10:16, Luke 10:3).

The dichotomy between modern and postmodern thought is nowhere more stark than when it stands in opposition to the propositional truth found in the Bible.  Note that Jesus did not tell us to figure out your own way to heaven – He did NOT say “I am a way, a truth, a light.  Some may find a way to the Father through me.”  Rather, as we noted last week, Jesus made the ultimate, revelatory, exclusive truth claim when He said “I am the way… No one comes to the Father except through me.” (ESV)

But these definitions and boundaries eschewed by the Emergent church are important.  In fact, they are very important.  We must make distinctions between truth and falsehood so we know what truth is.  Without boundaries, we don’t know what – or who - is right and wrong. And while they must be defended with grace and love, boundaries are still important.

Postmodern thought stands in sharp contrast to the Christian worldview, especially so as wholeheartedly adopted by the Emergent church movement, which, in my view, is outside the bounds of orthodox Christian thought.  But I’ll leave that critique for another day.  Better minds than mine have already covered the topic of the Emergent Church. (For more information, see the notes below.) *

The problem, in my mind isn’t deciding people are outside of Christianity, thankfully that is God’s – not yours or mine – to decide, but whether they are outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy (the set of doctrines passed down to us by the early Christians).  The question then becomes, do we continue to give those who work outside of orthodoxy a platform to advance their views?  Whether it be open–theist Greg Boyd (Bethel Seminary) or Jesus Critics, John Dominic Crossan (DePaul) and Burton Mack (Claremont School of Theology) or the Emergent church pastors and thinkers, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren.  For that, we must soberly examine ourselves and our churches.

Not surprisingly, the same thinking has infected the political realm.  The recent revelations in regards to Planned Parenthood come immediately to mind.  One side is talking about observable facts and actions clearly visible in video tapes produced by the Center for Medical Progress.  They are pointing out that killing babies and harvesting baby body parts, and negotiating prices for them is a horrible evil reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Faced with uncomfortable truths, the other side deflects the ethical issues by constructing a fanciful narrative about the importance of abortionists delivering women’s 'healthcare' to underserved communities, or obfuscating the issue by attacking the motivations of their critics, questioning the timing of the release of information, and challenging the editing techniques of the videos.  …Everything but addressing the observable facts before them.

Such is the way of the Postmodern mind in a post-Christian culture.

* For a detailed analysis and critique of the Emergent Church, see Dr. D.A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church or Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck’s Why We’re Not Emergent.

Postmodernism and our Post-Christian Culture (Part 1)

Getting a handle on postmodernism isn’t easy.


It’s probably due to the fact that I am a product of a culture still heavily influenced by modernism that I spent two frustrating hours searching for a straight-forward, universal definition of postmodernism before I began to realize the absurdity of my task.  Until then, the irony had apparently escaped me that I was trying to find a quick and neat definition of a philosophy which itself defies consensus, resists truth claims, decries over-arching narratives and ultimate meaning - in other words, pretty much denies reality.


Eventually I found a couple of short, succinct definitions online - Postmodernism is a philosophy that says absolute truth does not exist.  Postmodernism supporters deny long-held beliefs and conventions and maintain that all viewpoints are equally valid.  Yet, this definition didn’t seem all-encompassing enough in describing what has become a pervasive western worldview.  Nor did what the Merriam-Webster dictionary have to say on the subject seem to convey the complete picture:  of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language.

At that point, I sought out my friend Dick, who for years has been facilitating The Truth Project small groups.  He provided me the following definition from Focus on the Family’s excellent materials:

Postmodernism - the contemporary philosophical perspective that rejects both revelation and reason – [it] takes this process to an extreme conclusion by denying the validity of all comprehensive truth systems, or what it calls meta-narratives (including Christianity). Stated simply, the postmodern perspective maintains that there is no “larger story.” Instead, everyone must tell his or her own story and invent (if possible) his or her own concept of meaning and significance. In other words, history does not exist at all except as it exists in our own minds, where it can be edited and tailored to further our own goals in the present.

In a sense, by rejecting the standards by which truth claims are measured and definitions themselves are created, postmodernism is itself an anti-worldview worldview.  Or as author and professor of literature at Patrick Henry College, Dr. Gene Edward Veith, put it, "Postmodernism is a worldview that denies all worldviews."  Simply put, it seems then that a postmodernist is one who ‘makes it up as he goes’.  *


Attempting to define this strange worldview is about as difficult as herding cats, except that a cat’s thinking process is more logical and easy to predict.  Thankfully, it is somewhat easier to describe than actually define.

Postmodernism’s impact on western culture is undeniable. As a philosophical movement, it has been applied to architecture, art, history, literature, religion, and most every area of thought.  To some, postmodernism is the next step and logical conclusion to modernism.  To others, it represents modernism’s demise and its heir apparent.  It engages wholeheartedly in a challenging of the rules and undermining logical constructs and certainty by its questioning - if not outright rejection - of supernatural revelation, reason, and truth.  In the process, it cynically asks the same question Pontius Pilate asked in the first century:  “What is truth?”

One of the foremost Christian apologists of our day, Ravi Zacharias, writing in the preface to his book Jesus Among Other Gods, has suggested postmodernism is best thought of as a “mood”.

Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true.  Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do no claim that it is a “better” way.  Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it.  If a spiritual idea is eastern, it is granted critical immunity; if western, it is thoroughly criticized.  Thus, a journalist can walk into a church and mock its carryings on, but he or she dare not do the same if the ceremony is from the eastern fold.  Such is the mood at the end of the twentieth century.

A mood can be a dangerous state of mind, because it can crush reason under the weight of feeling.  But that is precisely what I believe postmodernism best represents – a mood.

Zacharias concludes by saying.  “…Moods change.  Truth does not.

Alternately, perhaps a sports analogy may be helpful in bringing us to an understanding of what we are talking about.  All the talk in the past couple weeks about the life and quotes of baseball legend Yogi Berra makes me chuckle a bit when considering the title of Walter Truett Anderson’s book, Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be.  In his book, Anderson uses this baseball analogy to describe post-modernism in contrast to previous ways of thinking.

• A pre-modern baseball umpire would have said some-thing like this, “There’s balls, and there’s strikes and I call ‘em as they are.”
• The modernist umpire would say, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
• While the postmodernist umpire would say, “They ain’t nothing until I call ‘em.” 

As sobering (in the first example) or humorous (as in the second) these illustrations may be, clearly this denial of absolutes is a direct challenge to orthodox Christian belief.  Postmodern thinking stands in stark contrast to the Scripture and the clear message of the Gospels - which make some very specific and exclusive truth claims, several of which come immediately to mind:

• All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2 Timothy 3:16 - NASB)
• For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.  (Romans 3:23 – ESV)
• For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  (Romans 6:23 – ESV)
• I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 - NIV)

Jesus Christ made very bold and specific claims – propositional truth claims – concerning himself and about who and what He was.  These are statements that confront you, that must be dealt with, and either accepted or rejected.


A sampling of Christ's statements, such as claiming that He was God, “Before Abraham was, I AM”; that one’s life must be fundamentally transformed by the Spirit of God, “You must be born again”; and that he was the only way to heaven, “No one comes to the Father except through me”, are all claims that run completely counter to those who claim truth is only ‘true’ in the mind of the beholder.  To say that something can be “true for you but not true for me” is at its very core as meaningless and nonsensical as saying “red is blue”, “sweet is sour” or “truth is lies”.


(Not to mention that this postmodern mindset and use of language makes our cultural life together and public discourse in the religious, political, and academic realms extremely difficult.)


The implications of this kind of thinking provides a lot for one to chew on.  But having set the boundaries of what it is we are talking about, I hope to continue with these thoughts next time and then attempt to examine some of the implications of the postmodern mindset on theological and political issues.  In the meantime, feel free to join the dialogue and add your thoughts in the comment section below.


As Christians, we need to seriously grapple with the challenges presented by the postmodern worldview.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* From the perspective of a secular academic critic, Terry Eagleton, in the preface of his 1996 book Illusions of Postmodernism, states:

The word postmodernism generally refers to a form of contemporary culture, whereas postmodernity alludes to a specific historical period.  Postmodernity is a style of thought which is suspicious of classical notions of truth, reason, identity and objectivity, of the idea of universal progress or emancipation, of single frameworks, grand narratives or ultimate grounds of explanation.  Against these Enlightenment norms, it sees the world as contingent, ungrounded, diverse, unstable, indeterminate, a set of disunified cultures or interpretations which breed a degree of skepticism about the objectivity of truth, history and norms, the givenness of natures and the coherence of identities…  Postmodernism is a style of culture which reflects something of this epochal change in a depthless, decentered, ungrounded, self-reflexive, playful, derivative, eclectic, pluralistic art which blurs the boundaries between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture, as well as art and everyday experience. (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/188825.Illusions_of_Postmodernism)

The most understandable and overarching explanation I could come up with was an answer from Focus on the Family:  http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26379/~/understanding-postmodern-thought .  Although at eight paragraphs, it is too long to reproduce here, I nonetheless highly recommend it to the reader.