Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

We've Fenced Ourselves In! Part III

I want to wrap this series up by quoting something that John Oswalt (the guy in the picture) said in his commentary on Isaiah about this idea of a "remnant." By the way, his commentary is excellent--I recommend it to anyone desiring to do a study on the book of Isaiah.

"The concept of the remnant tends to go in and out of fashion, depending on the state of the church at a given time. When the church has been strong and moving forward, the emphasis has tended to be on the idea of participating in the coming kingdom of God. But when the church has felt persecuted and was in a state of little or no growth, the 'remnant' theology has tended to be more popular. Some of both emphases are probably needed in every time. In a time of growth and seeming power, we need to ask whether we are producing more chaff than wheat and whether there is fruit here that will stand a blasting drought. At the same time, when the situation is difficult, the 'remnant' must remember that they are the reprsentatives of a kingdom that cannot fail."
Oswalt continues:
"There are two great dangers in a 'remnant mentality,' closely related to each other. (1) One may be called 'ghett0-ization.' That is, those who believe themselves to be the righteous remnant will withdraw into a protective cocoon secure in their own righteousness and so cease to have the effect of salt and light in the world that Jesus commanded us to have (Matt. 5:13-16). (2) the other danger is self-pity. Here we take on a kind of 'hang-dog' mentality, where we are always feeling sorry for ourselves as the last vestiges of whatever God is trying to do. But if we are secure in the promises of God and rely on God and not on human power, our own or that of the state, we can dare to live in the open with quiet confidence and humble joy."*

Where do we begin? How do we pull ourselves out of our reformed ruts? It begins with prayer. But we must not stop there. We must be intentional about this--we must plan. We must implement the plan we make (of course, always being open to new directions that the Spirit may lead us in). Do not delay. Let us rise above the paralyzing fears of being influenced by the world. Act upon this before it becomes mere theory.

*John Oswalt, The NIV Application Commentary: Isaiah. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 183.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

We've Fenced Ourselves In! Part II

I think it would be helpful, in our discussion about Christianity's responsibility to be salt and light in the midst of the world, to discuss the idea of a "remnant." In the Old testament much is said about a remnant within the nation of Israel. What is a remnant? Well, the nation of Israel was the national people of God. On the whole, Israel was a disobedient, hard-hearted nation. However, there was a small group of obedient, God-fearing Israelites tucked within the larger group of disobedient, hard-hearted Israelites. This small group of people was called the remnant.

We see the same thing today: there is a large group of people who profess to be the people of God; we call this the professing church of Jesus Christ. The majority within this large group do not know God nor do they take obedience to His word seriously. Tucked within this large group of professing Christians we find a small group of people who are truly following Christ. This smaller group of obedient Christians can correctly be seen as the New Testament counterpart of the Old Testament remnant.

Because the larger group (professing Christianity) tends to care so little about obedience to Christ and His demands, they often times follow the ways of our culture more than they do the ways of Christ. The remnant looks on with a heavy heart knowing that things are wrong. The tendency for the remnant is to go overboard in their rejection of those parts of Christianity which give full fledge allegiance to the culture. As the remnant sees this, she immediately has the urge to flee culture so as not to be infiltrated by the world. She sees the danger of it all. She has seen how the influences of the world have caused the greater part of Christianity to completely neglect Christ and his word. To avoid this she separates herself completely.

I believe this is what we have going on in reformed circles today. Out of a fear of being infiltrated by the world, we have fled. We have seen the negative influences of the culture upon Christianity and so we have high tailed it to a safe, comfortable place untouched by the world.

The only problem is that we have put ourselves in a position to not do what we were made to do--light up the darkness. We have created an evangelistic strategy out of fear rather than out of faith and obedience.

I will put up at least one more post on this subject. I know, you will be waiting with baited breath.

Monday, February 11, 2008

We've Fenced Ourselves In!

As of late, I have been terribly burdened by an evident withdrawal from the world among my reformed brethren. By withdrawal from the world I am not referring to a refusal to buy into the world's world view or standard of righteousness. Rather I am referring to a tendency to hide from the world out of a fear of being influenced by her. There is a tendency to be so afraid of the world that we run to our little barricaded, fenced-in forts to hide from her influence.

This is a safe way of playing Christianity.

However, it is hard to be a light in the darkness when we never engage the darkness. There is a prevailing tendency in reformed churches to act as if the main purpose of the church was to "hold the fort down." No, the main purpose of the church is to expand the kingdom of God.

The problem is that we have, out of a fear of being influenced by the world, built towering walls to keep the world out of our doors. The reason this is so bad is because the walls that we have built to protect ourselves are actually blocking us from infiltrating the world.

This is not something you see with Christ: He did not gather his disciples and run off to the hills to be free from influence. No! He hit the world head on. He went out among them like a fish in water.

He hung out with the sinners, prosititutes, and tax collectors.

The slogan I am hearing from reformed people these days is, "Retreat." But this was not the slogan of Christ. The slogan of Christ was, "Pursue! Overcome!"

For some reason we forget the promise given in 1 John 5 that the evil one cannot touch us. This is not license for Christians to go out and indulge. We must be discerning. However, this is a call for reformed folk to stop neglecting the command of the great commission out of a debilitating fear of being influenced by the world. The fact is that the light will overcome the darkness.

I am not sure if it will be tomorrow or the day after, but I will add another post to this topic.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Hardness of Heart: Isaiah 3:9

As noted in a previous post, I have begun my study in the book of Isaiah. I was reading through Isaiah a couple days ago and was struck by 3:9: "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves."

The culture in which we live immediately mocks anyone who declares another to be more wicked than himself. Of course, we ought to be careful to not hypocritically brand others as "worse than us." However, Scripture often times unashamedly identifies hardness of heart.

Isaiah laments over the depth of Israel's rebellion by saying, "They parade their sin like Sodom, they do not hide it." Israel had fallen so far that they were no longer ashamed of their obstinate ways. They were no longer simply rebellious, they had fallen to a new level of defilement.

Is not America in a similar situation? Think of Las Vegas and its sex crazed advertisement, "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas." Think of San Francisco and it's unashamed homosexuality. What about the rejection of the Lordship of Christ? What about the greed present in us all. Is our sin our boast?

No one is ashamed. Our hearts have grown so hard that we can longer detect our defilement. In what ways has such callousness crept into the church? In what ways has it crept into our own lives.

Isaiah 3:9 reminds me of Jeremiah 8:12: "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed, nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; In the time of their punishment they shall be cast down, says the LORD."

Let us repent of our own hardheartedness. Let us intercede on behalf of our nation. Let us "become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life" (Philippians 2:15-16).

God is a God of grace, but he is also a holy God. In Isaiah, He offered Israel grace if they would only receive it and repent of their sins. They refused God and his demands. Thus, God sent the Babylonians to judge them for their sin.

We must not test the Lord or presume upon His grace. Let us act now while God is still showing us favor. He is so gracious my friends. His promises are true. Let us strive after them.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part VIII

Well, this is the last of an eight part series on the topic of "worldview." In this post I will be answering the question, "What is life for" from the perspective of an average American. As you read this, do your best to remember what life was like before you came to know Christ--feel the despair--feel the longing. May your heart be wrenched to pray for those you know who live in such a morass of despair. Do not ever minimize the despair of living without Christ. May your compassion for needy sinners, and your passion for Christ drive you to proclaim the Good News.

"Some, in theory, believe that there is no purpose for life—these folks are the minority in America (contrary to popular Christian opinion). Most Americans, however, agree that there probably is a greater purpose for life, but have not yet figured out what it is. These people usually die frustrated, trying to figure out the true purpose of their existence. They live as if the purpose of their life is to produce temporal happiness. But, they know that there must be something more. There is a God-shaped hole in their heart and they have had (on average) 70 years of everyday life to figure out that temporal happiness is not filling it. Most people are frustrated and confused because they know there must be more. The only way they know how to deal with the confusion is to kill it with the pursuit of happiness. But, deep inside they know they are missing something."
I wrote this about 2 months ago. This past Sunday, I watched 60 Minutes for the first time since... I don't know... uhhh... 1992, or something like that. On this segment, Steve Kroft interviewed Tom Brady. Brady exhibited this exact same struggle and despair. This morning as I sat down to do this last post on the topic of worldview, I realized exactly how correct my assessment of the American mindset was/is.

Brady said,
“Why do I have three Super Bowl rings and still think there's something greater out there for me? I mean, maybe a lot of people would say, ‘Hey man, this is what is.’ I reached my goal, my dream, my life. Me, I think, ‘God, it's got to be more than this.’ I mean this isn't, this can't be what it's all cracked up to be.”
Kroft pressed Brady to see if he knew what was missing.

Brady responded by saying, "I wish I knew. I wish I knew. I love playing football and I love being quarterback for this team. But at the same time, I think there are a lot of other parts about me that I’m trying to find."

What despair! What more could Brady gain? And yet, he is empty. Right now I sit in my kitchen as a poor seminary student rearing a medically challenged child. I have no job security, no money, an old car, and a big sliver in my thumb (I got it while loading wood this morning). And yet, I am completely fulfilled. I couldn't ask for more, nor do I necessarily want more. I have Christ, therefore I am happy.

Dr. Tom Ascol has written an excellent post on how, if he were the correspondent interviewing Brady, he would have responded to him. You can check it out by clicking here. I highly recommend reading Dr. Ascol's response. I could not have answered better (surprise, surprise).

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part VII

I am persistent and will finish my eight part discussion on Christian vs. American worldview. In this post I will be answering the question "What is life for?" from a Christian perspective. Remember that this is a brief answer.

"We know for sure that the purpose of life has nothing to do with our present material existence. Material existence, as we know it, will not last forever (Matt 5:18; Hebrews 1:11-12; Revelation 21:1). Ultimately this life must exist for the purpose that its Creator intended. God the Creator will destroy the heavens and the earth when they have fulfilled their purpose. God is the mind behind what is formally called “life.” God fills us in on His purpose in Ephesians 3:10-11, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Ultimately the purpose of all life is to glorify God—to show off his infinite attributes. This is why He created the world, and this is why there will come a time when He will destroy it (it will have served its purpose)."

Friday, December 7, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part VI


In this post I have pasted my answer to the question "What goals are really worth pursuing"--I am answering this questions from the vantage point of the average American.

"Because the average American does not put much stock in the reality of the afterlife, they concentrate all of their efforts on temporal earthly goals. The pursuit of happiness is the most lofty goal a person can attain. Generally, Americans pursue the goal of success (which leads to happiness) most fervently. This reality can be seen in the some-what twisted movie “The Pursuit of Happyness,” where success and wealth are equated with happiness. I am sure that the majority of American’s (maybe even some Christians) who watched this film considered the character played by Will Smith to be a role model—they wish that they themselves could attain such lofty goals, because they sincerely think that reaching such goals wins them happiness."

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part V

In the last post I answered the question "How do we find wholeness" from the perspective from the average American. In this post I will briefly answer the question "What goals are really worth pursuing?" I will answer it from a Scriptural perspective. Enjoy and respond.


"The inherent worthiness of a goal is directly linked to how long the effect of meeting that goal will last. Jesus makes this very clear in the Gospels when he says, “Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matthew 6:20). Here, in the context, Jesus is saying that storing up treasures on earth is not as much of a worthy goal as storing up treasures in heaven, because treasures in heaven last longer. There is such a disparity in terms of the duration of time between heaven and earth that it would be a mistake of astronomical proportions to consider earthly goals to be of equal worth than heavenly goals. With this in mind, the most worthy goals to pursue are scriptural goals—goals which have eternal effects."

Monday, December 3, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part IV

In the last post, I answered the question "How do we find wholeness?" from a Christian Worldview. In this post I will answer this same question, but from the viewpoint of the average American. I would suggest reading the average American's answer to this question, and then reread the Christian answer to this question. Without Christ everything is meaningless.

"For the average American, wholeness is attained when their form of happiness is realized. Ultimately, Americans equate wholeness with temporal happiness. One is only whole when he is doing that which makes himself happy at the moment. There is no struggle, in the average American, to try and find universals which dump meaning into everything they know to be true about themselves. There is a nagging disconnect within, but they simply try and numb the pain and confusion by pursuing temporary happiness."

Friday, November 30, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part III

For those of you just tuning in, my apologetics professor asked us to briefly answer the four following questions: 1. How do we find happiness? 2. How do we find wholeness? 3. What goals are really worth pursuing? 4. What is life "for"? We had to answer each question twice--once from a Christian worldview and then once from the worldview of the average American. In this post, I have pasted my answer to the question "How do we find wholeness?" from a Christian Worldview. For you picky theologians out there, remember that my answer had to be brief. Feel free to add anything as a comment. Answering questions briefly is very bitter-sweet. I love it and I hate it. I love the challenge and exactitude of being brief, but hate not crossing all my i's and dotting all my t's. This is a good exercise for someone like me though because I tend to be one who really over explains things. For example, if I am not careful this very introduction will be longer than the answer itself. Furthermore, if I am not careful my explanation of how I tend to be overly wordy may be longer than both my answer and the introduction. And even still more--I think you get the point. To my answer we go!


"The antithesis of wholeness is disconnectedness, therefore our pursuit of wholeness ought to start by seeking one who is able to, like Humpty Dumpty, put us back together again. One of the results of the fall was that the core of our being was torn apart. Spiritual death divorced the soul from the body/mind, therefore wholeness can only take place when the soul and the body/mind experience a reunion. This reunion can only begin through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, and only finds its consummation when the soul houses itself in an immortal glorified body. In conclusion, wholeness can only begin to be realized when one experiences the new birth (which can only happen by believing on the Lord Jesus and repenting of your sin)"

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Christian vs. American Worldview Part II

Yesterday I answered the question "How do we find happiness" from a Christian perspective. Today I will be answering this same question from the perspective of the average American. Remember that I have made my answer as brief as possible. Try and think of how you have seen these things prevalent in the lives of nonbelievers whom you know. Think of how the Gospel may speak to their unique and specific needs. Then go and show them how they can find ultimate happiness. Feel free to add or expound on anything that I said. Also, feel free to give any suggestions on how we are to go about presenting Christ to them in a way that shows them both the depth of their need and the great ability of our Savior to meet that need. After reading this post reread Part I and consider the blessing it is to be a child of God.

How does the average American find happiness?

"To the world, happiness has everything to do with either living a fulfilled earthly life, and/or helping others do the same. Often times we have a tendency to caricature Americans by saying that they have no desire to please anyone but themselves. This is a mistake. Many seek their happiness in giving their kids the best life possible, while others live their lives to meet the needs of the down-and-outs in our world. There are seven main things which Americans mostly consider to be the source of happiness: money, freedom, recognition for charitable deeds, success, sex, comfort, and humor/entertainment. These seven things constitute a happy life. As long as one can say that these things are the trademarks of their life, they must be happy. However, discontentment sets in as soon as any one of these things is amiss. Happiness is attained only when these six things are constantly sought out and acquired. The only problem is that these seven things only bring momentary happiness, and often times after this happiness vanishes it leaves one feeling depressed and hopeless. Ultimately the world cannot offer lasting happiness."

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

On Christianity, Modernism, and Postmodernism

I read one of the most simple and concise articles on a Christian view of Modernism and Postmodernism. I do not think that it is imperative that all Christians have a super-developed understanding of modernism and postmodernism, however I highly suggest all Christians to have atleast an idea of modernism and postmodernism. This article was written by Don Closson and is entitled "How Do You Spell Truth." I want to warn you before going there that some of the the concepts are a bit difficult, however I believe that taking the effort to learn the cultural climate is invaluable in our evangelistic task. Click here to access the article. Clossons dealing with the issues is one of the most simplified I have found.

The only thing I would have done differently than Closson is spend more time showing the strengths of both modernism and postmodernism. I understand that Closson probably had limited room, but one of the main reasons our culture is so fed up with Christianity is because of a refusal to give credit where credit is due. Of course Christianity is the very source of truth, however we have benefited from both modernism and postmodernism in many ways, and when we don't acknowledge this the world correctly labels us as arrogant. Anyway, that is a freebie.

Christian vs. American Worldview Part I

My apologetics teacher posed four worldview questions: 1. "How do we find happiness," 2. "How do we find wholeness," 3. "What goals are worthy of pursuing," and 4. "What is life 'for.'" We had to give two short answers to each of these questions--The first answer had to be from a Christian/Biblical worlview, and the other had to be how we think the average American would answer the question. I enjoyed answering these questions and will be pasting my answers here one at a time. In this post I will be answering, from a Christian worldview, the question "how do we find happiness?" I have already posted my answer to this a week ago or so, but am posting it again because I want it to be organized (so leave me alone). If you don't want to read it again--too bad! (just kidding) As you read this think of how the average American would answer this question. Think how hopeless life would be without Christ. Think how unhappy life would be if our happiness did not come from Him. Rejoice that you are His. I will post my answer to how the average American would respond to this (probably) tomorrow. Enjoy!


"Our happiness in something is entirely built upon an intellectual understanding of how long the happiness will last. The happiness that drunkenness, money, and sex can provide is often real happiness, but it is not ultimate happiness. In reality, the question is, “how can we find ultimate happiness?” Ultimate happiness can only be found in something that can offer the promise of eternal satisfaction. With this in mind, looking for ultimate happiness on this temporal earth will only lead to despair. Ultimate happiness can only be found in God, because only God can deliver on the promise of eternal satisfaction.

God is the only infinite entity in all of existence. The love, beauty, glory, justice, and happiness of God simply cannot be exhausted, therefore we can be assured that we will never run out of that which makes us happy. The problem is that right now, because of the effects of the fall, even our finding happiness in God can (and does) have physical draw backs (if you disagree, talk to those undergoing persecution for the name of Christ), which can limit our temporal enjoyment of it. How then can Christians defend the thesis that ultimate happiness can be realized when one finds his/her happiness in God? It all has to do with hope.

We live in the already/not yet. Our confidence and surety is that a time is coming when our unabridged enjoyment in Christ will be actualized. We but get a mere taste of it now, but will be wrapped in it for an eternity once Christ welcomes us to our heavenly abode. The mere taste of what we now enjoy (by faith) is much sweeter than what those who are finding their happiness in the temporal satisfactions of the world are tasting, and yet it is not even comparable to the satisfaction of what we will enjoy in heaven."

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Interesting Quote

I read an interesting quote in a book by Douglas Groothuis entitled "Truth Decay; Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism."

He was quoting a whole bunch of contemporary modernism-minded scientists and philosophers who were expressing their disgust with the false premises of postmodernism. This section was entirely helpful for me, as I did not realize that Christianity is not the only (and maybe not even the main) enemy of radical postmodern thinking.

Anyway, he ended the section with a helpful reminder that, and I quote, "The enemies of our enemies are not always our friends." He was here saying that modernists are just as off, in many ways, as postmodernists--we can agree with them when they say right things against postmodern speculation, but we must not mistake them for being on our side. After all, modernism poses just as many difficulties for Christianity as does postmodernism (contrary to popular thought).

Ok, so I'm long winded. The whole purpose of this post was to share with you the quote, "the enemies of our enemies are not always our friends." What a brilliant quote.

Also, this Groothuis is a good writer--he has a lot of good things to say. I recommend this book to anyone who is up for thick, yet rich, reading. I recommend all of you to make attempts at understanding our culture. It helps in speaking to people where they are at. I have found that my knowledge of the fabric of our culture has helped me in evangelism to know what people are thinking without them telling me. It has helped me to bring up aspects of Christianity that interest them. It has helped me know what sort of questions probe their interest and curiosity.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Happiness in God

My apologetics teacher posed the question, "How do we find happiness." We had to give a short answer to this question. I enjoyed answering it and have pasted my answer. Enjoy and respond.

"Our happiness in something is entirely built upon an intellectual understanding of how long the happiness will last. The happiness that drunkenness, money, and sex can provide is often real happiness, but it is not ultimate happiness. In reality, the question is, “how can we find ultimate happiness?” Ultimate happiness can only be found in something that can offer the promise of eternal satisfaction. With this in mind, looking for ultimate happiness on this temporal earth will only lead to despair. Ultimate happiness can only be found in God, because only God can deliver on the promise of eternal satisfaction.

God is the only infinite entity in all of existence. The love, beauty, glory, justice, and happiness of God simply cannot be exhausted, therefore we can be assured that we will never run out of that which makes us happy. The problem is that right now, because of the effects of the fall, even our finding happiness in God can (and does) have physical draw backs (if you disagree, talk to those undergoing persecution for the name of Christ), which can limit our temporal enjoyment of it. How then can Christians defend the thesis that ultimate happiness can be realized when one finds his/her happiness in God? It all has to do with hope.

We live in the already/not yet. Our confidence and surety is that a time is coming when our unabridged enjoyment in Christ will be actualized. We but get a mere taste of it now, but will be wrapped in it for an eternity once Christ welcomes us to our heavenly abode. The mere taste of what we now enjoy (by faith) is much sweeter than what those who are finding their happiness in the temporal satisfactions of the world are tasting, and yet it is not even comparable to the satisfaction of what we will enjoy in heaven."

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Excellent Essay on the Emerging Church

I just read an excellent essay on the Emerging Church by my former Theology Professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I havn't read too much on the Emerging Church, but I have read a fair share. I believe this to be the best treatment of the Emerging Church I have read yet. It is only 24 pages long so go check it out. You can get to it by going to www.theologyprof.com
The article is entitled Fast Friends or Future Foes: The Emerging Church and Southern Baptists
I trust that you will enjoy his balanced critique and forward glance of the Emerging Church.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

2 New Postings

I just posted two of my latest projects from school. The first is a book review of an excellent book by D.A. Carson entitled "Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church." I recommend the book to anyone and everyone. It is difficult to read at points, but it is well worth the struggle.
The second is a research/reflection paper on culture. Both in regard to what it is, and how it expresses itself. This is an important topic, because we live in the midst of a culture that shapes us and the way we think. It is helpful to know what culture is and how it expresses itself so that we might know how to discern what is good and bad in it. So many today are being shaped by culture in ways that they do not even know. Enjoy!

Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church; A Book Review

As with anything in this world, Christianity is in a constant state of change. Changing with the times is good for Christianity only in so far as it can be done without compromising it’s unique doctrine and practice. This in no way makes changing with the times not worth it. No Being culturally relevant is worth running the risk of being affected by our culture in negative ways. But if Christianity is going to seek relevance she must always guard against leaning over so close to the world that she ends up “falling in.”

D.A. Carson, in Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church, is concerned that some of the leaders of the emerging church movement have done just this–they have “fallen in” in their attempts at cultural relevance. The bulk of Carson’s concern is with those whom he considers to be the most outspoken representatives of the emerging church--Brian McLaren and Steve Chalke. Carson’s purpose is not to condemn the emerging church movement, but rather to: 1.both commend the strengths of the emerging church movement and warn of its dangers, and 2. to challenge other emerging church leaders to “rise up and call McLaren and Chalke to account where they have clearly abandoned what the Bible actually says.”

Carson was born on December 21, 1946 to very godly parents (Thomas and Elizabeth Carson) in Montreal, Canada. Carson got a degree in Chemistry and Mathematics from McGill University (Montreal), a Master of Divinity Degree from Central Baptist Seminary (Toronto), and a PhD in Philosophy in New Testament from Cambridge University. He is presently research professor in New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Carson is known as one of the most prominent Christian scholars in the twenty-first century. He has written over forty-five books. Carson is more than qualified to write a critique on the emerging church conversation. In fact, two of his most acclaimed books are written on the subject of Christianity and culture.

Argument of the Book

Before critiquing the emerging church, he sets out to faithfully present the main distinctives of the movement (Chapter 1). Many have expressed frustration at Carson’s over generalizations and misrepresentations of the emerging church, but this is why he prefaces the whole book with this statement:

“The Diversity of the movement, as well as its porous borders, ensure that I have not found it easy to portray it fairly. I have tried to be accurate in description and evenhanded in evaluation. Even so, I must underscore the fact that when I am forced (for the sake of avoiding endless qualifications) to resort to generalizations in order to move the discussion along, one can almost always find some people in the movement for whom the generalization is not true...”

Carson identifies the emerging church movement as a protest movement. They are in protest against three things: evangelical fundamentalism (and it’s discriminating, out-of-date, meta-narrative, modern methods), modernism (and it’s overly confident, dispassionate absolutism), and the megachurch movement (both in it’s emphasis on reaching the already-churched, and in it’s institutional nature) .

Although Carson has issues with much of the emerging church, he does see some things in it that are worthy of imitation. Much of this movement, after all, is the result of genuine Christians who have had issues with evangelical Christianity and it’s neglect of important aspects of Scripture. Carson agrees that evangelical Christianity has it’s flaws, and therefore lists four strengths that he sees in the emerging church movement (Chapter 2). The four strengths include: their attempts at cultural relevance; their rejection of passionless inauthentic Christianity; their recognition of our limited, culture-bound mind set; their undiscriminating evangelistic zeal; and their embrace of forgotten aspects of tradition. All five of these strengths are things that could help evangelical Christianity be more faithful to God and His Word.

In Chapters 3-6 Carson discusses the weaknesses of the emerging church movement. His first critique is that their portrayal of modernism is altogether simplistic. According to Carson, they portray Christianity under modernism as “rationalistic, cerebral rather than emotional, and given toward arrogance because of it’s absolutism.” He then goes on to give some convincing examples of Christians (Spurgeon, Packer etc.) who successfully rose above the cocky pretensions of modernism.

Carson also has issue with the emerging church’s understanding of what postmodernism is. While Mclaren thinks of postmodernism in terms of social change, Carson prefers to think of postmodernism in terms of epistemology, and views social change as one of the “correlatives” of postmodernity and it’s epistemological approach. Carson points out that although the leaders of the emerging church say that they do not completely reject modernism, they never say anything good about it. In the same way, even though the leaders of the emerging church say that they do not wholly embrace postmodernism, they never say anything bad about it (Chapter 5).

Because the emerging church is primarily affected by postmodernism and it’s epistemological approach, Carson spends Chapter 4 giving a brief survey of premodernism, modernism, postmodernism. His conclusion is that postmodernism, like modernism, starts with self as the arbiter of all truth. But that postmodernity, unlike modernity, has a negative view of the abilities of the human mind, which leads them to conclude that nothing can be known because of the limited perspective of the finite knower. After this survey, Carson shows how postmodernism’s premise that we are limited in what we can know because of our culture-bound perspective can be reconciled with modernism premise that we can know absolute truth.

The most pointed critiques of the emerging church are found in Chapters 5-6. The majority of Carson’s concerns have to do with their commitment to postmodern ideals over/against the Bible. He points out that many of the fundamental issues in the Bible are questioned by some of the leaders of the emerging church. For example, he discusses Stanely Grenz and his near pluralistic view of other religions, McLaren and his weak stance on both homosexuality and hell, and Chalke and his outright rejection of the atonement.

In Chapters 6-7 Carson provides the reader with a large amount of scripture that speak to some of the downfalls of the emerging church. The majority of the scriptures speak about knowledge and how we can come to know things for certain. Some of the other scriptures cited deal with morality, the superiority of Christianity, the place for objective-historical evidence, and our need for the Bible to help us interpret our experiences.

Carson ends the book with a short one-page challenge to the emerging church and it’s leaders. His challenge goes as follows:

“If emerging church leaders wish to become a long-term prophetic voice that produces enduring fruit and that does not drift off toward progressive sectarianism and even, in the worst instances, outright heresy, they must listen at least as carefully to criticisms of their movement as they transparently want others to listen to them. They need to spend more time in careful study of Scripture and theology than they are doing, even if that takes away some of the hours they have to devoted to trying to understand the culture in which they find themselves. They need to take great pains not to distort history and theology alike, by not caricaturing their opponents and not playing manipulative games. And above all, they need to embrace all categories of the Scriptures, with the Scripture’s balance and cohesion–including... what the Bible says about truth, human knowing, and related matters.

If they manage this self-correction and worry less about who is or who is not emergent and rather more about learning simultaneously to be faithful to the Bible and effective in evangelizing the rising number of alienated biblical illiterates in our culture, they may end up preserving the gains of their movement while helping brothers and sisters who are more culturally conservative than they are to reconnect with the culture.”

Use for Ministry

Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church is a must-read for modern day leaders in Christianity. Although Carson’s representation of the emerging church is not true of everyone in the movement, he does an excellent job of exposing some dangers of those who have over reacted against evangelical Christianity and modernism. Carson’s approach expresses a balance that is needed in a society that seems to only operate in extremes.

Carson presents two helpful pictures of how to be culturally relevant in our postmodern context without, in any way, neglecting the ultra importance of knowledge in the Christian life. The first is found in Chapter 2 where he speaks of a non-emerging, doctrinally driven church in New York City that has impacted it’s surroundings without compromising it’s doctrine. The other is found in Chapter 5 where Carson speaks of his own evangelistic efforts. He often creatively uses the book of Revelation, which utilizes vivid word pictures, in his evangelism because people, in our postmodern context, are more likely to be more interested. Here we do not see a rejection of the Bible for the sake of relevance, rather we see how Biblical doctrine can be espoused when thoughtful creativity is involved.

This book is also helpful in understanding our present cultural context and how it got to be the way it is. I personally have benefitted in my evangelism because of Carson and his cultural studies. The models he provides for explaining how a finite knower can know things for certain without knowing things exhaustively have also been of great benefit (Chapter 4).

Understanding Culture

What is happiness? What is love? What is liberty? What is culture? What do all of these questions have in common? They are all hard to answer, because happiness, love, liberty, and culture are all hard to define. Happiness cannot mean any ole thing you want it to mean, but it is possible to at least hint at what happiness is. The same is true for culture . The best definitions for words of this type are those which try not to get too specific.

Many have attempted to put a face on this thing we call culture, but most have failed. Most definitions of culture simply acknowledge the different modes that culture generally tends to express itself in. For example, one of the definitions of culture in Webster’s dictionary is, "artistic and intellectual pursuits and products."1 Surely this has a lot to do with culture, but this is not what culture is. In fact, Culture determines what we consider excellent art to be. Culture does not make art. People make art. But culture is that which informs people of the differences between good and bad art.

Others have defined culture in terms of progress.2 But this definition confuses culture with civilization. Civilization and culture surely cannot be understood without one another, but civilization and culture are not synonymous. Culture affects and changes the shape of civilization.

Before coming to a definition of what culture is, it will be helpful to see some characteristics of it and how it expresses itself. Discussing the many expressions of culture before giving a definition will help us not fall into the trap of a confusing it’s nature from it’s many modes of expression (as seen in Webster’s definition).

Characteristics of Culture

First of all, it is important to point out that culture is not stagnant. Culture is in a constant state of change. One only need read excerpts out of a history book to see the rapid pace at which cultures of entire societies change. No two consecutive generations are ever the same. Evidence for this can even be found in the Bible. One generation the Israelites act like children of God, forty years pass, the world powers shift, and the Israelites find themselves in a completely different cultural context worshiping Baal. Because of it’s fluid nature, many have thought of culture as a spirit. You cannot nail a spirit down. You cannot put a spirit in a test tube. Spirits cannot be confined; they are always on the move.

Culture is not considered a spirit just because of it’s fluidity, but also because of it’s force and power. No one can escape the influence of culture. Even those who seek to rise above the influences of culture cannot achieve complete separation. This is not to say that it is impossible to rise above culture altogether, but rather that complete separation is impossible. Niebuhr even goes so far to say that it is just as impossible to escape the influences of culture as it is to escape the influences of nature.3 Culture, in a sense, is alive.

It is also important to point out that culture does not merely consist of the major cultural norm of a given society. Rather, culture encompasses all of the norms of a given society. This is why we can differentiate between pop culture and Christian culture, secular culture and religious
culture, youth culture and adult culture. These different subcultural groups are to be distinguished from each other, but they are to be seen as parts that make up the whole. One subculture may contradict another, but they are all still to be seen as parts that make up what culture presently is. In the same way, some subcultures may be more influential than others, but this does not mean that those subcultures which bear less influence do not play a part in making culture what it presently is. Subcultures may be likened to different colored strings that are knit together to make a scarf.

Many have considered culture to be a worldview. Although this explanation of culture seems a bit simplistic at the outset, it can be very helpful. It may be better to speak of culture not simply as a worldview, but as a worldview made alive and put to practice. Chuck Colson defines a worldview as "the sum total of our beliefs about the world, the ‘big picture’ that directs our daily decisions and actions."4 Although it may not be entirely accurate to consider worldview to be synonymous with culture, it is accurate to understand that worldviews are that which shape culture. This is why Colson can encourage Christians to "build a culture informed by a biblical worldview."5 One of the most complex attributes of culture is that it creates the very worldview that it is affected by. Culture both creates and is created by worldviews.

"The worldview of a culture defines it’s own criteria for evaluating the way the forms and the people of that culture function."6 The way we perceive reality determines what we do. Knowing this will help us determine why culture expresses itself the way it does. This reality
can be easily seen when comparing and contrasting the differences and similarities between the Premodern (Medieval) era, the Modern era, and the Postmodern era (in Western Civilization).
The major differences in these three era’s primarily have to do with the specific worldviews of each specific era. Surely these differences are evidenced in the arts, moods, fashion, and values prevalent at the time of each specific era, but the specific worldviews of each specific era determined how they expressed themselves in these different ways.

To go a step further, many have asserted that a worldview is the product of one’s epistemology (the study of how we know things). D.A. Carson demonstrates how the cultural face of the three eras of Western Civilization reflect the epistemological foundation most prevalent at the time of each specific era.7 One’s view of reality (i.e. worldview), in other words, is dependent upon two things; one’s view of what can be known, and how one is to go about discovering what can be known.

How Culture Expresses Itself

At this juncture it will be helpful to explore the reality of cultural expression and especially how it is driven by the power of worldview. This discussion will simply be an overview of how the cultures of each of the three main eras of Western Civilization were shaped
by the prevailing world view of their own time. We will look at how these cultures have expressed themselves primarily in all aspects of society.8

1). Premodern (Medieval) Worldview and It’s Cultural Expression

The predominant worldview of the Premodern era (300-1500 a.d.) is built upon the premise that nothing can be known apart from the revelation of God. Knowledge starts with God. Thus theology, not natural science, was considered to be the queen of the sciences. Everything predominant in the Premodern era was the product of an epistemology that starts with God. Nothing can be known apart from God’s revelation, and the way we come to know reality is by starting with God’s view of reality revealed in His Word. Premodernity embraces the fact that there is absolute truth, but it looks to God to learn what that absolute truth is.

If Colson is right when he says that a worldview determines the shape of culture, how did the Premodern worldview shape the face of Premodern culture? Because of it’s emphasis on God and the centrality of His Word, almost everything in Premodern culture emphasizes the transcendent. This can be clearly seen in Premodern art. In fact, "the most depicted scene during the middle ages was the crucifixion of Christ."9 The emphasis on the transcendent in Premodern culture also manifested itself in morality. Morals were not something created by humans, rather they were discovered in the Bible.10

The worldview shaping the face of Premodern society was so effective that one of the prevailing characteristics of this era was a government that made absolutely no distinction between church and state. Church (the Pope) was co-regent with the powers that be (the Emporer). The goal of the Empire was Theocracy.11

2). Modern Worldview and It’s Cultural Expression

The Modern Era (approx 1600-1900 a.d.) is built upon the premise that human reasoning is the foundation for all knowledge. The Modern period is considered to have started with Rene Descartes, who set out to find the basis of knowledge by doubting everything. His breakthrough was the fruit of Augustine’s maxim "I think, therefore I am." He found that humans can reason their way to reality. Descartes’ assertion should not be considered heresy (because of the reality of natural revelation), but it did mark the beginning of an era that found epistemological certainty in reason rather than revelation. Thus, Modernity, like Premodernity, embraced the reality of absolute truth, but it leaned upon reason, rather than God’s revelation, to come to that absolute truth.

The quest for knowledge started with man and his ability to reason, rather than with God and His Word. Modernity was motivated by an overly optimistic, yea cocky, view of the abilities of the human mind. Progress therefore, marked the Modern era. Everything, including God and His Word, were subject to the critique of human reason. Gross individualism was the result of Modernities arrogance. Natural science quickly replaced theology as the queen of the sciences.
Because of Modernities emphasis on the human and his ability to reason, almost everything in Modern culture emphasized man and progress.

This can be most clearly seen in Modern art. Rather than art focusing on and elevating the place of the transcendent (as in Premodernity), Modern art emphasized and exalted man and the universal norms of nature. One only need look at a picture of Leonardo Da Vinci’s "Renaissance Man" sculpture (which is fourteen feet tall) to get an idea of the new place man was taking in society.12The Modern worldview also expressed itself in Modern culture through literature. The greatest example of Modern literature was the detective story, where a detective set out to solve mysteries by the sole power of reason.13

The Modern period embraced the reality of morals, but looked to reason to determine what morality is. Modernity even expressed itself in Christian circles. Higher Criticism, for example, as much as it has advanced Biblical studies, is the result of Modernism’s conviction
that all knowing begins with man, not God.14 Another prevailing characteristic of culture in the Modern era was an overwhelming disinterestedness in God. Even those who did believe in God did not consider Him to be intimately involved in the world (Deism). The majority held to philosophical naturalism.15

3). Postmodern Worldview and It’s Cultural Expression

The Postmodern era (approx 1900-present) is considered the result of the humbling of the Modern era. Postmodernity, like Modernity, puts all of the weight of epistemological certainty on the individual and his reason. But, Postmodernity, unlike Modernity, has an utterly negative view of the abilities of the human mind. The Postmodern mind embraces the fact that everyone is shaped by his/her own individual context, which distorts his/her view of reality. Therefore, it is impossible to be absolutely sure of what is right and what is wrong. Rather than speaking of right and wrong, Postmoderns prefers to speak of preference and perspective.

The only absolute truth embraced by Postmoderns is that there is no absolute truth. Certainty simply cannot be attained, therefore despair and a sense of being lost mark the path of Postmodernity. Postmodern culture, with it’s emphasis on uncertainty, tends to express itself in blurring the lines of reality. It strives toward eclecticism. It celebrates diversity. It loves to call traditional understandings of what is right and wrong into question.

The expressions of Postmodern culture, because it is the direct antithesis of Modernity, are easily detected. Postmodern art is best represented in the collage, because it presents many diverse incongruent pictures. The collage seeks to break all of the rules of art set up by
Modernsism.16 Many of the art forms of Postmodernism do not merely break the rules of good art, they call into question the nature of what art is.

Postmodern culture also expresses itself in science. For example, Thomas Kuhn states that "our understanding of reality will always be derivative, via the paradigms that constitute our most up-to-date science."17 Scientific discovery, therefore, does not reflect aboslute truth, rather it reflects the presuppositions (of how to go about making scientific discovery) of the scientist.

Postmodernism even calls traditional understandings of morality into question. The only morality prevalent in Postmodern culture is that which says that we should not push our ideas of what is right and wrong on others, and that we should not call other’s ideas of right and wrong into question. This idea of morality can even be seen is some of the more extreme branches of the Emergent Church. For example, Rob Bell, in his book Velvet Elvis, states that if we have a gospel agenda when talking to non-believers, we cannot truly love them. Thus states Bell, "We have to surrender our agendas."18

Gene Edward Veith, Jr. explains just how far the Postmodern worldview has effected our society in his discussion on TV talk shows.

"Talk shows interview interesting people, such as ‘self-mutilators’ and ‘adopted people who are sexually attracted to their natural siblings’ (actual listing for one week’s Maury Povich show). On TV these people are warmly accepted by the host and the studio
audience, except for a few who are unattractively ‘judgmental.’ The guests seem so, so normal."19

This is a reality in our present day Postmodern culture. What else could be expected from a culture that exults in our inability, as humans, to come to absolute truth.

Gathering the Evidence

It will not be helpful, for the purposes of this paper, to critique what is right and wrong about each of the three Culture’s discussed. Suffice it to say that each culture brings both good and bad to the table. Before attempting a definition of culture, it will be helpful to make some observations about our discussion on the changing cultures of Western Civilization.

1. Colson was right when he said that the worldview of a particular culture determines the actions of that culture. What we believe truly does effect what we do.

2. Culture affects all aspects of society at large. Each culture discussed revealed itself in the arts, morality, sciences, values, religion, etc.

3. No one can escape the influence of culture. This is primarily the case because culture affects absolutely every aspect of society. Scientists, philosophers, preachers, and teachers, everyone is effected by culture (as can be clearly seen from the overview of Western Civilization above).

Toward a definition of this thing we call Culture

In light of our study, what is culture? Leslie Newbigin comes close to the idea of culture when he defines it as such:

"By the word culture we have to understand the sum total of ways of living developed by a group of human beings and handed on from generation to generation. Central to culture is language. The language of a people provides the means by which they express their way of perceiving things and of coping with them. Around that center one would have to group their visual and musical arts, their technologies, their law, and their social and political organization. And one must also include in culture, and as fundamental to any culture, a set of beliefs, experiences, and practices that seek to grasp and express the ultimate nature of things, that which gives shape and meaning to life, that which claims final loyalty. I am speaking, obviously, about religion."20

Newbigin’s definition emphasizes some very important things. He emphasizes the all encompassing effect culture has on society, but he does not emphasize the fluid nature of culture. Culture, to Newbigin is that which is "handed on from generation to generation." But, cultures change from generation to generation. As said before, no two consecutive generations have ever had identical cultural climates.

Conjuring up a definition of culture is nearly impossible, but this should not keep us from attempting one. Culture is a worldview with lungs, hands, and feet. Culture is a worldview, or better, a set of worldviews set alive and put to practice. To be more specific, culture is the effect, product, and (as strange as it may be) creation of the ever changing sum total of all of the worldviews of a given group, society, or period of time putting themselves to practice by influencing absolutely every person and part of society.

Footnotes:
---------------------------------------------------
1. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (New York: Random House, 1991), 330.

2. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1956), 31-32.

3. Ibid., 39.

4. Charles Colson, and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1999), 14.

5. Ibid., 302

6. Charles H. Kraft, Christianity In Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979), 92.

7. D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 87-116.

8. Because of the size of this paper, the following discussion will be nothing more than a survey. Not every aspect or expression of culture will be discussed. The discussion will include only enough to give an idea of how worldviews shape culture and the way it expresses itself.

9. James Emery White, Serious Times: Making Your Life Matter in an Urgent Day (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 20.

10. Ibid., 20.

11. Ibid., 20-21.

12. Ibid., 22-23.

13. Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 30.

14. Thomas Oden, After Modernity...What? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990),110-120.

15. Carson, 95.

16. Grenz, 26.

17. D.A.Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 88-89.

18. Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 167.

19. Gene Edward Veith Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 123.

20. Leslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Postmodernism A Movement of God?

No one is above influence. Every one's beliefs, thinking patterns, actions, values, fears, dreams etc. are shaped by something. No one believes something "just because." No one can escape the reality of influence. Even those today who so boldly call themselves "free thinkers" are not above influence. Isn't it a funny thing that the majority of Americans are free thinkers. Free thinking is the thing to do in America. Free thinkers are the product of our popular postmodern society. You may say, "I like to think out of the box." To this I say, "Oh how original."

What I am teaching here is mild postmodernism. That's right, postmodernism does have it's values. Postmodernism really is an over reaction against the all too confident modernism. Extreme Modernism basically taught that anything could be attained by reason alone. Centuries went by and discovery after discovery was being made, which fueled an overly optimistic view of the abilities of the human mind. Those who embraced modernity to it's fullest extent ended up rejecting the Christian Faith, because, in their system, there was no room for the supernatural. The Modern mind could come to know everything fully, including God Himself. A few philosophers came along in the 18th and 19th Centuries and began to play with the basic thesis of Modernism. They began to ask questions like, "Where do morals come from," or "What drives a person to risk his life for the sake of someone he does not know?" The result of their questioning was the humbling reality of the feebleness of the human mind. No, the human mind does not have the ability to understand everything exhaustively.

What a wonderful God exalting discovery. God has been trying to convince humanity since the fall that they are helpless without Him. Modernity had placed man on an equal playing field with God. Modernity, of course, did have it's strengths. Modernism taught that you can come to absolute truth. This is a definite strength of modernity, especially since the Bible is full of absolute truth. Also, modern medicine and transportation, for example, would not be what they are today without the ambition of the optimism created by Modernism.

In the same way that Modernism had it's strengths and weaknesses, Postmodernism also has it's strengths and weaknesses. Postmodernism has done Christianity a great service by proving the limit of the human mind, but it would be a grave mistake to consider Postmodernism to be a Christian movement. Postmodernism, at it's most fundamental level, teaches that everyone is shaped by their context. The idea of Post (after) modernism (Modernity) is that we all see reality through a lens which has been shaped and molded by our surroundings. Postmodernism embraces the fact that everyone is unique. Everyone sees things differently, values things differently, emphasizes things differently, and defines things differently. Each individual sees any certain thing from a unique vantage point, namely from the vantage point that has been shaped by his/her experiences.

Postmodernism has the same sort of fault that Modernism had. Modernism embraced the fact that the human mind is capable of coming to absolute truth, which is good and true. The problem with Modernism is that they took this thought too far and ended up deifying the mind. Postmodernism embraces the fact that the human mind is limited because of experiential influences, which is good and true. The problem with postmodernism is that they take this too far and end up saying that we are so influenced by our experiences that we are incapable of coming to absolute truth.

Christianity is having a hay day dealing with all of the problems produced by postmodern thought. This has caused many Christians to reject postmodern thought altogether, which is a mistake. Modernism produced many problems for Christianity, yet most Christians would celebrate it's strengths. Christianity needs to do with the same with Postmodernism. I am in no way suggesting that we receive the movement as a whole, but we must embrace those ideas that are right and true.

Everything said so far in all of my posts has been the result of postmodern thought. I have been trying to expose those things that have influenced the way you read the Bible. We have been influenced by many things whether it be secular culture, christian culture, the beliefs and teachings of our parents, the beliefs and teachings of our younger or older brothers and sisters, the beliefs and teachings of our peers, the beliefs and teachings of our teachers, media, country, pastors, songs, movies etc. All of these influences have, to some degree, distorted our ability to decode (interpret) with precision. I agree with this. Postmodernism is right up to this point. But, contrary to the popular postmodern opinion, correct interpretation is not impossible. Difficult? Yes! But not impossible. It can be done. Yea! It must be done if we are going to be passionate about the call of Sola Scriptura.

Those who want to be faithful to the Bible must understand both sides of this reality. First of all, we must understand that absolute truth is attainable. And second, we must expose our presuppositions and those things that make our reasoning unique so that we might be able to interpret without bias. Correct interpretation does not happen naturally. Correct interpretation involves a lot of hard work. It involves letting go of one's presuppositions for the sake of building better ones--presuppositions crafted by the Bible alone.

No one can escape the reality of influence, but we can have some say in what we are influenced by. We must learn how to critique ourselves. We must learn how to stand over ourselves so that we might be able to see past our own preconceived ideas. We must learn how to discern those things that dictate how we interpret so that we might be able to get rid of them. We need to get to a place where we are not controlled by our presuppositions. As long as you do not know those things that dictate your interpretation, you will be controlled by them.

The more we work at exposing our presuppositions, the more we can get rid of them. The more we get rid of them, the more we will be able to interpret the Bible without bias. The more we are able to interpret the Bible without bias, the more we are influenced by the Bible. You see, we do have some control over what we are influenced by. Those who refuse to embrace this Postmodern thought will never be able to read the Bible correctly. They will always ignorantly throw their preconceived ideas on the text.

What is it that controls your thinking? What shapes you? Is it secular culture? Is it a backwards Christian culture? Is it what you have been taught your whole life? Is it your experiences? Is it the Bible? Let me be ever so picky. Is it the Bible as seen and interpreted through your own unique grid? If so then your ideas are just as determinative than the Bible's. Are your ideas just as good as the Bibles? Or do your ideas need to be critiqued by the Bible's ideas?

"Well," you say, "I got my ideas from church."

"Well," I say back to you, "What makes you think that your church's ideas are just as good as the Bible's ideas?"

We need to get to a place where we say, "My ideas are good and valid because they have been formed by the Bible read in context."

The Bible read in context is the only firm foundation--the Bible loosed from the faulty foundations of secular and humanistic presuppositions.

My goal as a Christian leader is to have context driven interpretation be that which determines meaning. The one presupposition that ought to drive our interpretation is the one that says "context determines meaning." Embrace this presupposition. Let it guide you as you read the Bible. Let nothing stand in the way of it.

Seek to be rid of your presuppositions so that you might be controlled by better ones--ones that are not formed by a secular culture, but rather those that are formed by the word of God as read in context. Seek to be influenced by the Bible. Form biblical context-driven, presuppositions.

Two books have been incredibly influential for me on this issue 1. The Gagging of God; and 2. The Francis Shaeffer Trilogy. In the next few posts I will be discussing the danger of popular Christian cliches and how if used wrongly they can render a person incapable of being shaped solely by the Word of God.