Thursday, May 10, 2007

Am I the only one that sees this?

I'm getting tired of defending this position. Maybe I'm nutty! I don't want to be the poster-boy, nor do I want to swing my personal pendulum too far one way as a reaction to the other...

The standard position is well-represented on the internet. I found this (typical) quote from a website that is apparently no longer with us:

The most prevalent and destructive heresy plaguing the visible Church today is the notion that “all truth is God’s truth.” This false belief, which is the philosophical kin of postmodern relativism and pluralism, has spawned a new way of Christian thinking that embraces world-proven “wisdom” as a source in which to direct the Church’s teaching and activities. Whether it is through the Purpose-Driven Church, Emergent Church or other current evangelical movements, the focus is to utilize these supplementary “truths” to create newfound success in evangelism and discipleship.

...and...


It is our belief, therefore, that professing Christians must “unplug” themselves from these postmodern influences of relativism, pluralism and ecumenism, and return to the biblical model of faith. We advocate a return to spiritual discernment that only comes by God's grace through a thorough interaction with the Truth of God's Word. We must study, reflect upon, and understand the theology it represents and the doctrines it teaches; and we should ground this noble pursuit on the confession that God, through His divine power, “has granted to us EVERYTHING pertaining to LIFE and GODLINESS, through the true knowledge” of Christ" (2 Peter 1:3).

Okay, so what am I actually talking about, eh?...

There are other things in the quoted text that I could pick on, but for the moment I want to camp out on the implicit notion that Postmodernity is the cause of moral relativism. I know I keep harping on this issue in other posts. I know you may be tired of me saying it. I know there's some truth to such statements. But it's beginning to drive me crazy.

Let me (once again) state the issue as clearly as I can.

Relativism is the belief that truth is "relative" to certain variables, not "absolute". More specifically, moral relativism claims that beliefs about morals or ethics are merely personal - no moral code is absolutely true in all circumstances.

As should be obvious to any Christian, moral relativism is bad. Very bad. I'm not here to defend it. What I'm here to do is demonstrate (again) that we cannot blame Postmodernity for relativism. It's not fair or accurate, and it leads down some dangerous paths. First, the paths...

Those that hold this view (that relativism comes from Postmodernity) tend not to leave such a view in a vacuum. They tend to go from this view to statements like the text I quoted in the beginning. Things like 'spiritual discernment only comes when you dump Postmodernity'. Which is tantamount to saying that one cannot be both Postmodern and a mature Christian. Which is tantamount to saying that all Christians should be Modern (and not Postmodern). In other words, this view (that relativism comes from Postmodernity) has consequences. It basically erects a straw-man by which to prop up the (relative) virtues of Modernity.

Let's say you don't like something about Postmodernity. It doesn't matter what aspect or nuance; just pretend that you want to discredit Postmodernity and prop up Modernity for some reason. It's easy. It goes like this.

Postmodernity created Relativism.
Relativism is evil.
Therefore Postmoderntiy is evil.


Or you could use this one:

Postmodernity believes truth is relative.
Chrisitans believe truth is absolute.
Therefore one cannot be a Postmodern Christian.


Both are straw man arguments, because they are predicated on a half-truth. As I've argued before, relativism was birthed by Modernity. The Enlightenment, for example, led scads of people to categorize moral/religious stuff as "non-scientific" and therefore purely subjective. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the jump to moral relativism was a short one. Soon we had the now time-honoured and decidedly Modern dichotomy between Faith and Reason. "Reason"able stuff could be "proven" and must therefore be accepted as absolute truth - gravity pulls stuff to the ground, for example. "Faith" issues could not be "proven" and thus one's moral code increasingly became the subject of personal opinion, not absolute truth.

Modernity created Relativism.

Don't read too much into that. I understand that Postmodernity has taken Relativism to places Modernity never thought it would go. Postmodernity has run with the ball that Modernity brought to the game, as it were.

This is not the time nor the place to discuss the failings of Postmodernity with regard to Relativism. I'm against Relativism; I'm in favour of God's standards. Don't label me a Relativist based upon this article.

But the straw man has got to go. Unless you're willing to change the syllogisms above to look like this:

Modernity created Relativism.
Relativism is evil.
Therefore Moderntiy is evil.


Or:

Modernity believes truth is relative.
Chrisitans believe truth is absolute.
Therefore one cannot be a Modern Christian.


Now we can't have that, can we?

Hatushili

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems that clearer definitions are going to be needed if any communication is going to be had between the groups. No one is comfortable with, or to be honest capable of pinning down an all encompassing definition for post-modernity. I don’t think it needs to have a definitive definition, but then again I wouldn’t, I’m not modern.

I think of postmodernism and images of community, experiential worship, creativity, and such come to mind (not however, at the exclusion of Biblical truth, preaching, etc.)
Clearly the individual who wrote the excerpt shown in your post thinks of postmodernism and thinks of relativism and immaturity at the expense of Biblical truth, preaching, etc.

Do you think clearer fuller definitions would help or are these judgmental quotes simply stemming out of negative personal experiences, a lack of open mindedness, or by only reading poor one-sided information? What do you think? Do we need better definitions or not?

Anonymous said...

Also, in a completely unrelated topic:

1. Is that “Till We Have Faces” in your book list?

2. It was great to finally meet the infamous Dan, at your graduation party. (Dan) Since I know your reading this and I now officially know you, hello!

Hatushili said...

I'll answer the easy question first: yes, that's Till We Have Faces on the reading list. Actually, I finished it a couple of days ago. I've not updated my reading lists just yet...

My take on your harder question: I think definitions are sometimes overrated. All I'm asking for is that people a) stop using this too-comfortable straw man argument, and b) get comfortable with the idea that Postmodernity cannot be tightly fit into most preconceived notions.

If Christians of the Modern persuasion would stop assuming that all Postmoderns fundamentally reject all absolute truth we'd all be a few steps ahead of where we find ourselves right now. With this (false) paradigm so common right now, people are basically saying there's no such thing as a Postmodern Christian.

But that's just my take. Does anybody else think tighter definitions would help?

Hatushili