“The early bird gets the worm, but the early worm gets eaten.”
Categories
Month: December 2004
Categories
The Real Thing
Another entry in my ad hoc series on finding “the real thing”….
The other morning I was in the kitchen when I heard my 3-year-old son, who had just awakened, tromping down the stairs. I grabbed him at the bottom of the stairs in a big bear hug and he burried his face against my neck. There was a moment when I could feel his absolute trust, contentment, and joy in being wrapped up in his dad’s embrace. At that moment I knew I was completely fulfilling my calling in life for that moment. There was nothing else in that moment that I could have or should have been doing other than embracing my son. It struck me that it’s these simple relational things that, more often than not, are “the real thing” we seek so earnestly in our intellectual and spiritual journeys.
It also struck me that this was a picture of how God desires to relate to us. The beauty of that moment came not only from my willingness to embrace my son, but also from his delight and faith in me. He was content in my embrace because nothing in the world meant more to him than to be loved by me. And this is how is is meant to be between us and our heavenly father.
Categories
Is it Wrong to Torture Babies?
The Evangelical Outpost contains a thought provoking post on the emergent conversation and “absolute moral truth.” I believe, as the author does, that certain ethical / moral principles are applicable to everyone and not merely a matter of subjective preferences. However, I think the argument raised in the Evangelical Outpost article sets up a straw man by defining “postmodern” or “emergent” Christians too broadly. I also think it muddies the waters by ignoring the ontological presuppositions that underlie ethical / moral statements.
As to my first point, many Christians who are serious about relating postmodern epistemology to theology would decidedly not accept the premise that the are no universally applicable ethical norms. While it’s true that many who call themselves “emergent” blindly accept the relativism inherent in much postmodern thought, for the most part, such people tend not to be the emergent conversations true theological thought leaders.
Take Nancey Murphy’s book Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism, for example. Murphy shows how a foundationalist epistemology is inadequate, and how much language concerning “absolute” truth claims is based on foundationalist epistemology. She discusses the postmodern epistemological metaphor of truth as a “web” rather than a building with a foundation, and how relativism can be avoided in a web-based view of truth. Or look at Leslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence, and again, you’ll see a very thoughtful effort to place Christian truth claims in a nonfoundationalist context without any hint of relativism.
I think when many Christians who take criticisms of foundationalism and language theory seriously hear “absolute” as a qualifier of “truth,” it raises red flags because it sounds as though the speaker is saying “I am making a statement that completely, perfectly absolutely corresponds to reality” — meaning the speaker is able to completely, perfectly, and absolutely apprehend everything God is and communicate that completely, perfectly, and absolutely in human language — when human perception and language seem manifestly inadequate for such a task.
As to my second point, the Evangelical Outpost article uses the statement “it is wrong to torture babies” as a challeng for those who would argue there is no “absolute moral truth.” However, this is an ethical statement based on several presuppositional ontological beliefs concerning the nature of adult and infant human beings (e.g., all human beings, adult or infant, have intrinsic worth, separate wills, and inalienable rights that would make it unethical for an adult to torture an infant). The ethical statement is only “true” if our ontological presuppositions about adult and infant human beings are true. As I see it, it’s impossible to prove those presuppositions are true. In that sense, then, the statement “it is wrong to torture babies” is not an absolute statement; it is contingent on some presuppositions that ultimately are based on faith.
This isn’t to say, of course, that it might be ok to torture babies. Given this understanding of the ethical statement “it is wrong to torture babies,” I think a post-foundationalist epistemological framework actually provides greater force to the ethical statement. Under a foundationalist epistemology, I cannot demonstrate by reason alone that my ontological presuppositions about human nature are true, and therefore I’m left with little else but subjective preferences. Under a post-foundationalist epistemology, the final arbiter is not necessarily only that which is subject to rationalistic “proof.” The natural sense all people exhibit against torturing infants supports the Christian faith claim that all people are made in the image of God and therefore possess intrinsic worth. The ethical claim is then grounded in revelation as well as reason. The “objective” content of the statement is a faith-based ontological claim, which is a perfectly valid basis for the statement, and which applies universally to all people to the extent the ontological faith claim corresponds to reality.
I’m by no means a committed “emergent” person, whatever that would mean, but I do think some of the post-foundationalist theology that’s being done is quite valuable and that arguments about “absolute moral truth” often aren’t much more than sloganeering. I hope we Evangelicals can be more serious about post-foundationalist epistemology and language theory without the knee-jerk reaction “but what about ‘absolute moral truth.'” I also hope emergent Christians can be more serious about the validity of ethical claims without the knee-jerk “who sez” reaction of the postmodern culture at large.
I’ve updated my RSS feed so it accurately slurps content from this site. Please update your feed reader links: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/indextgd.rdf
If you don’t do RSS yet, I’d encourge you to download a copy of Bottom Feeder, a free open source aggregator. It makes keeping up with your favorite blogs much easier.
As for content here, I’ve been reading voraciously — maybe obsessively — over the past month and have much to say. Partly because of time constraints and partly because I’m still working on what I want this site to be, however, I don’t anticipate a major post every day. I think I’ll shoot for the occasional “chatty” post interspersed maybe once a week or so with someting hopefully more meaty. If you tune in here regularly, please continue to do so, and drop me a line sometime.
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been engaged in a discussion on The Ooze that has ranged from the nature of Hell, to the meaning and purpose of the atonement, to the nature of God. It began as an inquiry I posted, looking for some “emergent” perspectives on Hell. It became a debate on universalism vs. the “traditional” view of Hell. (The primary universalist proponent wasn’t really an “emergent” person, he charcterized himself as a modernist who no longer believes in a personal God).
Universalism seems completely untenable to me in light of scriptures such as Rev. 20:11-15. But the discussion challenged my complacency about what exactly the Bible says about Hell. Is Hell really a place where people will be burned alive forever, regardless of what kind of life they led?
This became an important question to me, and has led to something of a “dark night of the soul” I still find myself in this week. What is our God really like? Is He vindictive, inflicting unspeakable, unending punishments on billions of people who may die in poverty without ever hearing His name, with no sense of proportionality?
All of this also stirred up remembered feelings of fear and literal trembling, when as a young teenager I was exposed to old-time “fire and brimstone” preachers. And it made me recall exhortations to abandon “worldly” pursuits such as education and recreation for bare-knuckled evangelism. Is the grim “evangelistic headcount” ethos really correct after all?
As I studied the question (I read, among other things, Zondervan’s Four Views on Hell, a useful summary of four different views), I came to the conclusion that the Biblical imagery concerning Hell is not intended to be precisely descriptive. It speaks, for example, of Hell as a place of fire but also a place of “gloomy dungeons” (2 Peter 2:4) and as “darkness” (Matt. 25:41). Further, Jesus seems to suggest there are differing degress of punishment based on a person’s works (Mat. 11:21-24 and Luke 12:47-48). So, there seem to be internal scriptural reasons to conclude that the language about Hell as “fire” is not necessarily literal. My personal conviction is that we cannot know exactly what Hell will be like, and that it will not necessarily be the same experience for every lost person, but will be in proportion to the person’s works; yet for all it will be an unending separation from God’s blessings.
This eased my mental anguish a little. Whatever Hell is like, it is perfectly consistent with God’s pefect justice and perfect love. It isn’t arbitrary. No one will be there who has not rejected God and His gift of salvation. Yet, it’s still unspeakably awful. Doesn’t it still suggest we should reduce the faith to the barest bones of evangelism?
On this score, it was helpful for me to re-read J.I. Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. As Packer so plainly yet artfully notes, it is God who calls and saves people. The Holy Spirit is the instrumentality by which people are saved. Thus, we do not need to constantly feel as though we must “force” the issue with unbelieving friends and acquaintances. As we submit to God, and look for opportunities to explain the hope that is within us, we can be assured that we will be used in accordance with His plans to bring people into His Kingdom.
I was still left, though, with the question of God’s nature. Why would God create a world in which some — many — will face the anguish of being separated from Him forever? Here, a focus on the atonement was helpful. The substitutionary theory of the atonement — that Jesus bore God’s wrath for us on the cross — does not suggest some divide between a loving Jesus and a hateful God. Jesus is God. Thus, God himself, in the person of the Son, took the punishment of Hell, bore the force of His own wrath, for us. This is a mystery beyond all mysteries. God himself, in Christ, took my place! What greater confirmation of His goodness and love could there be?
Finally, the problem of reductionism yet looms. As I reflected and continue to reflect on this, it seems to me that the reality of Hell, and the real urgency of missions and evangelism, should not lead to reductionism about other important things such as art, education and recreation. God gave us the cross not merely to snatch us from the flames, but to build His Kingdom. We take part in that even now, and in a very real sense take part in His work of calling people to Himself, as we mirror the varied aspects of His image in us. And this is so in some sense even of human culture at large. Although the world is corrupt and at odds with God, nevertheless His image shows through in the power of great music, film and other art, in the grace of a young pitcher’s fastball, in the moral impulse of philanthropy and relief efforts, in the intellectual effort and rigor of scholarship. As we celebrate these things, and even enjoy them, we have the unique opportunity to show how they point to the creator who gave Himself to redeem the world.
What, then, of emergent and Hell? In my view, it’s a terrible mistake to marginalize Hell, or to suggest it’s an outdated doctrine leading to a wrong view of an angry God. As one of the characters in the Narnia Chronicles said of Aslan, “he’s not a tame lion.” Part of God’s majesty is that His character encompasses the perfection of justice and holiness as well as of love and mercy, without contradiction. Hell is part of the reality of free people relating to a Majestic God. We might be more careful in how we explain the scriptural imagery of Hell, but we cannot lose Hell and retain a meaningful faith.
Categories
Pitfalls of Emergent
If you’ve been following my thoughts here recently, you’ll see I’ve been reading quite a bit about the “Emergent” movement and postmodern thought. I do think we Evangelicals need to deal better with the epistememological issues raised by postmodern thought. As I look more into Emergent, however, I’m growing increasingly concerned about how that movement is doing this.
My sample of Emergent probably is skewed because it primarily comes from reading Brian McLaren’s books and haning out on The Ooze. What’s really disturbing me is that much of the conversation seems to go beyond “how can we as committed Christians better understand our faith, theology and fellowship with each other in light of recent developments in epistemology” to a free-for-all that sometimes is, at best, sub-Christian.
I’m not completely sure what the problem is, or even if there is one “problem.” It seems, however, that some folks take non-foundationalism or epistemological uncertainty so far that they have indeed bought into the “anything goes” of relativism. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to generate a discussion beyond the level of individual feelings, because there is no locus or loci of authority.
Maybe the issue is that the higher level ideas — the real theological meat offered by folks like John Franke and Nancey Murphy — don’t trickle down to many at the popular level. All some people hear is “the old ways of thinking about truth and authority are being uprooted”; they don’t hear “and here is a better way to think about these things, that recognizes there is truth and authority, perhaps even more robust concepts of truth and authority, without foundationalist epistemology.” It’s a bit discouraging.
I’ve been spending some time lately hanging out at The Ooze, which has been fun and fascinating. There seem to be two related by different strands in the “Emergent” movement. One is missiological: an effort to relate to the “heart language” of post-modern people. The other epistemological: an effort to reenvision theology in light of post-foundationalist epistemology.
The latter trend is the most interesting, but also the most dangerous. Christianity has always adapted to shifts in epistemology: from “authority” based, to “rationality” based, and now to post-foundationalism. The difficult trick is to treat epistemology as simply a tool for understanding truth, rather than an ideological fortress. This is true not only of “modernists” who cling to the notion that reason provides a universal foundation for truth claims, but also to post-foundationalists who reject anything “modernists” say because of their foundationalism. It’s fascinating to see this process in development at sites like The Ooze.