Postmodernism (Part 4)
[Editor otetheditor's note: If the tenets of postmodernism were true, and everyone's interpretation of a text (like the Bible) is equal, then DOCTRINE DOESN'T MATTER! But other principles also follow. Beware, a little sarcasm lies ahead.]
Consider, as an example, Carroll Osburn's oft-quoted statement from his "scholarly" book, The Peaceable Kingdom. He advocates that there be "room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on…soteriological matters such as whether baptism is for or because of the remission of sins" (emph. GWS). The thoughtful reader might possibly recall that this very item has been hotly debated for more than 150 years; how can Osburn treat it as a matter of indifference?
He may have applied the theory of deconstructionism: "All interpretations are equally valid." Baptists and others read Acts 2:38 and conclude that people are baptized because of the remission of sins. Members of the churches of Christ (probably a bunch of unloving sectarians) examine the text and conclude that penitent believers should be baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins. Why fight over it and waste valuable time when we could be reaching out to sinners? Why not be humble enough to admit that no one has a corner on Truth (if it exists in the first place) and that each interpretation possesses merit? After all, no one would be presumptuous enough to say, "I am right; you are wrong." It just isn't done.
Some "out-of-the-loop" schnook will no doubt point out that the two interpretations are not compatible. Furthermore, this "out-of-touch" soul will point out that if the Baptists are right, those in the churches of Christ are refusing to fellowship their brethren, which they have no right to do. If the Baptists are wrong, they are not saved and shall be lost eternally. Some earthbound mortals who think words have precise meanings (they probably even use such archaic tools as dictionaries) "just don't get it." The beauty of Postmodernism is that CONTRADICTION DOESN'T MATTER! Whoever said that ideas had to be logical or consistent? Those are old notions gleaned from John Locke and the Enlightenment (some assert).
Those antiquated paradigms never did work. Look what happens every time men try to arrive at a knowledge of the Truth—nothing but division results. Monroe Hawley makes statements which certainly seem to reflect the postmodern position.
It is apparent that when one determines loyalty to Christ on the basis of select doctrinal tenets, he begins to develop the party spirit.
One starting point, as we seek to determine the borders of the kingdom, must be Jesus Christ rather than fidelity to correct doctrine.
So long as unity requires conformity to correct belief in select areas, our effort to achieve oneness will be severely impaired.
What a contrast to Paul's admonition to the Corinthian brethren to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). The Scriptures are not vague or ambiguous about the value of Truth (Pro. 23:23). What some postmodern preachers fail to realize is that the ultimate result of their adopted hermeneutic is that in the final analysis NOTHING MATTERS! As it is with atheism, so it is with postmodernism: "Everything is permitted."
Not only are doctrinal issues of equal value—so are moral precepts. Some brethren do not take a Biblical position on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:3-9); they say that a marriage and divorce preceding baptism is not binding. Those divorced and remarried for any reason will be all right—if they are just baptized. Faithful brethren say that Matthew 19 applies to the Christian and non-Christian alike. What shall we do? Well, we certainly should not allow doctrine to divide us, some say. Even though one position allows those living in adultery to continue to do so, we ought to be able to fellowship one another. After all, if we expect conformity in select areas like these, it will destroy our oneness. Furthermore, brethren can now hold completely contradictory positions: With a postmodern perspective, issues are not resolved; they are just ignored.
Try telling someone, "But the Bible doesn't teach that homosexuality is acceptable to God." Imagine the response, "It does to me." No wonder books have been written with titles such as The Lord Is My Shepherd, and He Knows I'm Gay! The same paradigm that rids us of that pesky nuisance known as "correct doctrine" also eliminates "correct behavior" and "correct morality." Ted Bundy's idea of fun is just as valid as Betty Friedan's.
CONCLUSION
The Bible denounces all of these erroneous positions, as does just a modicum of common sense. Let the architect building the first Postmodern Museum throw away his calculator and apply any mathematical opinion he perceives (why should he be bothered by those old mathematical formulas?). Let the first postmodern astronaut ascend into the stratosphere in a rocket built by like-minded technicians. Let a deconstructionist pharmacist fill the postmodern professor's prescription with an equally valid assortment of ingredients. No one in his right mind would live by such postmodern tenets.
God revealed to us Truth in the spiritual realm because, since it has eternal consequences, it is even more important than architecture, space vehicles, and the correct combination of drugs. Furthermore, He revealed Biblical doctrine in such a way that we can understand it (John 8:31-32). The question is, "Do we have a love of the Truth?" (2 Thess. 2:10), or would we prefer to suppress the Truth to practice unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18)?
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
The original manuscript ended above, but some additional thoughts have come to mind since the above chapter was written more than two decades ago. People have always done what they felt like doing—regardless of what God or society has said, but this is one of the few times men have invented an intellectual approach to attempt to justify their sinful desires.
We don't know much about those who lived before the Flood; they do not sound like an intellectual group so much as a "Might Makes Right" outfit. Moses described the earth in those days as being filled with violence (Gen. 6:11). However, after the Flood, things were a little different. They began to seek an explanation for rebelling against God.
In Noah's day, he and his family certainly knew God and the power He had displayed. Eventually, however (apparently it did not take long), his descendants chose not to glorify Him as God (Rom. 1:21). In an extraordinary display of obtuseness, they refused to be thankful to Him for the cleansed earth upon which He gave them to live. They became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened (v. 21). How can that possibly be? They knew of the Creation, and they knew of the Flood as well. They knew these were not myths, but certifiable facts. Noah lived 300 years after the Flood; they could have easily checked with him.
Yet they did not care what the facts were. It did not match the narrative that they preferred to believe. So, they quit glorifying Him for Who He is—a benevolent Being who wants the best for those whom He created. Was it His laws they despised? Did they think they should be allowed to do whatever they wanted? Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth had one wife each. Monogamy had been restored. Did they desire the polygamy that existed before the Flood, instituted by Lamech?
Perhaps they did not like living up to the standards of a holy God. If people love God and follow His ways, society benefits. If individuals love their neighbors as themselves, would there be any need for prisons? Is it too boring to have a Utopian culture? How wise it would be to live according to the precepts of God! But their foolish hearts preferred the dark ways of intrigue to the light of righteousness.
What kind of futile thoughts clouded their good sense? Did they imagine how much better life would be if they had someone else's wealth? Did they think life would be vastly improved if they had an additional wife—or a neighbor's wife? Did they think that exercising power over others would raise their self-esteem?
These thoughts were (and still are) futile. However, now they sought to justify themselves. Prior to the Flood, we have no record of anyone trying to explain his wickedness, but now we do. "Professing themselves, to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:22). There it is! Mankind is going to establish some kind of rationale so it can practice evil with a good conscience. Those living after the Flood had that problem. However far away man had traveled from God before the Deluge, now they had been brought back down to earth. God exists, and He is all-powerful. The truly wise result of that fact would be to say, "The only logical thing to do is to submit to Him."
But they thought of a ploy to get around that which is actually un-get-around-able. Basically, they decided, "We will still worship God, but we will make Him in our image" (v. 23). So, they changed His nature—from invisible to visible. And they chose as representations of Him men, birds, beasts, and creeping things. Of course, this is foolishness, but they made it sound intellectual. Somehow, they made it sound like the cleverest explanation of their origin.
Evolutionists do the same today. So much of the theory has been debunked, and an honest look at it will show it to be mathematically impossible, but none of those things matter. It's a different, alternative explanation from the truth. The logic behind it does not have to be rock solid (in fact, it can't be). The point is that it is a different option. And if the majority of people conclude that it is valid, then it soon rivals the truth.
In our age, it is "scientific" wisdom to believe evolution; in the period after the Flood, the intelligentsia believed God, the Almighty Creator of the universe looked like a bird, a man, a beast, or some sort of creeping thing. How would anyone possibly be able to concoct such a farfetched mechanism that could seriously rival the truth? Evolutionists have had trouble getting their story straight, also.
The way it works, however, is not that complicated. If serious attempts were being made to legitimize idolatry, it would indeed be difficult. But the fact is that a ready-made audience was eager to believe any alternative explanation for the existence of the universe, no matter how foolish it sounded. Why? Because they wanted to practice immorality, which a holy God would not authorize. Therefore, mankind needed an "unholy" god, a corrupt god, with passions like their own, who would approve their immoral acts.
God therefore gave them up to "uncleanness," to fulfill "the lusts of their hearts" (Rom. 1:24). To practice moral corruption was their highest goal—whether fornication, adultery, or homosexuality (Rom. 1:24-28). People will believe either spiritual or moral error because they do not have a "love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10). Why do people believe lies? Because they have "pleasure in unrighteousness" (v. 12). Postmodernism is just one more "intellectual" explanation to justify immorality. Like its predecessors, it too fails.