Post-Modern

Medieval Man – Modern Man – Post-Modern Man

clovis_baptizmThe Medieval Man had God and Religion at the center of all things. Kings were baptized and whole kingdoms across Europe   became Christian before the individuals that make up that Kingdom ever heard the gospel of Christ. On the surface this is neither encouraging or something to boast about as a Christian. But what does the gesture imply for the future of that nation. Again, your answer may be that the implications lend toward a Christian culture in name while remain ignorant to what God has done and desires to do in the world through the church. This may be true as well. Wow! I’m really digging myself a hole here. 🙂 However disastrous we may think these types of things to be that happened throughout the middles ages they do say something of the place of God and religion in a culture. And that is to say that God and Religion were right at the forefront of things. Kings and other rulers were baptized and whole kingdoms “became” Christian. Over time this had an extraordinary effect. At some point individuals hearing the gospel caught up a little bit and the presence of Popes, local Bishops, perish priests, and enclaves of hermits and monks brought something of the essence of real Christianity to Europe. Though not thoroughly and as we might wish. And from an early time God and Religion were understood to be essential to the life and culture of the West. Though I am dealing primarily with the West there was a similar emphasis with Christians in the East and in Africa. Placing God at the center had an extraordinary effect. Great advances in technology and science culminated around the 1400-1500’s to spark the Scientific Revolution with great contributions coming from Roman Catholics and Protestants across Europe, from some Persians in the East, and a handful of Africans. It was however primary an endeavor of European Christians. In other words the scientific revolution was an outgrowth not of recovered Greek learning but of Christian doctrine. There is so much upheaval then taking place at this point in history. The protestant reformations, the secular revolutions, and the so called enlightenment. I believe the enlightenment term to be useful in explaining that what many experienced as a result of reformations, and revolutions, was that having God and religion at the center no longer seemed valid.  Philosophers such as Edward Gibbon, Voltaire, and Rousseau to name a few were a large reason for the violent dismantling of matters of faith from matters of real life and philosophy. It is by understanding the work of enlightenment figures and their influence that we can approach the Modern era clear headed about the nature of it. Of course I believe it helps to have a realistic honest look at the Middle Ages if we want to look critically at these “Enlightenment” figures and what the propose to be true about life and faith.

The Modern man is now a man who has removed God from the center. He may not have removed God completely but like many of those original figures mentioned above, God was banished to the clouds. He no longer belonged anywhere near thisPSM_V21_D154_Charles_Darwin reality and what we mean we speak about reality in the universe. It has been throughout this Modern era that man removed God from Science. Once you arrive at the current time, science has become something seemingly incompatible with God and matters of faith. This took place over a period of time. Two great leaps forward from God happened with the enlightenment figures of 1600-1700 and with one particular individual during the mid 1800’s, Charles Darwin. The first leap was to place God off in the distant, and the second leap to banish God completely from reality. Before the turn of Darwin’s century a man by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche said that “God is Dead” and in the coming century men would no longer speak of him. So confident men became in a Science that is free from God and religious talk that eventually we make our way to the horrors of the 20th century. It is only here in the first 50 years of the 20th century that man begins to have sensible doubt regarding the unchecked positivism in human endeavors. But what could one do with God out of the picture, and now man out of the picture? Where can we turn. For Americans at least there was turning back to God, and a putting your hand to the work of rebuilding your life with God and family at the center. But another war dragged on stirring up doubt and mistrust in “the man” at the center. Young people sought an escape, sought a revolution, clung to ideologies, experimented with drugs, sex, thrills, and rock n’ roll.

The Modern man is now a Post-modern man. Uncertain of anything he tries everything and hesitantly agrees with everyone unless someone believes in absolute claims about truth, meaning, morality, origins, and destination. Man is no longer certain 7051-33about placing any one thing at the center. So he places many things at the center and is unsure what he believes and why, and where it is taking him. If he is sure of anything it is that he can not be sure of anything, that he is broken, frustrated, confused. Yet he constantly seeks validation and does not wish to be corrected. He is looking for someone who will agree with him and feels obligated to agree with everyone else. Unsure of what is up and what is down the post-modern man is tempted simply to take a step back, to place himself, his endeavors, and his own gain at the center of everything. What you then have is a post-modern man being reborn as a Modern drone-man without a soul. A man who hesitantly placed something specific in the center only for the sake of getting on with life. Even though he embraced some of the ideals of the modern life he is still a post-modern man. The original Modern man still had God in view and could not completely push him out. It is these lifeless zombies of post-modernism that lack God and eventually hopelessly leap into the dark for meaning.

Conclusion: Post-Modern youth have grown up and eventually and hesitantly re-embraced the modern ideal. If you want to have a job and get on in life then you need to re-embrace those ideals. But again, that does not make you modern. There is a real transition we have undergone. The answer to understanding post-modern man actually lies in our knowledge of Modern man, and the Medieval man. If your are a christian trying to learn to communicate you need to be able to paint the picture as I have. To see the ways in which the church engaged and came under the influence of each era and to what degree did Christians resist and maintain a biblical worldview and way of looking at reality. In other words though the Middles ages were rife with problems, corruptions, and tares among the wheat, it was a time in which God was placed at the center. Men like Martin Luther saw the corruption and error of the time piling up to something intolerable and sought to preserve the centrality of God, scripture, and faith at the center. It was the middle ages that gave us men like Luther, Augustine, and Francis of Assisi. Though God may be given a high place in culture it takes the work of devoted men and women of God to make that a lasting thing with depth. Without such men, their is such a high level of hypocrisy that people will get tired of it and seek to remove religious folk and their ‘god’ along with them from the center place. I’m crazy enough to believe that good people seeking to place God at the center and not man or even the church in the center will bring about a great healing. God at the center is the answer. I’m not advocating that we need a replica of the Medieval Christian world, what I am really aiming at is the principle at play in that era which culminated in more freedom, more churches, more education, more science, more human potential, and more progress. That the idea of human progress can not sustain itself without God, without morality, without meaning, without truth, without origins and destination.

For more on the middles ages. A personal favorite area of research and study for me check out these posts.

The Myth of the Dark Ages

Two Historical Myths – Two Historical Revisions: Part 1

Two Historical Myths – Two Historical Revisions: Part 2

“Enlightenment” Myth

Reformation Rethought

Reńe Descartes: Foundations for Modern Science

Advertisements
Categories: Bible, Church, Culture, Enlightenment, Faith, History, Medieval Period, Modern, Post-Modern, Science | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What is up with my generation?

narcIt seems there is a tendency to “freak out” about rules and authority. Along with that there is a tendency to reject old truths or ways of doing things only to embrace something that sounds new, fresh, exciting. We look to the future with without a clue about the past. We get pissed off or bored if someone tells us what we should be doing, or how to do something. We are arrogant, clueless, prideful, and to bored or distracted to learn anything from anyone. We think really highly of ourselves. We feel it is everyone’s job to make us happy and give us things. We are naive about the realities of life. We do not know how to cope with violence, injustice, and greed. We are angry at those in charge but don’t seem to have any solutions beyond generalizations and idealism. Because we reject learning about the past because it is boring, takes to long, proud to pay attention, or to distracted we have no way of thinking critically about how to solve problems that arise in the public or private sphere. Unless somehow we manage to have a descent upbringing and not be overly influenced by the current trend in thinking we are all caught up the mess. We don;t know how to articulate what our problem actually is, in fact we have a hard time articulating anything without “um, like, and like, and yeah, and you know”. We seem to have the hardest time with ‘declarative sentences’ because we are to afraid to declare -like -anything you know? Well we are so used to deciding that any one with a voice using declarative sentences declaring things to be this and that might actually be wrong and we just would never want that to be us it seems. We would rather like maybe get people to like just come along with us in our uncertainty right? In other words truth has gone out the window to. All we are left with are likes, and maybes, and you knows. Or even worse tones in our voice end up creating invisible question marks when we rack up the nerve to say something we might like have a “conviction” about. I mean its just not cool to think you know something. And if you do think you know something you could be wrong so you know, just see if people think like maybe you might be write. I mean, how many people actually write like this? Its terrible. Its terrible enough to hear people talking like this. But what do we value? Sadly enough I think one of the most important values to our strange generation is that we value freedom so much. But not the kind of freedom that you might think. Again, its a selfish desire for doing whatever pleases “me”. I want what will make me happy because it is my right to be happy. If we find the courage to value this for others we still lack a real grasp of the importance of freedom. Individual selfish Freedom is not something we should hope to see come the masses. That kind of freedom would cripple the world and only cause more suffering. Our worship of self and the freedom to make ones self happy above all else is the kind of attitude that does away with rules, traditions, structures, truth, and authority. I worry about my generation. We need to learn to find our voice. I think we need to learn in general. We need to be willing to learn from others. We need to get distracted. Learn to read books instead of relying on media for all of our mental stimulation. We need to learn to have conversations about something other then parties, clothes, celebrities, movies, and music. We need to learn about why things work the way they do in politics and legislation. We need to learn to discern between fanatics and radicals. We need to get over what we think is cool and not cool and care about what is good and right. We need to try to speak with conviction at the risk of being wrong or having our beliefs exposes as false.  And, like, you know, a whole bunch of other stuff, right?

Categories: Culture, Post-Modern | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

What kind of Christian am I?

Here is something for change. I am being introspective. jesus

As I read, study, and do life with other Christians in Mexico of all places I wonder what Christian category I actually fit into in all of my beliefs. I have been a part of YWAM for the last 8 years. Crazy! I’ve been a part of the CSBS for the past 7 years. So what that means is I have been a bit of a bible nerd for all that time. Over the past 4 years I have begun to really broaden my reading and writing habits. I mean broaden, in that I have been reading more then the bible. But that is perhaps the first observation about myself. Reading the bible so much and studying it in context did something to my brain. I think perhaps seeing the bible as one story, a story that fits into real history, a story that covered centuries of history and exposed me to new kinds of literature and authors. Essentially it was a new education, using an entire library of information presented in poetic form as well as prose. For me this study sparked an interested in adding to that sacred library more and more material. I have taken a strong liking to the kind of extra biblical material that challenges and enriches my understanding of the sacred library. Books about ecology, psychology, history, sociology, worldviews, science, and an ever broadening list of subjects. Of course the list of reading material includes a ton of theology stuff. I still don’t have a large appetite for theological debates. But as I have engaged in new theologies, and old theology I have began to wonder about this question: “What am I”?

I read about Reformed tradition, Anglican, conservative evangelical, charismatic, Catholic, emergent, orthodox, neo-orthodox and on and on. Ive read and engaged with a lot of church history and history of Christian thought and still I’m wondering where someone might fit me. I feel this way in part because I serve in YWAM, an Inter-denominational organization. We have people from all traditions and non-traditions in our tribe of Jesus followers.

I come from the Baptist Tradition. GARBC to be exact. My Father, my grandfather, and my three uncles are pastors with GARBC churches in the state of Michigan. I suppose you could say I have carried my share of disillusionment with the church. But over the past 8 years things have shifted. I have sought to find a clearer head in regards to what my thoughts are about church and about the kingdom of God. I now have a stronger love for the local church then I ever have. She has her problems and people will always line up to point them out. To me this is one of the observations I have been seeing. You know it is the church because people are watching to see inconsistencies with beliefs and actions. The most common accusation of Christians may be that we are hypocritical. I think it is important for the church to recognize its inconsistencies and respond to the critics with candor and sincerity to change.

My own disillusionment with the church lead me to explore some of the “Emergent” authors; McLaren, Bell, Campolo, Rollins, McManus. I have enjoyed to some degree a lot of what these guys do and say. I have not disagreed with them on each and every point. But in the end I’m not what we are calling “Emergent”. I don’t know… I think its just not cool to stay disillusioned forever. Some of the Emergent guys are doing quite well because its sexy to be disillusioned, confused, “broken”, and uncertain. It is not cool to know something for sure, its not cool to be healthy or to want to be healthy, and doctrine/theology/history is not cool at all. Its all just power play and dogmatism. So while a agree with some of the tough criticism that “emergent” writers bring on the established church I don’t in the end wind up an emergent. I’m not emergent in the same way that I would not consider myself a modern, pure materialist, humanist, secularist, blah blah blah. I am of course a person who lives in what many consider a post-christian, post-modern world and I am effected by much of the thinking, and the style of the rest of my generation. But I suspect that In order not to be cast off as a super old school, pre-historic conservative I need to find the right brand for myself. Maybe someone can help give me some insight as to what I am.

My title suggest that I might just fit right in with the Emergent crew. Because I seem to be unsure about what I am. But I’m not really unsure about what a believe. Check out my blog. I have lots of opinions and I am under no illusion that my beliefs are wrong. I believe most of them to be correct. In all humility I hope to correct the existing mistakes. But they are either correct, or they are mistakes. The only in between for me is that I do believe things aught to be looked at from different perspectives. This is actually post-modern more then it is a modern or pre-modern way of thinking. However, it is also an ancient Hebrew way of thinking. So I would not say that this acknowledgement of the need to asses truth from different perspectives is post-modern pollution of Christianity. Its like, why did God provide two accounts of the history of Kings in Judah with Kings and Chronicles? Why are there two accounts of creation? What we end up with is further enrichment of revealed truths. We are not talking about opposing contradictory messages. What we have are two complementary views about reality. Jeremiah paints a portrait of a failing monarchy and a decaying community headed for hard times. Ezra takes the same original model and paints a complementary portrait identifying the particular features that would help the community at a much later date to put things back together. The fact that this is happening in the bible affirms the validity and benefit from seeing things at different angles for a clearer grasp of the truth.

So aside from needing to get new perspectives I feel that I am either bringing truth or stumbling through error. Feel free to read, agree, or disagree. For now Ive have enough self evaluation. Just to wrap up. I love the church. It has issues here and there, but I love the church. Whatever your creed or tribe I love to see the gathering of folks seeking Jesus ans seeking to bring him out into the world initiating a transformation that he completes. God Bless.

Categories: Authority, Bible, Church, Context, CSBS, Culture, Doctrine, Faith, History, Modern, Modernism, Orthodox, Poetry, Post-Modern | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Plato, Epicurus, and the New Testament

What is the importance of Philosophy for the Average Bible Student?

Ancient Greek Philosophy of Plato, Epicurus, the Stoics and rhetoric of Cicero have massive implications for the world of the first century church, the writings of Paul and the rest of the apostles and in particular the Gospel of John.

Greek Philosophy that started maybe even before Judah went into exile to Babylon had been developing and built upon until the time of Christ and his disciples.
images
We know well that today the western world has been massively influenced by greek philosophy. Early church leaders such as Philo and Origen were massively influenced by Plato. Some with later Bishop of Hippo Augustine and the 6th century philosopher Boethius who’s work along with Augustus and early church leaders was influential throughout the Middle Ages in Europe until further greek learning continued with the enlightenment and renaissance period.
The explosion of philosophy that was built most heavily upon Greek and Roman learning. Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus among the many to be rediscovered by so many. It was in the 15-16th centuries that western history turned back to the ‘wisdom’ of the Greeks. Perhaps the reason it was so popular was that very nature of Plato and Epicurus’ dualism. Under Platonism the soul or spirit world was always superior. Epicurus set out to disprove the stoics on their eschatology. He foresaw nothing after death as opposed to world destroyed by fire and born anew like the phoenix. Death was nothing to him as expressed in his famous line, Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo (I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care).

His view of anthropological dualism was to exalt the physical over the human soul. Giving credence to philosophy and ethics of characterized by an absence of divine principle. The Epicureans believed in the existence of the gods, but believed that the gods were made of atoms just like everything else. It was thought that the gods were too far away from the earth to have any interest in what man was doing; so it did not do any good to pray or to sacrifice to them. The gods, they believed, did not create the universe, nor did they inflict punishment or bestow blessings on anyone, but they were supremely happy; this was the goal to strive for during one’s own human life.
Epicurus
Epicurean belief is now characterized in the “enlightened” philosophies of modern deism/atheism or humanism. The Platonic belief are now characterized in a large portion of evangelical christianity. The answer is not a stoic attitude of balance. Nor do either of these positions get it right then or now. It is important to realize the nature of these dualisms of man, dualisms or cosmology in order to rightly grasp the NT’s gospel. It is the philosophy of modern evangelicalism and modern humanism that our western students are likely most influenced by in their thinking.

Essentially the essence of Plato and Epicurus lingers on heavily in Christian thinking and throughout any culture that might call itself modern. It has crept along not only through the western world by through the principles of materialism. It has crept up from its Platonic origins into full fledged gnosticism that threatened to permanently distort Christian orthodoxy. Gnosticism was snuffed out and rears its head but Platonic dualism of man and cosmology subtly continues on in christian theology. It was Plato who taught us that the soul or spirit is superior to the body or mind. It was Plato who taught us that the physical world is only a dismal shadow the bright heavenly afterlife. And we believed Epicurus’ eschatology about the destruction of the world by fire. It helps to be able to distinguish Plato and Epicurus from Paul and John. To accept the hebrew view of cosmology, anthropology, and eschatology as something touched, breathed, and created by a personal infinite God who redeemed and recreates things visible and invisible.

At risk of over simplification Plato and Epicurus and their philosophies were prevalent in the time of the original audiences of the books of the New Testament. Their dichotomy of man and cosmos and elevation of either spiritual or material realities does damage to the way we live out our lives in this world. The teachings of Epicurus are prevalent in modern philosophy of materialism and humanism. Plato’s influence is equally prevalent in and around the world of Christian worldview, particular areas of eschatology, anthropology, and cosmology.

If we are aware of these things the gospel would seek to break down then we can find a way to live today without these dualistic views of ourself, of all of reality, and of the future.

Christian Philosophy begins with a good God creating a good world. The good dichotomy is that God is God and creation is creation. But both are good and one is not merely spiritual and the other material. The material is good, it is touched, breathed, or spoken into existence by a good God. Christian philosophy ends with recreation. After man has fallen, though he to was made good, in Gods image, his sin has effected all of nature. The incarnation, inauguration, resurrection, and ascension of Christ reflects his ongoing work of recreation. His new covenant is a new creation the mirrors the first one. Its important then to see that the bible gives answers for the most profound philosophical questions of origin, ultimate meaning, reality, morality, and destiny. Things started somewhere and are going somewhere. And in between we are somewhere and not nowhere. Man made in Gods image has a job. He gets to make, and nurture life. This meaning or purpose given in the beginning is again picked up on in the new covenant. Go and make disciples of all nations. Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all of creation.

 

 

Categories: Anthropology, Bible, Context, Cosmology, Culture, Enlightenment, Eschatology, Ethics, Genesis, History, Modern, Modernism, New Testament, Old Testament, Origins, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Renaissance, Society/Culture, sociology, Spiritual, Supernatural, Theology, Worldview | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Existential Dualism: A Crash Course

plato_cmAs soon as we humans feel like we know something, it becomes known. It is not unknown. It is removed from the unknown category and placed in the known category. Unless we are talking about God or other deity. One, because most don’t believe “they” or “it” really exist and two, if we are willing to believe it may exist, it is still something unknowable. It is not something we can really place in the known category. It is mystical. Just as in science, what is unknown remains somewhat of a mystery, until it is known.

All this to say its is fascinating how we as humans, separate things into the categories of known and unknown, or known and mysterious. Or natural and supernatural. Material and metaphysical. For Christians there is what is sacred and what is secular.

What is perhaps even more fascinating is that people have not always thought in this way. In the west it seems we learned it and inherited it from our ancient Greek and Roman ancestors. But then for hundreds of years the use of Greek philosophers like Plato were only study by a few. Until we reach the “Enlightenment” and we owe a great deal of our modern thinking to that era.

It was the existential philosophers Kierkegaard, Sartre, Jaspers, and Heidegger who continue to expound on the destructive nature of dualistic thinking. They went further then simply placing the spirit world above and the physical world below. They determined that logic, and reason belonged below, and non-logical, non-rational above. And if you wanted to find meaning in life you needed to have a non-rational existential experience. Something that would be explainable in human terms. Something no man would ask you about if they had too achieved such an experience. I simple nod of the head would mean that both were initiates and have had their 98937experience in the beyond that gave their life meaning. However if you were so committed to only using rational logical thinking, you would then be forced to live your life without any real meaning. All of this came primarily by the way of the Danish Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard. He is the father of modern existentialism for both the secular and the religious thought.

Thus for Christians effected by dualistic existential thinking. We have placed ourselves unknowingly in the above category for that is were faith resides. Void of reason and logic we are constantly at war with everything else below the line, we do not speak the same language of those below and they do not speak our language.

For the beginning of the modern era, man was very optimistic about his logic and reason. Men could proudly call themselves logicians and rationalists. Until perhaps we reach the two world wars, beginning in 1914-1918 and again in 1939-1945 and then a shift began to take place ever moving us toward the post-modern negative perspective on human logic and reason.

It is actually accurate to say that before the enlightenment Christians engaged regularly with logic and reason as well as faith. In fact scholasticism of the middle ages was full of faith in reason. The nature of Christian faith in human reason was perhaps better founded then that of Kierkegaard because from the beginning Christians new of both natures of the human mind, 1) that it was made in the image of God and therefore had limited potential, and 2) that man had fallen and human logic and reason on its own was not to be trusted. Out of this dual understanding of human potential for reason came forth a system for keeping rationality and human discovery in check. The sciences were developed out of this skepticism and optimism of human potential for future human reason and discovery.

But back to the enlightenment and Kierkegaard, Christianity suffered a strong blow, and they did not hit back. Instead Christianity accepted its place in the above category. Logic and Reason in the sciences and and just about every other field of study and inquiry became something regarded as secular. If you wanted to be a good Christian then you stayed out of that stuff and engaged in theology.

Meanwhile, for all of those people who are now in the below category have either become very sad, or very desperate. Not everyone will just give up, though many do. Some however will attempt about anything to find meaning in their tasks. This leads many to take the “leap of faith“. Since they are convinced that to find meaning their can not be logic or reason involved man will take the leap. He will believe in Love against all doubt that love is real. Or he will go to church, and say the prayer, even though he feels like a fool. Or he will begin using strong drugs as many have done specifically in order to reach the needed experience that will finally give life meaning. There is a great many things that man, though he is not optimistic about his own reason any more, will seek an experience.

The tragedy is of course that man might actually be able to know something that gives his life meaning. Many no doubt may read this and say, “No! I don’t think that way, there are many things that give my life meaning.”  And to that I would say, “wonderful, I believe you.” See I am not convinced Kierkegaard was right, nor Plato. I believe that there are things that both that man may experience as well as know something that is real and give meaning to their life.

Love for family, and friends for instance is something, and it is not nothing.

God is something and not nothing.

I am something and not nothing.

I am convinced because there is something we can know about love, people, self, God and there is a real way in which experiencing all of these things gives meaning and purpose. I do not need to take a leap of faith. My Faith, I believe, is rooted in logic, reason, and experience.

Though many today will say that there is no meaning to life their experience reveals that there is meaning to life. Just as if some may say there is no such thing as Love, an experience changes that. Again, part of the tragedy is that when real man has an experience even with drugs he is experiencing something and not nothing. One experience with love proves with reason that love exists and provides some level of meaning in the universe. That is why I say that faith and reason are not separated, they share an important relationship for the fullness of the human experience.

 

* Something and not Nothing. This is something Francis Schaeffer says a lot in his book, “The God who is There”

Categories: Culture, Enlightenment, Faith, History, Medieval Period, Modern, Modernism, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Science, Society/Culture, Supernatural, Theology, Worldview | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Pluaralism & Sexual Orientations: A Moral Roller Coaster Ride

bildeThe past week we have been on a post-modern moral roller coaster ride.

World Vision recently embraced new policies that honor same sex relationships within their organization only to reverse their decision days later for the sake of the poor across the globe. My wife and I are regular supporters of the organization and we are happy to learn that the donations will continue coming in for all the good work WV is doing across the globe.

I wish to weigh in on this in such a way that may provoke thought and discussion over the nature of human morality. Obviously in our pluralist culture we may wish to say that we should treat people well no matter what their sexual orientation is. That is culturally, the correct answer. To answer otherwise would make for ones self, many new enemies.

On the other hand are the religiously devout immoral in their imposing religious agendas on others in this pluralist era?

In consideration of the whole World Vision drama people are asking, what is more immoral?

Is it it more immoral to be a homosexual?

or

Is it more immoral to consider homosexuality immoral?

And if we want to be good pluralists, we are forced to say that both are in fact immoral but it would be immoral to pass judgement on the immoral. But my question was which is more immoral. I did not say that those who consider homosexuality to be immoral are to also be passing on judgement. But maybe there is a such thing as using your good judgement to make the case that homosexuality is actually immoral.

People speak of the love of Christ as if it were the only element of the character of Christ Christians were to imitate. Jesus speaks often of this kind of moral judgement. That is not something that we seek because we are left to ourselves in this world to determine our own version of morality. But our judgement is to determine what is right and what is wrong. Many things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.

Maybe then we can say with the Apostle Paul to the present issues of our day, “many things are permissible culturally, or naturally, but not all things are beneficial.” This line comes in reference to consistent biblical concept from Genesis that man in all of his humany-humanity is prone to choices that are not beneficial for his life, his health, the health of others, the future world of the next humanity. Are we to accept our present sickness and not look for a restoration and a completeness. This line from the apostle Paul is part of the answer to these moral challenges.

Is wrong wrong because it offends ‘the conservative right wing” or is it wrong wrong because it is actually not beneficial for the world of tomorrow’s?

The church is learning to accept what is beneficial from post-modern culture. Modern Evangelicals would never give in to the pressure to accept what is being accepted in today’s culture. But post-moderns are learning to be okay with people making choices for themselves even if the church feels they are wrong choices. But that is exactly the point. The church (that can actually call itself the church) will not give in to pressure that says, “these choices people are making are right because they love each other and they love God”. It will still be a wrong non beneficial choice.

So for me, I’m okay with my friends and family making their own choice in their sexual orientation. I will not shun you. I will not quote scripture at you. But I will believe, and if asked, I will say, “the choice your making is not going to be a beneficial one. In other words it wont be healthy. Granite you may find some happiness, you may have companionship, but you will miss the benefits of the life God intended for you to have had you made the tough choice that is right.” That opinion I will not force on you but if you have to ask, that is my belief. Truth be told, I’d rather not have to say any of that. I would like to display what I think would be the most Christ-like thing, that would be to spend more quality time, and share a deeper friendship with you. I love you.

The problem with most Christian theology on the issue is that people would prefer to make their standards clear in order to not be mistaken by other evangelicals as an advocate for homosexuality. So I make a point here not to engage heavily in all the bible verses one might wish to throw at this issue. I’m not interested in that in the least.

I’d rather be a friend, and go have a drink with the ones who’s choices are non-beneficial. The problem with theology on the topic is not that it is wrong. It is that it is theology. Theology does not help people wrestling with choices, passions, temptation, and Love. It helps to have someone who is not pretending to love them from afar. It helps to have a person to share that drink with, and to share their love with, and to speak of passions and temptations and choices.

So I challenge me, and I challenge you, do not love from afar, and don’t love with your theology. I appreciate good theology. But in almost every relevant case, theology is at its finest when it is acted upon. When people are treated as whole people or at least people that might one day be whole.

 

*** I will be monitoring comments for this post. Appropriate comments will be allowed. By rules of general fairness towards humans on both sides of the argument.

Categories: Bible, Church, Culture, Ethics, Mission, Modern, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Society/Culture, Theology, Worldview | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Evangelicals: Are we merely speaking to ourselves?

wpid-wp-1395868938417.jpgFrancis Schaeffer explains in the first chapter of his first book, that there has been titanic shifts from the old medieval era into the modern age. Philosophers were the first and are typically always the first to speak of this shift and to accept it. Then it can be traced into art, music, and then the general culture. Then the sub-culture holding off the longest against the tides of modernism are the theologians. Though those to have had their day and the shift has made its way into theology.

As we consider this shift we also may be considering the shift into the Post-Modern era. This shift has begun and taken affect in the sub-cultures of Philosophy, Art, and Music, as well in the general culture. We can also see its effect in theology as the church begins to ’emerge’ from its modern, and/or pre-modern nature.

The-God-Who-Is-There(1)Schaeffer’s point in the first chapter of his first book, is that if we do not understand this shift in the culture, academia, art, and theology then when we speak we may only be speaking to ourselves. We are like the ostrich who buries his head in the sand thinking he has hid himself from the danger and is soon devoured by the lion. We have shrunk deeper into our own circular thinking, safe inside the bubble of our own theology. This is Darrow Miller description of the evangelical community following the enlightenment, and the emergence of Darwinian Science and secular humanism in western culture. While evangelicals might assume they are above the line of despair they are fooled. Their optimism for theological worldview is wounded by its inability to engage in what has been deemed secular culture, secular philosophy, secular arts. Theology itself has fallen below the line of despair, it is as Ranald Macaulay says, a one-legged Christianity.

These assessments of Christian faith and its inability to relate to culture is because we have made our faith something private, not appropriate for public life. We are in large part responsible for this style of wounded Christianity.

Another analogy for modern evangelicalism is, the museum. Instead of being an active soldier who defends and goes on offensive to fight for the aims of the superior the evangelical community is like a private museum. Evangelicals have lost ground to this modern tide because of their inability to defend the gospel at the forefront of the spheres of life as well as their failure to think and act as an educated person, understanding and at war with the tide.

We need to get better. We simply need to begin fixing what we have screwed up. I want to conclude this post by recommending a few Christian figures I believe have been getting this right. I think that the next step is outward, into unfamiliar fields of study and discussion. Philosophy, Science, Sociology, History, Art, Music, and the general culture.

My suggestions for doing this are to start with literature and biblical worldview. Educate yourself. Address false dichotomies of sacred and secular.

Use these authors, read their books, find their audio and video lectures online.

C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, N.T. Wright, John H Walton, Rodney Stark, Vishal Mangalwadi, Darrow Miller, Francis Schaeffer. Study Philosophy and its history, study the history of science, study history.

 

 

 

 

Categories: Authority, Church, Culture, Enlightenment, Faith, History, Medieval Period, Modern, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Science, Society/Culture, sociology, Worldview | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Christian Faith and World Class Science | The BioLogos Forum

scientists“The argument that belief in God interferes with doing good science is wrongheaded in so many ways.

For starters, there is the historical argument. Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, and Compton were all religious believers and giants in the history of science. Their faith hardly prevented them from doing great science but, more than that, their faith in God actually contributed to original ways of thinking that spurred their scientific creativity.” –Karl Giberson

A personal favorite online team of bridge builder between Science and God. BioLogos is repairing a bridge that was knocked down (so to speak) by Enlightenment figures, and modern atheists.  The rest of the article related to World Class Christian Scientists by the BioLogos author Karl Giberson is below.

Christian Faith and World Class Science | The BioLogos Forum.

Categories: Bible, Church, Cosmology, Culture, Enlightenment, Genesis, History, Medieval Period, Modern, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Renaissance, Science, Society/Culture, Theology, Worldview | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is History?

WHAT IS HISTORY?

  1. Shaped by human choice, but influence by God towards a final goal
  2. Events reflect evolutionary or naturalistic process
  3. Heaven’s mandate manifested in a harmonious society
  4. Shaped by God who expects absolute submission to His will
  5. Humans, possessing divinity, make history in an evolving world
  6. Shaped by heroic persons with power
  7. Human choice shapes history
  8. On-going struggle with the spirit world
  9. Endless cycle of birth, suffering, and death
  10. We all have our stories, but there is no larger master story
  11. History is about the meaning of events [1]

The answer may reflect; Confucianism, Islam, Buddhism, New Age, Hinduism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Post-Modernism, Animism, Existentialism, or Judeo-Christianity. The most common worldview frameworks worldwide.

So what is your view of what history is? Francois Marie Arouet ( Voltaire )

According to the great Enlightenment figure, Voltaire, “History, is the lie that everyone agrees on”. This is ironic, and probably not true. But this was his view. He of course is famous for his own works of historiography, along with his counterpart Edward Gibbon and their slander of the church. They are responsible for a number of Myths in regard to history. Just as they are responsible for some very decent history. Good history is informative as to what events took place, and maybe why.

Ancient historiography is about how deity shaped the human and cosmological events of the past.

Modern historiography is typically about how human choices and natural processes shaped the events of the past.

But the question remains, what if any is the level of Gods involvement in the process?

[1] 2013 Bob Osburn (based upon an earlier survey by David Montoya)

Categories: Enlightenment, History, Modern, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Renaissance | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Authority: Re-Defining the Word

anti-authority-dystopia1Now Authority, that is a scary word in our post-modern era.

Our generation asks “who is it that thinks they get to have authority over someone else?”

Very few do not feel the urge to ask the question: who is forcing their view or their truth? Who is doing this, and what gives them the right to use their position as power over others? And certainly these are good question to be asking. Though perhaps they arise out of a priory commitment to pluralistic thought, and relative truth, as many normal post-moderns would. Maybe, perhaps they are right in asking such questions. And maybe, the implied answer is in fact that many are asserting their power over others wrongly indeed. Maybe.

Of course those who’s heads are most commonly found on the chopping block of a “post-christian” west, are well                                …the Christians. Maybe, this is because Christians in times past and present have wrongly asserted their claims to ultimate truth. And maybe, their claims, though potentially true do not warrant such strong assertions as have been made.

That said, what remains to be defined, and re-defined is the Christians meaning of the word, authority. Long before Christians the word existed. And just like in our time, the very man who could not find any reason to sanction the execution of our Lord, gasped at Jesus’ own claim to being the embodiment of truth. A claim that in our own time is merely a power play. An attempt to hold ultimate authority over others, who’s personal claims,  are irrelevant to that ultimate ‘ugly’ truth that we claim to hold. What ignorance! Yet in the story of Pilot and Christ. Pilot, though not seeing any reason to execute, found himself, in all his power, powerless to do anything else. “What is Truth” he says. If he had the authority why could he not do what he wished, and set Jesus free. Pilot doubted the whole idea of the power of truth when he was powerless to act on what he knew was the truth.

So what is Christs own definition of authority? Perhaps Christians, when they have in history “wrongly asserted” themselves on the basis of their claims of ultimate truth have done so outside of what the “True” Christ centered definition of what “authority” really means. Maybe that is what they have done. Maybe they were wrong.

Lets take a look then at Christs own attempt to re-define for his closest followers what authority really aught to look like.

Here is my paraphrase of  LUKE 22:24-30

24 The disciples were arguing about which one had the most authority (Peter was likely winning the argument). 25 Jesus interrupts, “You guys are thinking like Gentiles. Its not going to be like their authority where the person with authority tells everyone else what to do and gets all the benefits.” 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, whoever wants authority will be a servant.  27 Typically, the one being served has the authority but I am showing you a different way. As one who has all authority given to me by God, I Serve. 28 You know because you have stood by me in this. 29 I’m giving you the same job my father sent me to do  30 so that in the end you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, and their you will have great benefits.

Clearly something was lost somewhere along the line. Was it his disciples who distorted that message on authority. That would be a problem if they did for their messages to the churches are inspired “Holy Writ” another claim of absolute authority. Though again, before we judge its claims to ultimate truth lets observe its content and the definition of its words.

Peter for instance. A man hungry for power during the life of Jesus. A man rebuked for his desires to see Jesus take office. Lets look at his message to the scattered 1st Century audience.

1 Peter 2:21 Peter gives a message to the all scattered Christians across the empire. In summary in chapter two and three are multiple reminders to ‘submit’ or to ‘serve’ authorities, in the midst of pagans to simply live such good lives that pagans would not be forced by would desire God. This lifestyle was a was of serving the pagan’s in order to see them come to faith. In conclusion he writes,  “…Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

Chapter 5 he addresses the leader. The one in the church with the most “authority”. What was Peter’s reminder for how to be a good leader over people. First there is the word for the leader and he is called overseer. Peter also refers to them like the prophets of the OT, that the overseer is a shepherd. Not just ‘telling the sheep what to do’.  But carrying for them. Serving them. Assisting them to come closer to God. Not insisting that they “obey those in charge” but pointing them to Jesus as the authority. The one who showed his authority by submission and service to all of humanity.

What about the other apostles? All who were present with Christ maintained the same definition of authority. Even Paul who had not been with Christ and was a major persecutor of the church in early days. In Philemon instead of telling those under his authority what to do. He points them to the example of Christ. He appeals on the bases of Love. That for Philemon to do the right thing he must not do so out of compulsion but love and a desire to serve the one who legally was required to serve him.

We could go on and on. But something changed. The definition faded as the church faced new challenges. When persecution was removed and honor and privileged was given how did the church respond? (more) How did Christs definition wane?  What period could be marked by the recovery of a right definition of authority? We already claim to have it, as we claim ultimate truth in Christ. Maybe, this is the time. Maybe amid this post-christian west we could rediscover the true and intended nature of Christian authority.

Practical Thought.
I am 26 now. As I grow in my own ‘authority’ I am excited. I used to be afraid to think about that word and use it, and especially for myself. But as I am recovering its real meaning as a Christ follower,  I’m excited. I know that when people look to me as an authority it will remind me of Christs words. “If you want to exercise authority you need to serve people” and not just in a general sense. I am to serve their relationship with God. Help point them to Christ. Remove obstacles that keep them from walking with God, and make my own sacrifices so they can keep growing.

Authority when Christ is the ultimate = Responsibility

As an authority I am responsible for others. My job is to care for people more then myself. This is why we can still look up to leaders. They are responsible for others.

Conclusion for Post-moderns and Christians:

1. Postmodern man wishes to remove the word and the idea of authority. But maybe we should as good post-moderns be asking, what gives them the right to do this? By what authority would you wish to remove authority? And what will you do once its been removed?

2. Christians, recognize the social climate we live in. People are asking good questions. Do we respond by asking those who ask such questions to be quiet and fall in line? We must take this as a great opportunity and responsibility to give a good answer. Authority can be questioned and ought always to be defined in the way Christ defined it. That is our model.

The Christian answer to postmodern questions and criticisms is two fold: that words of have power, so we ought to be sure we have the right definition. And the right definition of words demands action.

Words, Ideas, and Actions alike lose their power in a postmodern world. It is ultimately all speculation, and all relative, if our feet give way to this undertow, we will altogether lose our right to speak at all. The most integral of committed post-modern thinkers have given up speaking, thinking, and doing all together.

Categories: Authority, Bible, Church, History, Modern, New Testament, Orthodox, Philosophy, Post-Modern, Society/Culture, Spiritual, Theology, Uncategorized, Worldview | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.