Postmodernism (Part 3)
The Bible and Postmodernism
The application of the postmodern view to Christianity is that it insists we cannot know the Truth. Deconstructionists surpass the skepticism expressed by Pilate ("What is truth?"); they insist there is no Truth (which, apparently, is the only truism). Furthermore, there can be no correct interpretation, since we all bring our own experiences to the text. They "assume that all interpretations are equally valid."
If Postmodernism were true:
1. Absolutism ("Thou shalt not steal") is false, and Relativism (it may be all right to steal under certain conditions, depending on if the situation demands it or the way a culture views it at any one particular time) is true.
2. Truth (any kind of truth) does not exist.
3. Words have no objective value; they only have meaning as each individual assigns his or her own personal, subjective definitions to them.
The Bible denies all of the tenets of Postmodernism. The very expression, keep my commandments (John 14:15), is an absolute statement which is founded upon the idea that we can understand the words that comprise the commandments (which also constitute the Truth—"Thy word is truth"—John 17:17). Anyone familiar with the Scriptures knows that the presumption of Truth's existence is its underlying philosophy; therefore, Postmodernism must be considered not only as an assault upon society in general, but an attack on the Scriptures in particular.
The following passages will illustrate the Biblical philosophy of communication (which opposes the obfuscating assertions of deconstructionism).
1. In Matthew 8, a centurion asks Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus agrees and is about to go to his house (which would have provoked the ire of the Jews, since he was a Gentile) when the man tells Him that he understands authority (being in the military) and that if He would only speak the word, it would be sufficient to heal his servant (Mat. 8:5-9). Jesus' response is interesting.
Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mat. 8:10b-12).
Notice that the centurion is a man from a culture entirely different from the Jews, but he understood authority and somehow (presumably by bursting through those alleged culture barriers that prevent objective definitions to words) he was able to discern who Jesus was. Furthermore, Jesus teaches that other Gentiles will be in the kingdom while many of the Jews (who were in the best position by virtue of their culture and longstanding relationship with God) would be excluded.
2. A further and greater demonstration that even people from various cultures can understand words alike involves the reception of the gospel itself. On the day of Pentecost there were present:
"Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians…" (Acts 2:9-11a).
Yet when Peter proclaimed that Jesus rose from the dead, that the apostles were all witnesses of His resurrection, and that Jesus had been made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:32, 36), "they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37).
Notice they did not say, "Some of us because of our cultural differences do not understand what you are driving at, Peter." Neither did they insist that bringing their own subjective experiences to the verbal text was causing them great confusion. When Peter told them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), those who "gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41). Obedience did not so much depend upon Peter's choice of words, but the state of the listeners' hearts.
Later, when Paul went to the Gentiles in various parts of the world, they were likewise able to comprehend God's scheme of redemption. In some cities both Jews and Gentiles obeyed the gospel and were therefore brethren in the same church. Furthermore, Paul commanded that all brethren, regardless of their backgrounds and their personal experiences (which they brought with them in hearing the Word of God) "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).
Postmodernism relies too much upon personal experience and assumes too much ambiguity in language; it is excessively subjective. The fact is that all can understand plain language: Even someone as culturally diverse as a eunuch from Ethiopia could hear the Gospel preached and respond with, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:36).
3. The Bible teaches that language can be ambiguous.
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given…. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing hear not, neither do they understand (Mat. 13:10-11, 13).
Jesus knew that, even though His enemies literally heard some of His teachings, they would not understand their meaning. He deliberately spoke in such a manner (parables, for example) at times for the express purpose of confusing some. The problem with the postmodernist is that he apparently cannot distinguish between plain and ambiguous speech.
Deconstructionism's Self-destruction
The absurdity of this new "theory" of interpretation was aptly illustrated by D. A. Carson in a conversation with a proponent of Postmodernism. After a three-hour evening lecture in which he insisted that "true knowledge is possible," a doctoral student challenged his views. All attempts to convince her failed.
Finally, in a moment of sheer intellectual perversity on my part, I joyfully exclaimed, "Ah, now I think I see what you are saying. You are using delicious irony to affirm objective truth." The lady was not amused. "That is exactly what I am not saying," she protested with some heat, and she laid out her position again…. I believe she also accused me of twisting what she was saying. I told her I thought it was marvelous that she should add emotion to her irony…. Not surprisingly, she exploded in real anger, and accused me of a lot of unmentionable things.
When she finally cooled down, I said, rather quietly, "But this is how I am reading you." "You are a deconstructionist," I told her, "but you expect me to interpret your words aright."
Carson also comments: "I have never read a deconstructionist who would be pleased if a reviewer misinterpreted his or her work…." It is ironic that the very medium that deconstructionists lament as being inadequate [namely, words] and so easily misunderstandable is the one they must use to communicate their ideas. And they expect to be understood correctly! (Apparently their words are precise and never lend themselves to ambiguity.)
Postmodernism and the Church
Sooner or later, just about every worldly philosophy enters into the realm of religion and then into the Lord's church. About a decade ago certain voices were calling for a "new hermeneutic"; apparently direct statement, approved example, and implication had become insufficient. What was being advocated in their place was unclear. Dave Miller made the following assessment of it in the September/October issue of The Restorer, 1990:
Those at the forefront of the discussion within the churches of Christ are extremely vague when it comes to identifying precisely the "new hermeneutic" (6).
There is a reason for the lack of clarity on the part of "new hermeneutikers." With Postmodernism as their guiding star, it does not matter to them what charts are used for navigation, whether or not the sails are hoisted, or whether the blasted rudder even works; the important thing is that the ship is in the water. In other words, their delight is in telling or hearing some new thing (Acts 17:21). For this reason, they are "always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7).
The fact is that the ones we generally call liberals do not want to be bound by any authority whatsoever. Not only are they disinterested in Truth, they "feel" that it does not exist or, if it does, we cannot comprehend it. The author of this chapter receives an e-mail or two a week taking him to task for being unloving, sectarian, or some other original epithet. Invariably, he includes as part of his response some Scriptures emphasizing the importance of Truth; invariably, this tactic quashes any further response. Apparently, Truth and objectivity stifle their creativity and hamper their communicative processes.
The upshot of this postmodern attitude is to "assume that all interpretations are equally valid," which makes Truth unnecessary—yea, even undesirable. It can only get in the way of the spiritual version of the "I'm O.K.; You're O.K." pop psychology game, in which no one is really held accountable for anything.
If all interpretations carry equal weight (or nearly so), then the postmodern religious truth is: DOCTRINE DOESN'T MATTER! Ketcherside and Garrett may have been ahead of their time, but in the past fifteen years Shelly, Hawley, and others (who frequent the Christian Scholars Conference) have also chimed in (thus producing harmonious discord) (to be concluded next week).
[Editor's Note: For younger brethren, Ketcherside and Garrett tried to establish a basis for broad fellowship by saying that Christians must be united on the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ), but that, so far as New Testament doctrine was concerned, everyone could believe what they wanted to. Others followed suit, culminating with false teachers like Max Lucado fellowshipping practically anything imaginable.]