POST-MORDERNISM: WHERE I STAND

But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him [out].

Hebrews 11:6 (Amplified Bible)

But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (Amplified Bible)

This week, I was scheduled to tackle the creation of man from a biblical perspective as I informed my audience. But I have had to shelve that post for next week. Over the weekend my attention was drawn to an article I received in my mail from www.gotquestions.org and I instantly knew I’d love to share it with my audience. This is chiefly because it is in synergy with our previous week’s discussion albeit from a not-so simplistic perspective. I was, therefore, very much tempted to literally dilute the content of the material I received to make it more suitable for both my particular audience and my argument. Eventually I found it more prudent to put the whole treatise up here for the avoidance of the loss of any crucial parts central to the theme.

At a glance, the – rather long – article highlights the dangers of postmodernism (absolutely NO fears). But essentially it drives home the absoluteness of the fact that…he who comes to Him must believe that HE EXISTS and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. (Heb 11:6)

Question: "What are the dangers of postmodernism?"

Answer: Simply put, postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms no objective or absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality. When confronted with a truth claim regarding the reality of God and religious practice, Postmodernism’s viewpoint is exemplified in the statement “that may be true for you, but not for me.” While such a response may be completely appropriate when discussing favorite foods or preferences toward art, such a mindset is dangerous when it is applied to reality because it confuses matters of taste and opinion with truth.

The term “Postmodernism” literally means “after Modernism” and is used to philosophically describe the current era which came after the age of Modernism. Postmodernism is a reaction (or perhaps more appropriately, a disillusioned response) to Modernism’s failed promise of using human reason alone to better mankind and make the world a better place. Because one of Modernism’s beliefs was that absolutes did indeed exist, Postmodernism seeks to “correct” things by first eliminating absolute truth and making everything (including the empirical sciences and religion) relative to an individual’s beliefs and desires.

The dangers of Postmodernism can be viewed as a downward spiral that begin with the rejection of absolute truth, which then leads to a loss of distinctions in matters of religion and faith, and finally culminates in a philosophy of religious pluralism that says no faith or religion is objectively true and therefore no one can claim his or her religion is true and another is false.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #1 – Relative Truth

Postmodernism’s stance of relative truth is the outworking of many generations of philosophical thought. From Augustine to the Reformation, the intellectual aspects of Western civilization and the concept of truth were dominated by theologians. But, beginning with the Renaissance periods of the 14th – 17th centuries, thinkers began to elevate humankind to the center of reality. If one were to look at human periods of history like a family tree, the Renaissance would be Modernism’s grandmother and the Enlightenment would be its mother. Renee Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” personified the beginning of this era. God was not the center of truth any longer – man now was.

The Enlightenment was in a way the complete imposition of the scientific model of rationality upon all aspects of truth and claimed that only scientific data could be objectively understood, defined, and defended. Truth as it pertained to religion was left out and discarded. The philosopher who straddled this epoch’s and Modernism’s contribution to relative truth was the Prussian Immanuel Kant and his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which appeared in 1781. Among other things, Kant argued that true knowledge about God was impossible so he created a divide of knowledge between “facts” and “faith.” According to Kant, “Facts have nothing to do with religion.” The end result was that spiritual matters were assigned to be matters of the heart and just opinion, and only the empirical sciences were allowed to speak of truth. And while Modernism believed in absolutes at least in the area of science, God’s special revelation (the Bible) was evicted from the realm of truth and certainty.

From Modernism came Postmodernism and, whereas Kant marked the philosophical transition from the Enlightenment to Modernism, Frederick Nietzsche may symbolize the shift from Modernism to Postmodernism. As the patron saint of postmodernist philosophy, Nietzsche held to “perspectivism,” which says that all knowledge (including science) is a matter of perspective and interpretation. Many other philosophers have built upon Nietzsche’s work (e.g. Foucault, Rorty, and Lyotard) and have shared his rejection of God and religion in general. They also rejected any hint of absolute truth, or as Lyotard put it, a rejection of a metanarrative (a truth that transcends all peoples and cultures).

This philosophical march through history against objective truth has resulted in Postmodernism having a complete aversion to any claim to absolutes, with such a mindset naturally painting a huge bull’s-eye on something that declares to be inerrant truth, such as the Bible.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #2 – Loss of Discernment

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas said, “It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions.” What Aquinas meant is that truth is dependent upon the ability to discern – the capability to distinguish “this” from “that” in the realm of knowledge. However, if objective and absolute truth does not exist, then everything becomes a matter of personal interpretation. To the postmodern individual, the author of a book does not possess the correct interpretation of their work; it is the reader who actually determines what the book really means – a process called deconstruction. And given that there are multiple readers (vs. one author), there are naturally multiple interpretations, with the end result being no universally valid interpretation.

Such a chaotic situation makes it impossible to make meaningful or lasting distinctions between interpretations because there is no standard or benchmark that can be used. This especially applies to matters of faith and religion because the philosophers of the Enlightenment and Modernism had already deposed religion to the compartment of opinion. Such being the case, it naturally follows that attempting to make proper and meaningful distinctions in the area of religion (ones that dare suggest that one belief is right and another invalid) carries no more weight than one person arguing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. In such situations, it becomes impossible to objectively adjudicate between competing truth claims.

Dangers of Postmodernism - #3 – Pluralism

If absolute truth does not exist, and if there is no way to make meaningful, right/wrong distinctions between different faiths and religions, then the natural conclusion is that all beliefs must be given equal weight and considered valid. The proper term for this practical outworking in Postmodernism is “philosophical pluralism.” With pluralism, no religion has the right to pronounce itself right or true and the other competing faiths false, or even relatively inferior. For those who espouse a philosophical religious pluralism, there is no longer any heresy, except perhaps the view that there are heresies. D. A. Carson underscores conservative evangelical’s concerns about what they see as the dangerous element of pluralism when he says, “In my most somber moods I sometimes wonder if the ugly face of what I refer to as philosophical pluralism is the most dangerous threat to the gospel since the rise of the Gnostic heresy in the second century.”

These progressive dangers of Postmodernism – relative truth, a loss of discernment, and philosophical pluralism – represent real and imposing threats to Christianity because they collectively relegate God’s Word to something that has no real authority over mankind and no ability to show itself as true in a world of competing religious voices. What is Christianity’s response to these challenges?

Response to the Dangers of Postmodernism

It should first be stated that Christianity claims to be absolutely true, claims that meaningful distinctions in matters of right/wrong (as well as spiritual truth and falsehood) exist, and claims to be correct in its claims about God with any contrary claims from competing religions being incorrect. Such a stance provokes cries of “arrogance” and “intolerance” from Postmodernism. However, truth is not a matter of attitude or preference, and when closely examined, the foundations and philosophies of Postmodernism quickly crumble and reveal Christianity’s claims to be both plausible and compelling.

First, Christianity claims that absolute truth exists. In fact, Jesus specifically says that He was sent and born to do one thing: “to testify to the truth” (John 18:37). Postmodernism says that no truth should be affirmed, yet its position is one that is self-defeating – it affirms at least one absolute truth: that no truth should be affirmed. This means that Postmodernism does believe in absolute truth, and such a fact is exemplified by its philosophers who write books stating things they expect their readers to embrace and believe as truth. Putting it simply, one professor has said, “When someone says there is no such thing as truth, they are asking you not to believe them. So don’t.”

Second, Christianity claims that meaningful distinctions exist between the Christian faith and all other beliefs. However, it should be understood that those claiming that meaningful distinctions do not exist between religions are actually making a distinction. They are attempting to showcase a difference in what they believe to be true and the Christian’s truth claims. Postmodernist authors expect their readers to come to the right conclusions about what they have written and will correct those who interpret their work differently than they have intended. Again, their position and philosophy proves itself to be self-defeating because they eagerly make distinctions between what they believe to be correct and what they see as being false.

Finally, Christianity claims to be universally true in what it says regarding man’s lostness before God, the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of fallen mankind, and the separation between God and anyone who chooses not to accept what God says about sin and the need for repentance. When Paul addressed the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on Mars Hill, he said, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). Paul’s declaration was not a “this is true for me, but may not be true for you” statement, but rather an exclusive and universal command (i.e. a metanarrative) from God to everyone. Any postmodernist who says this is false is committing an error against his own pluralistic philosophy that says no faith or religion is incorrect because, once again, he violates his own mandate of saying every religion is equally true.

In the same way that it is not arrogant for a math teacher to insist that 2+2=4 or for a locksmith to insist that only one key will fit a locked door, it is not arrogant for the Christian to stand against Postmodernist thinking and insist that Christianity is true and anything opposed to it is false. Absolute truth does exist, consequences do exist for being wrong, and while pluralism may be desirable in matters of food preferences, it is not so in matters of truth. The Christian is to present God’s truth in love and simply ask any postmodernist who is angered by the exclusive claims of Christianity, “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

Credits: www.GotQuestions.org

THE QUEST FOR UNDERSTANDING 2.

What would You rather Believe?

“Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ Or shall your handiwork say, ‘He has no hands’?
For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.
(Isa 45:9 & 19) NKJV

It is pretty rational and straightforward to be of the impression that the worlds came to be as a result of some cosmic chaos (or conspiracy) and that humans evolved over time from one kind of animal or the other. Of course, that’s acceptable because it is logically easy to follow. However to understand how it really happened from the biblical beginning it takes something other than plain logic, and that is belief. A belief that there is an Eternal Self-sufficient God who exists and transcends anything that is, was and shall ever be made. A God who was present before the atom of anything came to be; who cannot be limited by time, space nor any conceivable thing that can be confined or contained. Now this would absolutely qualify such a Being, even in the logical sense, to be present at the time when any kind of cosmic machination could have taken place.

So whom would you rather believe? There is that branch of science that explores the universe; the scientist (researcher) who through a kaleidoscope (myriad) of theories, - themselves the suppositions of other mortals like yourself who sought to understand the universe by studying nature (which is constantly changing) – make inferences and conjectures as to how everything could have began; and what it consequently plicates for humankind. Then there is the Eternal God, who through the Spirit who proceeds from Himself moves upon holy men inspiring them to pen down for the sake of all mankind the very beseechings of the heart of God that have come to be known as holy scriptures.

This may not be the appropriate platform nor the time to delve into the subject of the codes and the dynamics of translations that the scriptures have undergone. We will just stick to the basics, being the fact that the scriptures (aka Bible) is the express infallible Word of God. In them we oftentimes find a graphic recollection of events as they happened. Then again we find in several places where God (the Hebrew God) makes a personal statement by Himself, his prophets, angels and other chosen vessels He exclusively reserve the right to use. Space would not allow us to talk of the commandments, precepts, laws and institutions of the Old Testament; and of the life, teachings and works of Jesus the Christ in the New Covenant (Testament) including the writings of His chosen apostles who were the forerunners of His Body the Church. – too much information, perhaps!

Now I pray my audience not to get me wrong! I have come to love and respect scientists (researchers, archaeologists, astronauts etc inclusive) and highly regard their works. Fact is, technology is the reason why I’m able to reach you on the other side of the diaspora at the click of an icon. Then I count on the power of electricity like nobody’s business! And all these are the works of my learned fellows. Again there are various branches of the sciences, so how can my ignorant self bunch them all up together and discredit them? In fact I’m too delighted to hear and read of discoveries and inventions and by all means urge scientists to continue with their commendable work. However my joy is often rested in the fact that inventions and discoveries inform me and indeed the rest of the world of the awesomeness and meticulousness of the God who is the progenitor of the whole creation. Isn’t He awesome!

So you see it is a matter of plain logic against belief! Any of which changes the face of the argument such that it waters down the potency of the other. The former is steeped in the absolute possibility of everything according to a traceable tenure of events and therefore quite believes in nothing. The latter however is solely dependent on the absolute existence of a Divine Being who is responsible for the life and predetermined order of the whole creation and therefore can be trusted for an accurate and true expression of the span of events. Belief therefore clearly rules out the possibility of just anything happening out of the blue; hence everything must have been foreknown and predestined.

Finally, logic is a head thing; the heart can be totally excluded. Belief however is hidden in the activity of the heart which should eventually engage the head. No wonder the scripture says … with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. So if you don’t comprehend it yet, no cause for alarm: only believe! Someday your head will come around, literally! Well so choose you this day whom you will believe! When you’re done, come let’s strike gold in the next chapter!

THE QUEST FOR UNDERSTANDING 1.

All the Questions Asked

I, the Preacher was King over Israel in Jerusalem. And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this grievous task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised.
(Eccl. 1 vs. 12 & 13) NKJV

The other day I sat pensive in the couch, helplessly engrossed in a programme airing on one of the world renowned Christian television networks. It was about this young lady, a computer science student in one of the universities in Nigeria, who happens to be a midget. She tearfully recounts how all through her life, because of her size and her demeanor, the rest of society pick up on her and oftentimes neglect her. Many verbally abuse her and openly declare their disgust for her kind – even a few more are scared to death just at the thought of being anywhere near the region of her presence.

The stigmatization continues to the university. Here, however, things look up as she meets this kindhearted fellow student who befriends her and virtually commits her life to being her caregiver. This friend performs chores including washing her clothes, preparing her meals and carrying her to and from campus on her back – yeah, like a mother would her baby!

Caught in the narrative I was so moved that my eyes begun to fill with tears. I was particularly touched on two grounds: the courage of the midget (boldened for emphasis rather than to spite the character concerned) who manages to push herself up the academic ladder to pursue tertiary education in the face of the apathy of the rest of society; and also the amazing demonstration of grace and selflessness of her care-giving friend – such enchanting display of love seldom seen!

The above episode really got me thinking. Simple yet serious questions flew to me while I pondered the experience afterwards. Is this midget any less human than the rest of us? Does her size and perhaps her defects make her any less qualified to be alive? Does she really have a spirit and soul just like every other human in spite the limitations her body presents? What wrong did she do appearing this side of the earth in the package she finds herself in? Does she have the potential to attain to an accomplished life like everybody else? Can she make it all the way up?

So what about Equal Opportunities? Is there really Hope for all of us? Is Life fair? What at all is the meaning of this Life? What are we here for? Does it really matter what package we come in? I’m sure you’d love to have answers to these and other like-questions that hit at us every now and again; and so does even Solomon the wisest mortal to have ever lived besides Jesus the Christ! He says so himself in our opening scripture. Well, who best can tell how he fashioned the product than the manufacturer himself. If he made it, you bet he knows what he designed it for and no better person to tell of its capabilities.

I would not be wrong then, should I turn to the Book of Life, the Bible to learn of the manufacturer the why, how, and what He moulded into the fabric of humankind. Would you then join me, in the coming weeks, as we together explore the scriptures to unearth timeless keys that can aid our understanding of the current predicament of mankind? Let’s meet again!

COMING BACK WITH A BANG!!

Warmest Greetings, fellow bloggers and my cherished audience.

It's been such a long time since any activity here on this blog - June 20 2008 was the last time...wow!!! My apologies to all!

Well this blog is coming alive all over again...GRRRRREAT NEWS, aint it? Yeah, we are coming back with fresh articles and other literary works to feed our souls and bring a refreshing...one that only the Lord can give. We have lots of things to share...many of which shall be experiences of my own over the period of inactivity here on the blog. So why not meet us here in the coming weeks...frequenting this blog and dropping your comments whenever you can.

May the Lord God truly bring a refreshing from His throne filled with words of life and hope for our walk in this world.

Keep the Flame Alive!