Politically-incorrect Proverbs

The following is a list, albeit politically-incorrect, of common-sense guiding principles that I believe to be true.  If one was to state any of these inconvenient truths in public, he would most likely evoke howls of protest from or at least drive the lefties crazy.  I stand by them,  nonetheless, they are still presented with a full appreciation for the fallibility of man (myself not exempted).  Feel free to suggest your own below, comment on any of the ones I have proposed, or completely disagree with me.  We are not PC here - honest dialogue is still welcomed.


There is only one way to God – that way is through Jesus Christ.  All other attempts/means/religions are insufficient.  The Scripture is very clear about that.

All of us will stand before God one day to be judged, which is a scary thought.  Without Christ as our advocate, that is an incredibly scary thought.

Hell is a real place.

God created all that is.  He spoke everything into existence.  Random chance played no role whatsoever in that.

Our rights originate from God, not government.  We are self-governing citizens of our nation, not subjects of our government.

Any government which tries to take away our rights as self-governing citizens is illegitimate.

God had a direct hand in the founding of this nation.

Although we have strayed far from our founding principles, this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic.

This nation has been blessed beyond all measure.  I’m not sure all the reasons for that, but at least part of the reason is that we have stood with God’s chosen people, the Jews.

No matter how many Republican or Democratic Presidents may claim it to be so, Islam will not be a ‘religion of peace’ until there are enough Muslims willing to stand up and make it be so.


ISIS is not a JV Team.  Iran cannot be trusted.  Denial is not a foreign policy strategy.

Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is a much bigger threat than global warming.

There is a huge difference between an illegal alien and a legal immigrant.  The confusion around this has been deliberate.

No foreign national has a right to come here, be here, or stay here.  Although other factors can certainly be considered, the primary basis for accepting an immigrant into this country is how he or she will contribute to making this country better.  If we accept you, you need to completely forsake your country of origin, learn English, provide for yourself and your family, and wholeheartedly agree with our Constitution, obey our laws, and honor our way of life.  If your affiliations or beliefs prevent that, go somewhere else.  If you accept those conditions, may God bless you and welcome to the United States of America.

Voting against Obama or opposing his agenda does not make you a racist.

President Obama’s primary historical significance is not that he was the first ‘black’ President of the United States.  His historical significance is that he is the country’s first socialist President.

The modern left is a perfect example of confusing one’s worldview with reality.

A little sign posted at the entrance to a campus, church, movie theatre, or mall saying “No Guns Allowed on the Premises.” does not make you safer.  It makes you less safe.  Criminals know this - you should too.

What’s fair is fair:  If I have to have to beg for a permit to purchase a gun, a reporter should also have to beg for a permit to publish a story.  One right is not more important than another.

The vast majority of law enforcement/police officers are trustworthy, honest, and decent people (and are not racists).  They are human, they do make mistakes, but nearly every one of them to a fault are ready and willing to put their life on the line for you in times of dire need.

No one deserves mistreatment, but if you are belligerent with a police officer or resist arrest  - especially if you reach for his weapon - I’m not going to waste a lot of sympathy on what might happen to you as a result.

The so-called “Mainstream Media” is biased.  The primary evidence for that fact is their adamant denial of that fact.

The “Mainstream Media” is anything but mainstream.

The Obama Justice Department is anything but... okay you get the idea.

The Department of Education may not be unconstitutional, but it is certainly extra-constitutional (not to mention completely unnecessary).

The Supreme Court has no authority to make law.  The Supreme Court has no authority to rewrite the law.  Too many Supreme Court justices seem to forget this.

The U.S. Constitution is neither living, nor breathing.  It was intentionally designed to be difficult to change.

Unlike the Constitution, the Bible is absolutely unchanging.  The truths therein are timeless.

The Bible is absolutely clear.  Homosexual practice is a sin.  In that sense it is no different than adultery, fornication, or any other sexual sin.

Two lesbians are no substitute for a father and a mother.  Two gay men are no substitute for a father and a mother.

It is an absurdity to insist that the Boy Scouts should open up to homosexual scout leaders on the one hand, while decrying the abuse of boys by male scout leaders on the other.

It is not a violation of one’s civil rights to be asked to prove you are a qualified voter before you are allowed to vote.  It is simply common sense.

An illegal vote cast is just as egregious as the denial of a legal vote.

Registering new voters is not necessarily a good thing.  Just saying… someone has no business voting in  a presidential election that can’t identify by name (and party affiliation) all of the following five persons:  the current President, the Vice-President, the Speaker of the House, the previous President, and the first President of the United States.

It is nearly impossible to name a centrist Democrat who has been elected to serve in the U.S. House or Senate in recent memory.  Even if he campaigned as a centrist, that changed as soon as they left their home district and arrived in Washington.

It is nearly impossible to name a conservative Republican who has held a top leadership post in the U.S. House or Senate in recent memory.  Even if he started out as a conservative, the desire for popularity or the love of power sucked all their core principles out of them.

Greed is non-partisan.  Just as many Democrats as Republicans go to Washington without great wealth and leave as multi-millionaires.  In either case, it’s most assuredly not a coincidence.

So-called “hate crimes” laws are absolutely ridiculous.  Is "love" ever the motivation for assault or murder?  One’s motivations are secondary to one’s innocence or guilt and should be left for the sentencing phase.

“Global Warming” is just the latest attempt by the advocates of big government to expand its power, control our lives, and diminish our freedoms.  And the science – if you can call it that – is by no means "settled".


Not everyone is a victim.  There are some people that are just simply stupid.

Life is not fair.  It never will be.  There is not any number of laws that will not change that basic fact, nor is there is any government immense enough to negate that fact.

Face the facts:  There are a lot of people out there smarter than you, better than you, richer than you, and luckier than you.  That’s life.  Deal with it.

Being poor does not make one righteous.  Being rich does not make one corrupt.

Poverty does not cause crime.  If it did, the nation’s greatest crime spree would have occurred during the Great Depression.

Immense wealth has no correlation to one’s intelligence, as Al Gore has proved time and time again.

Age does not necessarily equate to wisdom, as Jimmy Carter continues to prove.

Being ‘intelligent’ is way different than being ‘smart’.

An advanced degree does not make one smart.

There is no right to a ‘living wage’.  If you want more money, make yourself more valuable to employers.   Either work harder, work longer hours, or get some training and/or experience.

Not every worker deserves a raise.

...and no.  Not every kid deserves a trophy, either.

Lack of self-esteem is a very rare problem in human beings.

You do not have a right to not have your feelings hurt.

Politically correct speech codes are purposefully designed by the political left to shame their opposition into silence.  As such, one’s political incorrectness should be worn as a badge of honor.
 

Obama's Foreign Policy Alternate Universe

Denial - a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality.  (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denial)
 
In the context of world events and the wake of the Paris terror attacks, it seems self-evident to an objective observer that until President Obama comes to a place where he is actually willing to utter the words “Radical Islamic extremism”, he doesn't completely understand the problem.  And until Obama is willing to name the problem, we won’t as a nation come up with an effective a solution.  If our Commander-in-Chief is unwilling to identify the enemy (and by that I mean someone other than George W. Bush, the NRA, or the Congressional Republicans), how will we possibly be able to confront and defeat them?
 
But therein lies the problem: His worldview is demonstrably in conflict with reality and he is pitifully unwilling to abandon his faulty worldview.
 
It is increasingly obvious that our president is ill-equipped to deal with the ever-more-complex international situations that we are facing as a country.  He seemingly cannot force himself to admit the fact that – whether we like it or not - we have had war declared on us.  Sadly, it appears he is too proud, he has too much invested, he is simply too much of an ideologue to admit when he is wrong.  And thus we have the current chaos.
 
Known to be thin-skinned and defensive, he has chosen to surround himself with people who agree with him to avoid being challenged.  Throughout his life - at law school, as a community organizer, as a Senator, and as Commander in Chief  his mentors and advisors have consistently been radical ideological leftists (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, David Axelrod, Eric Holder, etc.) holding a consistently Marxist outlook on life that says that the United States is the foci of most of the evil in this world.
 
No doubt this explains at least in part, why he reserves his harshest critiques not for Vladimir Putin, but for Congressional Republicans.  This explains why he will negotiate with the radical leadership of Iran, but refuses to talk with the House Budget Committee.  This accounts for why he condemns the NRA louder than he does Islamic terrorists.
 
Recall that it wasn’t all that long ago that Obama called ISIS  Al Qaeda’s “JV team” and that just the day before the Paris massacres he was hailing ISIS as “contained”.  He was clearly wrong on both counts.  This refusal to accept facts that contradict the White House’s crumbling narrative was profoundly illustrated by his noticeably testy responses to Journalist’s queries questioning the effectiveness of his strategy (if it can be called that) at the G20 conference on Monday.
 
He was impassionate in his statements.  What the French President called "an Act of War”, Obama referred to as a “setback”.  He was defensive.  And predictably, he reserved the brunt of his wrath, not for the terrorists, but for Republican critics who have suggested a halt to importing into our country 10,000 Syrian refugees that Arab states won’t touch – despite the fact that at least one of the Paris terrorists held a Syrian passport.
 
Our President is in utter denial. The world as it is and the world as he wishes it to be are diametrically opposed.  His worldview and the reality this country finds itself in are in direct conflict.  And sadly, he has chosen to stick with the faulty worldview.
 
Of course this makes him look extremely silly, but it also makes this country look weak – and more dangerously, emboldens our adversaries and enemies such as China, Putin, and ISIS.  Evil does exist in this world, and if not called out and resisted, it tends to move quickly to fill the vacuum of power.
 
Because our President is unwilling to face this reality, we have no coherent Middle East foreign policy; and his successor - and our children – face a much more dangerous world.




11/18/15 Addendum - Perhaps some of you caught Bill O'Reillys interview with Gov. Chris Christie last night on The O'Reilly Factor.  Christie said of the President's policies, "This is a guy who lives in a fantasy world... He sees the world as he likes to see it, as fantasy."


11/23/15 Addendum - A CBS News poll released today reports the following:  "Just over a week after the terrorist attacks in Paris, only 23 percent of Americans think President Barack Obama has a clear plan for dealing with the militant group ISIS, the lowest number yet recorded in the CBS News Poll.  Sixty-six percent do not think he has a clear plan - a new high."  While Republicans and Democrats differ sharply on whether they should be allowed in at this time, "there is widespread agreement on a stricter screening process for Syrian refugees.  Nearly eight in 10 Americans (78 percent) - including majorities of all partisan stripes - say it is necessary for Syrian refugees to go through a stricter security process than they do now."(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-americans-think-of-isis-syrian-refugees-terrorism/)

The FOX Business Debate

Some quotes I picked up from tonight's presidential debate, hosted by Fox Business and the Wall Street Journal.

"If you put more money in people's pockets they will in fact be more generous, not less generous." Dr. Ben Carson

"Washington is fundamentally corrupt. There are more words in the tax code than there are in the Bible - and not a one of them is as good." Sen. Ted Cruz

"We can't have an economy if we're not safe... I know that the world is a safer and better place when the United States is the strongest military power in the world." Sen. Marco Rubio

"We have to make our military, bigger, better, stronger, so that nobody messes with us." Donald Trump

On Islamic extremism "...our goal is not to contain them, but to destroy them before they destroy us." Dr. Ben Carson

"It is not compassionate to say 'we will not enforce the law' and drive down the wages of millions of hard-working Americans." Sen. Ted Cruz

"If the family breaks down, the nation breaks down." Sen. Marco Rubio

"A Clinton Presidency will corrode the character of this nation. Why? Because of the 'Clinton way': Say whatever you have to, Lie as long as you can get away with it. We must beat Hillary Clinton." Carly Fiorina

  

For those of you who were watching tonight's debate, some questions.  Feel free to weigh in with your comments:

• Who did you think were the 'winners' and who were the 'losers'?
• Did you like the questions and moderators style better than the previous MSNBC debate?
• What quotes from tonight's debate resonated the most with you?

Bulletproof

We live in a skeptical, if not cynical age – an age largely without heroes.
 
That is too bad, because while most postmodern academics scoff at the idea of anything regarding ultimate meaning, ridiculing those things that are larger-than-life, it seems culturally we are set to drift aimlessly in search for that which we know not.  Our young people are left to look amongst the coarseness of the locker room or to sort through the rubbish left in the wake of a voyeuristic entertainment industry for someone to look up to; in seeking someone to emulate.  Each one offered up to us by our culture seemingly worse than the ones who came before.  We all seem to sense the need.  We are losing our way.  And we are all so much the worse off in the absence of a hero.

This malaise seems to have kicked into high gear sometime in the mid to late 60's, and the disease has been spreading unabated since that time.  It impacts almost every realm:  historical, political, religious, the news media.  To use an analogy from my favorite movie genre, the American Western, it seems everywhere we turn, the well-meaning, if rough around the edges, hero of John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn in True Grit has been replaced with Clint Eastwood's openly sadistic, immoral anti-hero, the Stranger, from High Plains Drifter.

Just a little over a week ago, Legacy Christian Academy had the privilege of hosting David Barton, Christian historian.  Reflecting on Barton’s visit that Monday evening triggered memories I had of a story he had written probably 20 years ago, which I think merits retelling here. As I understand it, versions of this story were included in most textbooks in generations past, but sadly, that is no longer the case.  Due to the influence of liberal historical revisionism, great stories such as this, have largely faded from the public's memory.

Twenty years prior to the Revolutionary War, a youthful George Washington, found himself an officer serving under British General Braddock and his veteran forces.  At the time, Washington was the 23 year old commander of the 100 man Virginia Regiment, joined with British forces against the French and their Indian allies in a territorial dispute between the two nations.

I will let Barton tell the story as he discovered it from an 1856 Maryland textbook (taken from his book America’s Godly Heritage):

The British troops arrived in Virginia, where George Washington (colonel of the Virginia militia) and 100 Virginia buckskins joined General Braddock. They divided their force; and General Braddock, George Washington, and 1300 troops marched north to expel the French from Fort Duquesne — now the city of Pittsburgh. On July 9, 1755 — only seven miles from the fort — while marching through a wooded ravine, they walked right into an ambush; the French and Indians opened fire on them from both sides.

But these were British veterans; they knew exactly what to do. The problem was, they were veterans of European wars. European warfare was all in the open. One army lined up at one end of an open field, the other army lined up at the other end, they looked at each other, took aim, and fired. No running, no hiding, But here they were in the Pennsylvania woods with the French and Indians firing at them from the tops of trees, from behind rocks, and from under logs.

When they came under fire, the British troops did exactly what they had been taught; they lined up shoulder-to-shoulder in the bottom of that ravine — and were slaughtered. At the end of two hours, 714 of the 1300 British and American troops had been shot down; only 30 of the French and Indians had been shot. There were 86 British and American officers involved in that battle; at the end of the battle, George Washington was the only officer who had not been shot down off his horse — he was the only officer left on horseback.

Although various accounts differ on exactly how many total casualties there were that day - one account I found said 63 of 86 officers were killed or wounded with a total of 878 casualties - it was a crippling loss for the British-American side.  Yet, despite having lost two horses, and with four bullet holes in his coat, Washington emerged from the melee untouched.  Most of the other officers were killed or wounded.  In the ensuing retreat, General Braddock himself died of injuries suffered in the ill-fated battle.

The young George Washington, who wasn't technically even in Braddock's chain of command, organized some semblance of order amid the slaughter, and managed to engage in an orderly retreat until the remaining survivors could rejoin the main force.  From that point onward, he would be known by many as "Hero of the Monongahela".

If that was the end of the story, as told by most early textbooks, we could on that basis alone be disappointed that our children are being denied an inspiring story illustrating the heroism of a founding father and a retelling the Providential protection afforded the one who would go on to become one of our greatest Presidents.  Yet, when you continue reading, note how the 1856 text book recounts Washington’s interpretation of the events that day and yet again how it appeared from the perspective of one of his opponents that day, a chief fighting with the French:


The next day, Washington wrote a letter to his family explaining that after the battle was over, he had taken off his jacket and had found four bullet holes through it, yet not a single bullet had touched him; several horses had been shot from under him, but he had not been harmed. He told them:

"By the all powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation."

Washington openly acknowledged that God’s hand was upon him, that God had protected him and kept him through that battle.

However, the story does not stop here. Fifteen years later, in 1770 — now a time of peace — George Washington and a close personal friend, Dr. James Craik, returned to those same Pennsylvania woods. An old Indian chief from far away, having heard that Washington had come back to those woods, traveled a long way just to meet with him.

He sat down with Washington, and face-to-face over a council fire, the chief told Washington that he had been a leader in that battle fifteen years earlier, and that he had instructed his braves to single out all the officers and shoot them down. Washington had been singled out, and the chief explained that he personally had shot at Washington seventeen different times, but without effect. Believing Washington to be under the care of the Great Spirit, the chief instructed his braves to cease firing at him. He then told Washington:

"I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle…. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle."

Is the account of the meeting with the Indian Chief accurate?  From what I could tell, the sole source of the story of the meeting with the chief comes from Washington's step-grandson, George Washington Parke Custis, who claimed he was told the story by Dr. Craik after his grandfather's death.  However, even if we dismiss that particular portion of the story as murky legend, it is still pretty clear from what we know to be true about the battle of Monongahela and what Washington himself acknowledges, that he miraculously survived the catastrophic battle - a battle in which almost every other officer was killed or wounded.  God had still greater plans for young George Washington.  This is the kind of story that needs to be told.

George Washington's complete story can be found in the short history Bulletproof George Washington by David Barton.  Another great book I recently became aware of for a culture desperately in need of a hero, is 7 Men and the Secret of their Greatness by Eric Metaxas.  I haven't got to this one yet, so feel free to leave a comment below about that book or other stories about worthy heroes.

We are a culture greatly in need of heroes.

10/16/15 Addendum:  My wife informed me that her 4th grade A Beka history curriculum includes the above story.  However, as primarily a Christian curriculum, the vast majority of students will likely not profit from A Beka's inclusion of the story.

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.