Religious
Postmodern Talking Points
By Rick Shrader
In the last few years we have
been inundated with information from within political circles that has been
crafted by certain individuals but is intended to be heard by the general
public. Sometimes this is a “trial balloon” of information, floated in public
conversation to evaluate its effect. Often it is a specific piece of
information which is intended to feed the public only as much as the operatives
want it to know. As time goes by, these “talking points” become generally
accepted information and begin to shape the way people think. Our postmodern
culture is adept at the verbal symbolism even over factual substance.
As believers, we are part of
this postmodern culture but we utilize our own unique vocabulary in constructing
our own verbal symbolisms. As time goes by, these “Religious” talking points
become as accepted as gospel within religious circles. Within a few minutes one
can list dozens of phrases and wordings that began for some individual’s unique
purpose but have now become household terminology. I cut my list down to a
dozen and categorized them into three groups.
Contemporary Talking Points
“I’m sorry if
I offended you.”
We hear this every day from Christians and non-Christians alike. Janet Jackson
used this phrase as her excuse for her indecent performance at the Super Bowl
halftime. What has become obvious about those using this line is that they are
making no admission that what they did was wrong. Rather than taking blame and
apologizing, they are actually placing the blame on the offended ones. “If they
weren’t so morally weak, shallow people, they wouldn’t have been offended. Who
are they to judge me, anyway.”
Ronald Nash described similar
people by writing, “Such people seldom try to argue that there is nothing wrong
with cheating or stealing or lying. Such people attempt rather to find some way
of showing that what they did doesn't violate the principle or at least is a
justifiable exception to the moral standard.”1
This has become a mantra for believers who are intent on doing what they want
but wish to characterize those who object as weak brethren.
“If you have
a problem with it, you shouldn’t do it.”
This is Christian relativism. I have heard this used more than once as an
answer to those who have changed their mind about a questionable practice and
have left it. When some musicians have left the CCM movement due to its
worldliness and have gone back to a more conservative approach to church music,
this has become the response of their critics. I think this is akin to
Hollywood’s rating system where what is wrong for one age group is not wrong for
another. Romans 14:22-23 concerns truly neutral issues such as which meat to
eat or whether to work on Saturday. Paul has more direct language for
culturally moral issues (e.g. Rom 12:1-2).
Wendy Shalit, in a speech at
Hillsdale College said, ”When I talk to college students, invariably one will
say, 'Well, if you want to be modest, be modest. If you want to be promiscuous,
be promiscuous. We all have a choice, and that's the wonderful thing about this
society.' But the culture, I tell them, can't be neutral. Nor is it subtle in
its influence on behavior.”2
"You can only
help those in sin if you have been there yourself.”
Of course, this would eliminate
Jesus as being the “Counselor.” The truth is, when a person falls into a sin,
he/she has stopped learning anything about the sin at that point. From then on
he/she is only a captive of it. The person who knows the most about how to help
is the person who has resisted to a deeper level and has successfully overcome
the temptation. The real danger in this thought is that it encourages
Christians to sin so that they may be good counselors.
In reading Oswald Chambers’
devotional book this last year I read, “The saint who satisfies the heart of
Jesus will make other saints strong and mature for God. The people who do us
good are never those who sympathize with us, they always hinder, because
sympathy enervates. No one understands a saint but the saint who is nearest to
the Saviour.”3
“Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; but a man of understanding will
draw it out” (Prov 20:5).
“We have to
reach people on their own level.”
Besides this being rather
insulting to a thinking lost person, what does it say about the power of the
Holy Spirit? Where exactly is it that we ought to depart from living or
thinking one way (in which we are convinced biblically we should live or think)
in order to reach the sinner? Do we know more than the Scripture? Are we more
useful to the Holy Spirit now that we have changed into this “relevant”
Christian? This cannot be more effective in evangelism. Paul’s prayer for
Philemon was “That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the
acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus” (Phile 6).
The cults, not Christians, use stealth tactics.
In 1 Corinthians 9:22, Paul’s
determination to be “all things to all men that I might by all means save some,”
is the conclusion to his explanation not to take wages from the churches but
rather to work with his own hands. This is a willful humbling of oneself in
order to be effective with people, not a willful violating of conscience or
biblical principle.
Francis Schaeffer was sometimes
perceived to accommodate the culture. But in describing the downfall of the
Church he wrote, “It is my firm belief that when we stand before Jesus Christ,
we will find that it has been the weakness and accommodation of the evangelical
group on the issues of the day that has been largely responsible for the loss of
the Christian ethos which has taken place in the area of culture in our own
country over the last forty to sixty years.”4
Philosophic Talking Points
“We must
continue to change if we are to stay relevant.”
This philosophy proposes that we
can live in a constant state of change to be relevant to a culture that is
constantly changing. But this is like trying to say that there is no such thing
as absolute truth. The great postmodern dilemma is to try to make a definite
statement about the belief that nothing can be definite. This religious
postmodern talking point is also caught on the horns of an opposite dilemma.
How can we adopt a state of constant change in order to convince people that
there is a definite set of Christian beliefs?
When we need to make a statement
in support of change, however, we become much like C.S. Lewis’ observation,
“When changes in the human mind produce a sufficient disrelish of the old Model
and a sufficient hankering for some new one, phenomena to support that new one
will obediently turn up. I do not at all mean that these new phenomena are
illusory. Nature has all sorts of phenomena in stock and can suit many
different tastes.”5
“We cannot
force our values on anyone.”
Why not? We do it all the time beginning with our children and
going right through the university. Now if we mean that we cannot force a mind
to believe what it has determined not to believe, this may be true. But we do
not hear it in that fashion. What is usually meant is that we cannot put
someone in a forced situation and have them learn or become convinced of
anything (Of course, not everyone who needs to be forced, needs to be convinced,
as in traffic laws, but the human nature does not want to learn many things
which it needs to learn). The amount of force used in learning depends on the
ability of the learner and the urgency of the truth to be learned. Teaching
children not to play in fire requires different force than teaching adults to
like okra. When it comes to moral truths, if they exist at all, by their nature
they force themselves on us all. Exam day will not accept personal excuses.
“Culture is
morally neutral.”
In trying to find a way to use all of the
world’s cultural expressions as our own we often hear it put in this fashion.
It is especially applied to the arts. Rick Warren has repeatedly said that
there is no such thing as Christian music, only Christian lyrics. He even says
that God invented music.6
But the fact is that God created material from which fallen man has invented his
music. All that culture is, after all, is the product of what fallen man does.
He can do some things well on the outside, but always with a self-centered bent
on the inside. As many have noticed, culture is actually the incarnation of our
religion, the outworking of what we believe.7
This is no where as true (perhaps highlighted to a greater degree) as in music.
Music is an emotional art that cannot be detached from the soul of the
inventor. It is only as morally neutral as a man’s soul is morally neutral.
“You have
been inconsistent too.”
We heard this from the oval office when immorality was defended by pointing out
that famous men in history had probably done the same thing. This is a kind of
“lowest moral appeal” argument. When one’s fault is exposed, he quickly turns
the table on the questioner and points out equal inconsistencies. Such a person
has no intention of changing his actions, rather, he wants everyone to be free
to do as they please. Allan Bloom wrote, “The fact that there have been
different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way
proves that none is superior to others . . . On the face of it, the difference
of opinion would seem to raise the question as to which is true or right than to
banish it. The natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine
the claims and reasons for each opinion.”8
Theological Talking Points
“You can’t
please God by keeping rules.”
The explanation sometimes sounds like a new form of sinless perfection. “Since
all of our sins are forgiven, past, present and future, we should never feel
under obligation to strive in overcoming sin.” This is mixing justification
with sanctification. Just because, in justification, we cannot do good works to
gain salvation doesn’t mean, in sanctification, God doesn’t ask us to do good
works. Some people only mean by this, rules that men impose that are
extra-biblical. But biblical admonitions are rules as well. And so is our
valid application of biblical principles to all areas of our lives. In fact,
all morality is obedience to God’s moral laws and in effect is rule-keeping.
The obligation to follow such moral laws is right, regardless of how they may or
may not be enforced.
“God accepts
you just as you are.”
This is somewhat like the previous point in that it mixes our standing in Christ
with our personal walk with Christ. But there is more here. God cannot accept
a sinner as he is. Though we come “Just as I am without one plea,” we must come
because we realize (through the repentance process) that we must change or be
lost. That is why the sinner must have his sins forgiven through Jesus Christ,
that is, he must change if God is going to accept him. Similarly, once a person
becomes a believer, he starts on a road of progressive sanctification where he
is continually being conformed to the image of His Son. God is not pleased with
the Christian who doesn’t grow and progress in his/her Christian walk. Thank
God He doesn’t accept us as we are until we get to heaven where, “we shall be
like him for we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:3).
“You can’t
give me chapter and verse.”
This also follows in the same vein as the previous two. It sounds good to say
that everything we are obligated to do must be found in so many words in the
Bible. But some use this as a justification of sin and a refusal to make
biblical application. How are we supposed to take a statement like, “lay apart
all filthiness” (Jas 1:21)? Does that only apply to things we can find
specifically described in the Bible, or does it also apply to whatever is filthy
in our life? Is taking God’s name in vain only true of those expressions we
find in the Bible? This seems to be a sort of biblical minimalism where we
apply the Bible downward to its smallest possible import rather than applying it
upward to every area of our lives.
“Who are you
to judge what I do?”
Often the talking points are borrowed from the very words of Scripture but the
real meaning is replaced by subjective meaning. Though the Bible commands us
not to judge motives (James 4:11; Rom 14:3), it commands us to judge actions (1
Cor 5:12-13; Gal 4:30). People use this today to mean that we can’t voice any
disagreement with what they do. In a postmodern mind, disagreement is a form of
hate. It sees the one disagreeing as being arrogant and condescending, which of
course is a dodge to avoid having to answer for one’s actions. We are in
desperate straits if we cannot discuss the merits of our actions.
Os Guinness wrote, “Ours is a
world in which 'Thou shalt not judge' has been elevated to the status of a new
eleventh commandment. Many people today consider judging evil to be worse than
doing evil. But whatever the antipathy toward 'judgmentalism,' there are times
when the widely acclaimed attitudes of relativism, tolerance, and nonjudgmental
acceptance just won't do.”9
Therefore . . .
We ought to apply the Bible to
all areas of life, and to see those valid applications as God’s will. Francis
Schaeffer wrote some years ago, “You can carry out your intellectual discussion
to the end of the game, because Christianity is not only true to the dogmas, it
is not only true to what God has said in the Bible, but it is also true to what
is there, and you will never fall off the end of the world.”10
Notes:
1. Ronald Nash,
Faith and
Reason (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1988) 158.
2. Wendy Shalit, “Modesty
Revisited,”
Imprimis,
March, 2001.
3. Oswald Chambers,
My Utmost
For His Highest (New
York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1935) 223.
4. Francis Schaeffer,
The Great
Evangelical Disaster
(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992) 37.
5. C.S. Lewis,
The
Discarded Image
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 221.
6. See for example, Rick
Warren,
The Purpose
Driven Life (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 65.
7. See for example, T.S.
Eliot,
Christianity and Culture
(New York: A Harvest Book, 1949) 101. Also see Ravi Zacharias,
Deliver Us
From Evil (Dallas: Word
Publishing, 1996) 82. See also the above quote by Wendy Shalit.
8. Allan Bloom,
The Closing
of the American Mind
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987) 39.
9. Os Guinness,
The Long
Journey Home (New York:
Doubleday, 2001) 56.
10. Francis Schaeffer,
He Is There
And He Is Not Silent
(Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1972) 17.
| 
