What a great discussion that we had for Kenneth Millers book: Finding Darwins God. The book The Truth War is intended to be a piggy-back off that discussion in what I feel is a broad issue of looking at the world through a post-modern lens. What I'd like to do is to use this book as a springboard for a discussion that encompasses more than just our spiritual lives but, also, our interactions as a general society. This book does a good job at detailing the effects of a post-modern view on the church but what I'd like to see us do is answer this question: What effects do the post-modern view have on our society and what are the ramifications of these effects.
Here are a few of my thoughts from Chapters 1 and 2
Basically, if you viewed the world through a lens with a post-modern view essentially you'd be saying that there is no absolute truth as every truth is changed from individual to individual; What is true for me may not be truth for you. What I find interesting about the post-modern (PM) view is how you answer the question: Is anything truly wrong. With this viewpoint, one could justify just about anything in the name of their moral code. I see a stark difference between those who view the world through the PM lens vs. using the bible as their standard. Many of those who do not profess to be christian, use the bible as the "measuring stick" of truth. Why? I believe that we have a innate desire for truth that is immovable and unwavering. Theoretically speaking, if everyone had a PM view, the world would be in total chaos as everyone would be "justified" in their actions. Everyone would feel that they were right.
John MacAuthur gives several scriptures to justify his view of using the bible as the standard. Which I will not go into detail here but, one thought that I found interesting was Orthodoxy Vs. Orthopraxy. Orthodoxy (right thinking and opinion of the bible) and Orthopraxy (right practice of the bible) are, many times, separated in our churches. We've seen the Emergent Church focus more on the Orthopraxy and shy away from the Orthodoxy. Why?.... Just like society, it makes our churches feel better to fill a need in the world than to share the truth that comes from scripture. This is why we see churches stepping up efforts to help with things like world hunger, AIDS, inner-city health care, Habitat for Humanity, etc. but not spending time teaching sound doctrine. But if these churches would live out scripture, they'd see that they have to do both. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of poor folks in the inner-city with heath care but without salvation. What's the point in that?
Anyway... just a couple of random thoughts..... what are yours?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Truth War: Chapters 1 and 2
What a great discussion that we had for Kenneth Millers book: Finding Darwins God. The book The Truth War is intended to be a piggy-back off that discussion in what I feel is a broad issue of looking at the world through a post-modern lens. What I'd like to do is to use this book as a springboard for a discussion that encompasses more than just our spiritual lives but, also, our interactions as a general society. This book does a good job at detailing the effects of a post-modern view on the church but what I'd like to see us do is answer this question: What effects do the post-modern view have on our society and what are the ramifications of these effects.
Here are a few of my thoughts from Chapters 1 and 2
Basically, if you viewed the world through a lens with a post-modern view essentially you'd be saying that there is no absolute truth as every truth is changed from individual to individual; What is true for me may not be truth for you. What I find interesting about the post-modern (PM) view is how you answer the question: Is anything truly wrong. With this viewpoint, one could justify just about anything in the name of their moral code. I see a stark difference between those who view the world through the PM lens vs. using the bible as their standard. Many of those who do not profess to be christian, use the bible as the "measuring stick" of truth. Why? I believe that we have a innate desire for truth that is immovable and unwavering. Theoretically speaking, if everyone had a PM view, the world would be in total chaos as everyone would be "justified" in their actions. Everyone would feel that they were right.
John MacAuthur gives several scriptures to justify his view of using the bible as the standard. Which I will not go into detail here but, one thought that I found interesting was Orthodoxy Vs. Orthopraxy. Orthodoxy (right thinking and opinion of the bible) and Orthopraxy (right practice of the bible) are, many times, separated in our churches. We've seen the Emergent Church focus more on the Orthopraxy and shy away from the Orthodoxy. Why?.... Just like society, it makes our churches feel better to fill a need in the world than to share the truth that comes from scripture. This is why we see churches stepping up efforts to help with things like world hunger, AIDS, inner-city health care, Habitat for Humanity, etc. but not spending time teaching sound doctrine. But if these churches would live out scripture, they'd see that they have to do both. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of poor folks in the inner-city with heath care but without salvation. What's the point in that?
Anyway... just a couple of random thoughts..... what are yours?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So far, I've finished the first few chapters of the book and figured I could contribute a little to this discussion. Right off the bat, I need to admit that I don't have a really concrete understanding of 'postmodernism', nor do I have a great knowledge of some of the authors (Brian McLaren & Rob Bell) that MacArthur is directly critiquing in the book. However, I have read a couple of their books (Secret Message of Jesus by McLaren, and Velvet Elvis by Bell) so I'll try to comment based on MacArthur and my limited knowledge of some of the ideas/authors that he is critiquing.
Starting off it seemed to me that MacArthur is almost creating a caricature of the PM view of the world and/or the thinking of McLaren and Bell (and others like them). He says that a PM worldview necessitates a 'rejection of truth' and thus an 'anything goes' mentality. This seems a little bit disingenuous though since it seems a little shallow. My general understanding is that PM thinking revolves not around a rejection of truth but an acknowledgement that we’re pretty limited in our ability to understand it objectively, particularly when it comes to things in the supernatural realm. I think the result of this sort of thinking is a critical (perhaps cynical) analysis of perceived truth, or tradition. I'm not entirely sure this has universally negative consequences for the person of faith either, I would argue that it has the potential to lead a person to have a much deeper understanding of their faith but it may also lead to a rejection of faith. While some may read moral relativism into this, I'm not entirely convinced that it necessarily leads to such a conclusion but rather a reassessment of what true morality is. If MacArthur's definition is in fact more accurate than mine, it just seems like a bizarre way of thinking that any thoughtful person ought to reject out of hand.
I am particularly interested in the discussion of Orthodoxy vs. Orthopraxy as well. I think that it reflects the main theme of the book of James which always intrigues me. In a nutshell James says that while our relationship with God is the result of faith (orthodoxy), faith without works (orthopraxy) is dead. In other words, our faith is recognized and shared with others by our works. Here is where my limited exposure to McLaren and Bell may be misleading to me, but based on what I see these two authors doing; advocating for the poor and sick, showing love, patience, and kindness to those that they disagree with, and opposing war or the use of violence to achieve political ends, I would interpret their 'fruit' to suggest they actually are within the realm of 'right thinking'. In Chapter 3, MacArthur himself makes the point that the evidence of 'right thinking' can be seen through the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control). MacArthur hasn't pointed out anything yet to me that would suggest these guys are out of line in their thinking. Additionally, these authors do seem to be taking Jesus at face value when he suggests that love of god is shown by the way one treats the 'least of these'(Matt. 25:31-46).
I also think that the extent that the Bible is critical of an overemphasis on orthopraxy is when discussing individuals such as the Pharisees who spent so much time and energy enforcing religious law that they missed the whole point of the law which was God's grace. This doesn't seem to be the problem with Bell and McLaren.
Up to the point I'm at in the book (through chapter 3) it's still somewhat unclear what exactly the 'truth' is that MacArthur feels is under attack by these other authors. I can see that he disagrees with them about some of the statements they have made about the degree to which one must understand scripture in a literal sense, or even his interpretation of certain scriptures, but he hasn't clearly stated what it is they should be saying or why it is they should be saying it.
Post a Comment