Caitlin Montgomery Hubler and Christopher Rush
The following questions and answers came from a semester-long interchange primarily during 12th Grade Bible class during the first semester of the 2011-2012 school year. Caitlin Montgomery wrote her questions on index cards and gave them to me (Mr. Rush) after class, and I typed my answers to them throughout the term. Most of the questions relate to topics addressed in the curriculum, though some (usually the more interesting ones) stray somewhat afield. They are presented here in their original order for your edification and joy. Note: the beliefs, ideas, and opinions expressed herein solely belong to Redeeming Pandora and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs, ideas, and opinions of either Summit Christian Academy or Peninsula Community Church.
Q1. Christians believe that all parents should raise their own kids & that the gov. should not have a part. What about kids from secular humanist parents (who believe it’s the gov’s job to raise their kids, so they don’t)? If the Christians got their way then those kids would be “reared” neither by their parents NOR by the government…so would they just have to get thrown into life and learn on their own?
A1. Despite the comparative volume of those who advocate governmental rearing of children, few people (even atheists) truly want the government to raise their own children — I suspect most of the talk is from people who don’t actually have children. (Percentages, even in 2011, are rather small on the side of those who truly embrace socialistic tendencies in the home and education — though, unfortunately, most of that percentage consists of high and influential decision makers.) Similarly, if Christians truly “got their way,” the parents would be Christians themselves; I’m not too certain too many Christians really are motivated to take children away from atheistic parents simply because they aren’t Christians (certainly direct physical/emotional abuse is another issue). Christians would more likely prefer the parents raise their children over the government in virtually every case (for a variety of reasons, tax dollars not the least), since Christians in the sphere of influence of that home would be able to lovingly and respectfully influence the home for Godly outcomes. I truly doubt Christians would really want kids to be “thrown into life” without any actual parenting or rearing — even if giving them a library card would do more for them than a contemporary public school education. (Depending on the teachers, once in a great while a public school education can be all right, though certainly a Christian education is, hopefully, going to be more accurate.)
Q2. Is it right to say that the original meaning of separation of church & state or 1st amendment is that there would be no one religion established? If so, then isn’t the teaching of the “secular humanist” religion in classroom contradictory to the idea of separation of church and state because it does establish a (de facto) religion?
A2. Mostly and yes. Mostly: the “separation of church and state,” though not a legal aspect in the Constitution per se, element of the 1st Amendment was designed (keeping in mind I’m no expert on the Constitution) to prevent governmental intrusion in the religious lives of the country’s citizens — that was, in part, why the Pilgrims (some of them) left Great Britain in the first place. The Pilgrims/Separatists of the 17th century inherited the religious turmoil of Henry VIII’s schism from Rome (as you recall from Michael Wood); the Founding Fathers (to an extent) desired to prevent the same thing from happening again by preventing the government from declaring what religion the people could/could not embrace. Yes: those who inaccurately demand the “separation of church and state” today, i.e., secular humanists, want “church” out of “state,” not “state” out of “church” (they do want the secular state to muck around with the church, that’s for sure). This means they want the Christians out of the way so they can teach atheism in public schools as a fact, promulgating the religion of atheism, indeed. Of course, with most hypocrisy, they feel they are doing the right thing and thus not really being hypocritical. Good use of “de facto,” as well.
Q3. Do you think the standards for good government can be derived from Natural Law alone?
A3. You should read Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law (we are reading it now for Intro. to Humanities). It’s a good question. Augustine linked Natural Law with man’s pre-fallen condition, so Man can’t really uphold Natural Law anymore with his sin nature (plus the fallen condition of Nature itself). I’d hesitate to disagree with St. Augustine. Paul seems to imply in Romans Natural Law is somewhat akin to conscience, which would also make sense, since God created the rest of reality and thus everything we conceive of as “natural” is/was made by God. As far as “good government,” though, I would hesitate to say Natural Law is sufficient, especially because of the fallen condition of Nature now as well as man’s fallen condition (or even the war of natures going on in Christians). Because Nature itself is fallen and needs restoration, it is not a sufficient model of legality or corporate behavior. Even Adam and Eve needed divine law (or at least guidance) to most benefit from their unfallen state. Fallen man can still create beautiful and true things (because of their imago dei), but it’s not a sufficient standard for law (likewise, as much as I enjoy Romantic poetry, I know it is flawed because Nature, no matter how beautiful, is never superior to the Creator). Certainly the basic laws of nature (or God’s created pattern) of life, subordinated to Divine Law would be the way to go.
Q4. Do you think Hitler had a different standard of morality (like he really believed Aryans were superior) than everyone else, or did he know what he was doing was wrong?
A4. This question will be asked and somewhat answered in our final video journey toward the end of 4th quarter, The Question of God. I think Hitler, like most dictators and despots, embraced a thoroughly atheistic view of life and morality — without trying to sound insensitive, we shouldn’t be surprised when natural man is allowed to live out what sin is truly about or when we see its effects. We sometimes think the Holocaust is some sort of aberration, but any honest appraisal of the late 20th century around the world (Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, et al. — not to mention the US government’s “Indian Removal Act” a century earlier) should remind us sinful man truly does not pursue good in any substantial way. I would not be surprised if Hitler truly believed Aryans were superior (or at least was so antagonistic to his enemies, begun, in part, by the Allies’ treatment of Germany at the end of WW1, he felt the need to eradicate them). Did he know what he was doing was wrong? I doubt it. The Bible does tell us people can harden their hearts (like Pharoah did at times) and so damage their consciences they no longer can suspect the difference between basic right and basic wrong. Hate and anger can easily lead to hardened hearts, which is most likely why Paul says in Ephesians not to let the sun go down on one’s anger. We should all do well to remember, though, every person outside of the kingdom of light has a “different standard of morality,” one totally depraved (imago dei not withstanding). We are all born into a state of rebellion against God — the fact people can transcend their sinful state at times to make beautiful music or a humorous movie or something along those lines (and aren’t necessarily taking up arms against fellow human beings or promulgating genocide or hate speech en masse) should not make us forget fundamentally their souls are against God.
Q5. Is it bad for Christians to believe in separation of church and state since we believe the state should enforce God’s laws?
A5. Christians should not accept and embrace the secular misunderstanding of either the 1st Amendment or Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Christians should be more aware of the genuine nature of the issues and vote/be active more accurately. Of course, Christians should not confuse the need for symptom reform (politics) with a more fundamentally important “disease” reform (salvation/evangelism). Though we should understand we are in “enemy occupied territory,” as C.S. Lewis calls Earth, we shouldn’t let that mean we continue to cede territory over to him, even if his minions are seemingly-decent atheist chaps who want everyone to get along and be nice to one another. If only one Reality exists, and it operates only one “right” way, we shouldn’t just sit back and keep our fingers crossed hoping Jesus will come back any day now and believe whatever the secular majority (especially if it’s in actually a minority, percentage-wise) says we should accept/believe. Paul refutes that lackadaisical attitude pretty thoroughly in 2 Thessalonians 3. If the state is not enforcing God’s laws, it is not truly operating in accordance with reality, genuine law, or authentic justice. (This is not to say I think the church should be running the government — I’m not in favor of a theocracy this side of the millennial kingdom — as we said in class, the state has its role, the family has its role, and the church has its role. Thus, Christians should be individually operating in these roles and levels of society, without fear their “religious” views are affecting their job performances, in much the same way secular humanists do the very same thing today but with tacit governmental approval.)
Q6. How can we expect courts to apply “God’s justice” if the justices aren’t Christian? Is that really practical?
A6. There’s nothing more practical than truth. However, we can’t really expect non-Christians to apply “God’s justice,” no — which is why America desperately needs authentic Christians in every area of civil/government life! America needs Christian lawyers, auto mechanics, politicians, court judges, fry cooks, homemakers, novelists, school teachers, musicians, actors. Remember what Dr. Noebel says in UTT: “Christians should be involved in every area of society: in education as teachers, administrators, board members, and textbook selection committees; in government as leaders at the local, state, and federal levels; as artists, developing the best art, recording the most inspiring music, and writing books and producing cutting edge movies with compelling storylines that capture the imagination of every reader or viewer; in families, as loving parents and role models; in communities, as business leaders and civic club members; in the media, as reporters and writers who are seen and read by millions. In the midst of these endeavors, we should share God’s wonderful love story with those who will listen. When we participate in the Great Commission conjoined with the Cultural Commission, we are fulfilling God’s purpose for us during our earthly sojourn” (281). If we continue to allow residents of the kingdom of darkness make and interpret laws and morality for us, we shouldn’t complain when they take prayer out of schools, replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays,” and legalize same-sex marriage. Remember: power is never taken; it is always given.
Q7. Why is communion so important?
A7. Considering communion was one of two ordinances Jesus gave us to do (the other being the one-time event of baptism), it’s a very significant element of the Christian life. Paul’s elaboration in 1 Corinthians 11 indicates it is a continual and regular aspect of corporate church life: essentially, whenever we get together in a corporate church setting, we are to “do this in remembrance of [Him].” Acts 2:42, as I mentioned in class before, makes it pretty clear the New Testament church did four things: apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. That seems pretty clear how important and regular it was (and should be). Those groups of Christians who celebrate communion or “the Lord’s Supper” (or the Eucharist) every week, often with a special service dedicated primarily for it, such as the Plymouth Brethren (though not all agree that’s what their name is) are the Christians who really have it right. Why Virginia churches think getting together every week for an hour for the sole purpose of singing hymns, praying, and discussing the Bible culminating in doing exactly what Jesus said to do could ever get dull or boring (or that we could ever run out of things to say about Jesus) is preposterous and borderline heretical. I suspect the church leaders who advocate “doing communion” only on special occasions do so because, frankly, they aren’t really good at being church leaders. Perhaps they didn’t go to a good Bible college or majored in “Youth Ministries” or something (not that there’s truly anything wrong with majoring in “Youth Ministries” — some of my best friends were Youth Ministries majors). Such is the danger, though, of having paid leaders and one “head pastor” instead of following the New Testament’s directions on plurality of elders and deacons (who don’t “get paid” for doing it). Of course, I could be wrong — and I know, dimly, how difficult being a church leader is, so I’m not trying to defame anyone. My main point is the Bible makes the regular (not quarterly) celebration of the Lord’s Supper a main, foundational element of corporate church life. Those who don’t do so are not doing what the Bible says.
Q8. Why should the church not be the main method of evangelism? Are you saying that the church should equip individuals and then evangelism is the individual’s job?
A8. To answer your second question first, yes — rephrase your question as a statement and you’ve pretty much got it. As indicated above, the four-fold function of the church is enumerated overtly in Acts 2:42. All the missiology work done throughout Acts was done by small groups (sometimes pairs or even individuals) sent out by the church, fully supported by the church, but not directly the purview of the church, per se. Paul makes it clear throughout his epistles Christians have different spiritual gifts for the growth and betterment of the entire whole. The church corporate is primarily an inward-looking body, designed for the strengthening and developing of itself to enable its members, and thus itself, toward Christlikeness through the four-fold functions of Acts 2:42. This is, then, why the church should not be the main method of evangelism in that sense as a corporate body. It should be fully invested in evangelistic and missionary efforts, of course. I’m not saying church meetings should never talk about missions work, since Paul makes the cooperation of the church and missionaries clear in Romans 10. Certainly the church should train up and send out missionaries, as mentioned above in your second question. These should be long-term, mainly, though. The recent fad of short-term missions trips is not good (perhaps mainly, as I’ve said before, in its presentation — since moving to Virginia, the only things I’ve heard about short-terms missions trips is they benefit the people who go, not that they are intrinsically important or beneficial to those who need to hear the gospel; a very selfish sort of enterprise, really, especially since the “Great Commission” indicates the process of making disciples is a long-term investment, not a two-week “go help people for a couple of weeks without much strain on your life and then you’ll feel really good about yourself” thing missions work is often conceived of as being today, sadly. A close reading of Acts tells us most of Paul’s missionary work was longer than two week little jaunts to places; he stayed quite a while, developed leaders to replace him, and then went back regularly (when the Spirit allowed) to follow up (and then he wrote letters to them, too). Paul and his little team went together, with support from various local churches, to places that hadn’t heard the gospel yet — but he made it clear in several epistles that wasn’t necessarily the pattern others were to follow, so those who look at his short trips to various places as a model to follow for short-term trips today are not really accurate. Churches are to raise, train, educate, send, and support missionaries, but the church is designed to corporately “do” Acts 2:42.
Q9. Why is gambling bad?
A9. Primarily gambling is “bad” for two reasons: 1) it believes in a made-up thing called “luck,” instead of believing in the sovereignty of God over all situations in life; and 2) it is horrible stewardship of the money God has given people. It doesn’t matter at all how much money the dog track donates to the fine arts of the community or how many textbooks they purchase for the schools. God has given us resources to use wisely and responsibly for His service: spending money in the blind hope more will be gotten from it, even if with the delusion “I’ll give a whole lot of it to the church if I win,” is essentially a rejection of both the skills and abilities God has given us to use to earn sustenance and pursue genuine leisure (again see 2 Thessalonians 3), while simultaneously wasting money that could itself be given to the church or other Godly organizations for furthering His kingdom. Saying “maybe it’s God’s will I win the lottery” is outright nonsense. Certainly God can (and does) use the effects of badness to work His will as Romans 8 makes clear, but Romans 6 also reminds us we shouldn’t pursue sin or other detrimental things so God can shine His mercy or grace through even more.
Q10. Isn’t it wrong to mandate Christian values (like no gay marriage or abortion) to a gov’t who is not expected to obey them since it’s “living in the dark”? At least on the sole basis that those things are against our worldview. Shouldn’t we try to outlaw them from a secular point of view? (P.S.: I know that is probably wrong but I don’t know why!)
A10. Since reality is the way God made it, it is not wrong to mandate Christian values in the public sphere (provided they are truly biblical in authenticity and not just preferential — e.g., hymns vs. “praise and worship”). What is truly wrong has been Christianity’s relinquishing of public well-being to atheistic values and relativistic morality. As above, the genuine solution, though, is not through politics — fundamentally, the solution is through regeneration: proclamation of the gospel to the effect of people being born again, putting off the old self and putting on the new self, transferring them from “living in the dark” to “living in the light” (done by the power of the Spirit, not our wise words and rhetorical eloquence solely). That is the only effective way to bring about social reform or governmental effectiveness. Of course, electing Christian politicians and governmental officials (in every area of the government) would be a wise and efficacious policy, as well (the response, I believe, from, as you said, a “secular point of view,” using the system as it is designed in a democratic republic) — giving the people what they need instead of what they want (akin to the way a parent must raise and discipline a child, giving the child veggies and fruit instead of marshmallows and M&M™s for dinner). As you indicated above, secular humanism is doing exactly what it claims Christianity should not be doing: foisting its religious (atheistic) views on society, claiming it is for the good of all (particularly those who have been oppressed and suppressed in the past). Thus, it’s not just changing political or legal policy simply because “it is the Christian worldview” as opposed to a “secular worldview” (though it would in part be doing it according to the “secular worldview,” in that it is the same comparable argument, just accurately phrased and supported) — it is because the Biblical Christian worldview is the only view of private and public life that conforms to actual reality.
Q11. What is so bad about John Piper?
A11. This would take a lot more time and effort to create an adequate response, so I shall begin the discussion by quoting an edited (for mistakes in the original, only) brief book review I wrote last year (2010) after reading Desiring God. Admittedly, some might find the tone juvenile and petulant, but such was my honest reaction when reading a book that poses as an asset to genuine Christianity. In the rating system for which this review was written, I gave the book 1½ stars out of 5.
Finally I’ve read Desiring God by John Piper. I am experiencing great joy now that I’ve read it, only because it’s finally over and done with — done over with — and I can move on to books that actually bear some resemblance to reality. I gave this book one star for its quotations of Bible verses and half a star for its sporadic quotations of other sources worth reading. What Piper does with these quotations, though, is ridiculous. I know (since I’ve now read the book) that he tries to defend calling his pet project “Christian Hedonism,” and his companion dictionaries apparently give him permission to use “hedonism” in that liberal sense, but for the rest of us who live in this actual reality, when we hear “hedonism,” we don’t think of “pursuing God’s pleasure on the missionary field sacrificing immediate sinful pleasures for the joy of enjoying God’s joy,” even when he slaps “Christian” on it. Piper makes it clear he doesn’t really know what “hedonism,” “Epicureanism,” or, frankly, “Christian” means. This book has great contradictory tensions throughout it: are we to pursue “our” joy or God’s glory? which is it? If they are the same, why call it different things? Why, after almost 300 pages of licking Jonathan Edwards’s boots, does Piper suddenly say “sacrifice on the missionary field is the key point of life as a Christian,” as if the only way to honor God is by becoming a missionary in the 10-40 window? He certainly does not make missionary work appealing with all the stories of missionaries who went to the field and had all their children die. Piper never adequately deals with the objections to his ideas (and I would say they are his — and Edwards’s — ideas, not St. Paul’s or St. Peter’s). Like high school students trying their hand at refutation for the first time, Piper basically says “yes, you say that, but let me repeat my fabricated proofs for my points without addressing the substance of your counterargument, thus restating my own points again as if that substantiates what I claim.” Even with the verses he quotes that directly contradict what he is trying to preach (Jesus talking about not expecting anything in return!), Piper ignores the aspects he apparently feels he can’t honestly make fit his program. Another poor tactic Piper uses is his lack of interaction with his quotations, as if stepping back, slapping a lengthy quotation down, and walking away is somehow self-evident and earthshattering. Not everyone is called to the mission field, which the Bible itself makes clear. What Piper forgets is that discipling and instructing Christians into growing Christlikeness (sanctification) is just as important as “spreading the gospel” (justification). For those of us given as teachers and preachers, we know our roles are just as important to the health of Christ’s body. Piper’s section on 1 Corinthians 15, about how Christians are the most to be lamented if they are wrong, is probably the most embarrassingly eisegetical section in the work — as if Roman hedonists thought “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” meant “enjoy casual, decent life-affirming portions of food and drink without going overboard”! As I said above, Piper does not display any understanding of the differences between hedonism and Epicureanism. When I finished this book, I had no clear idea of what “desiring God” meant, and how it was supposedly different from pursuing my own joy. Perhaps that’s why Piper wrote so many other books about this subject. I think I will pursue my joy, though, by eschewing them.
Now that about a year has passed since reading Desiring God, though, I think I may contradict the final sentence and read others of his books (I currently own two others by him, given to me as gifts, which I will get to soon) to see if his lack of expositional accuracy continues throughout his oeuvre. Having recently read Radical by David Platt (and seeing many of the same flaws and glaring inaccuracies) [Editor’s note — see the review later in this very issue], I am increasingly saddened by the state of Christian writing today (such a sorrowful heritage in “popular Christian works” in recent years — Prayer of Jabez, Purpose Driven Life, Desiring God, Radical) and am wondering if God is perhaps calling me to write more (accurate) books for better, biblical, sanctification of His people. I don’t say this to sound hubristic, merely to voice my concern for the genuine well-being of the body of Christ in the 21st century. I don’t think I have all the answers, or that I’m better than C.S. Lewis or the best writer of all time, or that Piper, Platt, Warren, and the gang should be excommunicated (or executed), but I do know a great majority of what they claim to be biblical Christianity is not, in fact, actual biblical Christianity.
Q12. Is rap bad even if it’s Christian rap?
A12. In one way, I addressed that above, with John Piper’s misappropriation of “hedonism” and attaching “Christian” to it. As with most Christian reactions and responses to movements in the, for lack of a better word, secular world, suspicion and skepticism naturally (perhaps justifiably) follow. Certainly a great deal of disagreement exists (in all cultures and sub-cultures of the world) about the origins, natures, purposes, and expediencies of rap and hip-hop (and all the other offshoots in recent decades), and I certainly am no expert on the subject. My limited experience with it has been one of disappointment in that most “Christian rappers” “back in the day” were merely copying the sounds, styles, and forms of their not-as-Christian peers in the industry, most likely to reach the kids while missing out completely on what the real message and mode of the movements were truly about. This only made being a Christian more embarrassing (especially while many high schoolers around the country were wearing “Austin 3:16” t-shirts). Perhaps the authenticity and skills of Christian rappers today are more in touch with not only musical/lyrical skill but also reaching the people with what they need (not what they want), and if that is the case, perhaps I would be more accepting of Christian rap as an, if you’ll allow the expression, art form. But, much like “gym nights” at most youth groups around the country (perhaps), giving the kids 98% contemporary culture and 2% “Jesus loves you” is neither evangelism nor what Christianity is about. There is still great truth (and caution) in the expression “what you win them with is what you win them to,” and that’s true not only for Christian rap but everything else as well. True, many rappers and hip-hop artists (if you’ll allow the expression) are quite adept at rhyme, rhythm, and ingenuity (though I still am too much wrapped up in traditionalism to liken it to a Shakespearean sonnet, and I’m not yet at the point of considering the Sistine Chapel as a forerunner of graffiti, no matter how skillfully the graffiti is done), and, provided the lyrical content and musical background conform to Truth and Beauty, could, no doubt, be truly enjoyed. (I think, as a personal aside, most of us can agree that dc Talk became a much more skillful and enjoyable band when they put aside their early musical styling in favor of more melodic and musical sound at the end of their career on Jesus Freak and Supernatural, but perhaps they are an exception.) The issue, really, as indicated above, is what the movement is fundamentally about, and whether or not it aligns with Christianity. If so, and if genuine Christian rappers/hip-hop artists can reach a population of the fallen world for Christ that most likely couldn’t be reached in other avenues, certainly the world needs Christian rappers to bring the truth of the gospel there (just as the world needs Christian lawyers, Christian athletes, Christian judges, etc.). But, if it is just parroting the forms with shoddy craftsmanship (Facing the Giants) just because it is the “in thing” the kids enjoy or misappropriating terms and showing how ignorant Christians are about their world (Desiring God), it needs to stop at once. Certainly we would never embrace a “Christian Adult Film Industry” in the hopes of winning pornography-addicted people to the gospel (would we?). If the cultures/ontologies of “rap”/“hip hop” and “Christianity” are fundamentally incompatible, then they should not mix (which is different from “associate,” mind you). If, though, it is possible for Christian rap to be truly both “Christian” and “rap,” go for it.
Q13. Is secular humanist natural law transcendent? I think it couldn’t be if it’s found in nature, so then wouldn’t morality change with culture? Then it wouldn’t be objective!
A13. Secular humanists differ in law, remember: some still cling to a form of Natural Law outside of man but separate from God — as you indicate, this is a contradiction most no longer embrace with positivist law. Natural Law is somewhat transcendent, being outside of man but still subject to evolution, as you said and thus not absolute or immutable. Positivist law ignores this conflict by fully embracing a materialistic evolutionary approach to law, claiming laws do in fact change with the culture that makes them, adapting to the needs of the moment. Positivist law denies objectivity anyway, claiming everything is evolutionary, ephemeral, and subjective (except for “the needs of humanity” in general).
Q14. Does the fact that slavery used to be considered moral in 19th-century America (was it?) support the idea that morality evolves over culture/time?
A14. “Right” and “wrong” never change, considering they are grounded in and originate from the immutable character of God. Just because people get things wrong (for a time) does not validate evolutionary moral theory. There was a time in which at least 50% of the human race thought God said “don’t touch the fruit” when, in fact, He hadn’t. Certainly a section of America (even before and after the 19th century) believed slavery was moral (or, at least, justifiably expedient), but that didn’t make it so: majority ≠ right “just because.” People have been misinterpreting and misapplying the Bible for a few thousand years (America’s constant use of slavery and the Holocaust as the only examples of morality shows its ignorance in the history of ideas and is rather disheartening — though I understand your question is a reaction to things we discussed in class), but that doesn’t mean morality is depending upon custom or consensus.
Q15. You said that according to secular humanism, humans couldn’t have moral responsibility since they don’t have free will. But we as Christians see that humans are free agents and how that makes us special. But if it’s true that animals have moral responsibility, aren’t they free agents, too? If animals are free agents, is that somehow bad for Christianity?
A15. Actually, I said if secular humanism would be consistent with its own claims, they would have to claim no free will (since we are products of environment and behaviorists, they claim) and thus they aren’t “responsible” for anything they do since they have no choice to do otherwise (which is why secularism spends so much time blaming society and social systems instead of culpable individuals). All systems of thought devalue mankind and the importance of individuals except Christianity. I’m not sure animals have moral responsibility, since they act according to instinct and were not created as culpable free moral agents in the image of God (like mankind was). Since animals are not free agents, Christianity is not negatively affected in any way.
Q16. Do Postmodernists believe that science is real only to the scientific community?
A16. Since Postmodernism primarily deals with the Humanities (sorry to say), it and its adherents have little to do with science, certainly the Natural/Formal Sciences. One of the basic inconsistencies within Postmodernism is it claims nothing is true or absolute for everyone, everywhere, always — except their declaration truth, morality, legality, et. al. are decided by the community. Thus, claims to truth to which all must adhere (be they Christian or atheist) must be rejected. With no credence in the existence of a metaphysical, objective reality to be fully understood in any way (that would be true for all, be it through science or intuition or revelation), Postmodernism considers “science” to be, in effect, “scientism,” just one more faulty view of reality ignorant people are trying to foist on other communities. Because the scientific community is trying to impose its findings on everyone, Postmodernists may go so far as to deny even the scientific community’s right to claim it for themselves — but I don’t know of anyone who has actually done it so blatantly or totally. Less stringent Postmodernists might, indeed, claim “science” is only true for the “scientific community,” since it works for them as one “little narrative” among others, and thus they are free to live by it so long as they keep it to themselves (though, not-so-deep down, they would deny its validity since it claims absolute truth for all).
Q17. If Postmodernism comes after Modernism, what’s next?
A17. Some consider “Postmodern” a misnomer, in that much of what loosely constitutes “Postmodernism” is actually, they say, the natural outgrowth of Modernism; thus it should be called “Late Modernism.” Others, such as CNU’s own Dr. Silverman, claim outright Pragmatism is the next cultural step and that, in fact, we are pretty much there already. Rejecting the need to be bound and/or driven by the declarations of the community, people will be (and are) driven solely by what works: what works for them, what works best (for them), what works fastest (for them). Only time will tell, and that’s about all I can accurately say about the foreseeable future (sorry if that sounds like a “cop-out”). I can say, though, soon enough what is coming is the rapture, the seven-year tribulation culminating in the return of Jesus and the inauguration of His millennial kingdom, the judgment of the living and the dead, the destruction of the present heavens and earth and creation of the New Heavens, New Earth, and the descent of New Jerusalem, followed by the rest of eternity. If the Word of God is anything to go by.
Q18. Should the Bible be interpreted figuratively or literally? If some parts can be taken figuratively, isn’t that a step toward Postmodernism?
A18. The Bible should be taken literally, unashamedly so, including the parts that are figurative. Understanding the Bible as accurately as possible depends, in part, on understanding and knowing the different genres and intents of its various parts: some parts are history, some law, some poetry, some prophecy, some hortatory, some proverbial wisdom. It should be understood according to itself, and what its different sections ontologically are. When Jesus tells parables, those sections should be understood and exegeted as such. The proverbs do not contradict each other, since they are different (inspired) bits of proverbial wisdom that apply at different times/situations in our lives (without being “relativistic”). When the prophetic sections of the Bible use figurative language, symbols, and types, those elements should be understood and interpreted (as accurately as possible) as figures and symbols and types. Interpreting the Bible based on what it actually is/says is good hermeneutics, not Postmodernism. Postmodernism claims no intrinsic meaning to a text exists: all is cultural, relative interpretation. That’s a far cry from interpreting a work based on its actual, innate content/genre/theme/meaning. The same hermeneutical principles apply to virtually every other writing in the history of mankind. The Bible, though, just happens to be fully inspired by God Himself, too. Dr. David Reid’s Web site “Growing Christians Ministries” located at (www.growingchwristians.org) is a great resource for hermeneutical treasures. Check out the heading on the left-side panel. [Editor’s note: it is with a heavy heart I must report since this answer was first created, Dr. Reid passed away suddenly on January 31. 2012. We take great comfort knowing he is much better off than we are at home with the Lord, and take further comfort and pleasure from the lifetime’s worth of insights, materials, and resources Dr. Reid left behind for us to continue to worship God accurately by rightly dividing the Word of Truth through good hermeneutics. “More we could say….”]
Q19. How is the church giving in to Postmodernism? As in what do they believe/do differently than a Bible-believing church?
A19. With all the different possibilities of Postmodernism, it’s hard to say “the church” is doing “such-and-such.” Churches that value contemporary interpretation/applications over accurate/innate/traditional meanings most likely are on that slippery slope. (Certainly churches that encourage their constituents to go out and read only the latest works — or even singing only the recent songs — instead of familiarizing themselves with church history, the Church Fathers, and the great works of the past are in great danger of trending toward postmodern tendencies.) The church has been fighting various heresies since its inception; Postmodernism is not really anything new. Those that focus on the love of God over His other attributes are in danger of “tickling the ears of its hearers” instead of giving them the entire truth of the Bible. Those that don’t follow Acts 2:42 as the basis for what they are about are misrepresenting what a New Testament biblical church is — that may not be “Postmodern,” per se, but it certainly isn’t good. Churches that feel compelled to enlarge their buildings instead of planting new churches with new leaders may be dabbling in contemporary, community-driven elements of Postmodernism. Churches that don’t have time for regular communion celebrations but have plenty of time for emotive sermons devoid of Biblical exegesis may be more postmodern than biblical. Some may argue churches with female pastors are more postmodern than biblical. Certainly churches with homosexual pastors are more postmodern than biblical. As with the “gym night” sort of practices discussed above, anything a church does that is more like the world than it is biblical principle is, in some form, postmodern. Some may even argue “trunk or treat” nights as a “safe alternative” to regular “trick or treating” could be essentially a thin church-patina over an essentially secular-world practice or culture. True, it may be more generically secular than postmodern, but it is still a good example of the basic idea behind your question. Certainly any church that considers Biblical texts open to contemporary interpretations based on the needs of the time regardless of what they meant when initially written (the essence of deconstruction) are abhorrently postmodern. Any time a Bible story or verse is taken out of context to placate or groundlessly hearten an audience, postmodern eisegesis is taking place. Certainly Jeremiah 29:11 and Philippians 4:13 are the most abused verses in this respect: most Christians who “claim” either of these verses as “their favorite” do so only because the words make them feel good, not because they understand what the verses actually mean in context (in other words, what they actually mean). Any time a speaker (especially a guest speaker) offers a “new interpretation” on a passage, or calls for a “new understanding” or appraisal, or wants to “redefine Christianity for the 21st century,” we should be alert and prepared to refute what may very well be nothing but a postmodern manipulation of the past for the exigency of the moment. Thus we must be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), always weighing what our churches, friends, family members, teachers, co-workers, social network associates, employers, media personalities, and anyone else we encounter against what the Bible actually says and means. If you aren’t sure what the Bible says/means, enroll at Emmaus Bible College (www.emmaus.edu).
Q20. Which worldview do most Americans have?
A20. As indicated above, America is such an unwieldy, diverse place, it’s difficult to accurately estimate (even by voting results) what most Americans believe. Statistically, most Americans claim to be Christians, but I think it’s safe to say most Americans don’t actually know (let alone believe or follow) what the Bible even says. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Silverman is correct, in that most Americans embrace (whether they can cogently voice or acknowledge such a belief) a kind of pragmatism: they value what works, what works now, what works fast (if the course of technology in America is any signifier of what its citizenry delights in and values). Thus, it’s a most likely a syncretism of a modified Secular Humanism/Modernism and Postmodernism, trending toward outright Pragmatism.
Redeeming Pandora 