I am not at all enthralled by the critique that postmodernists offer up of modernist hubris, any more than I am entranced by the critique that modernists offer of postmodern incoherence. The fact that postmodern dwarves are shooting at the Calormene modernists is not an occasion for me to throw my hat in the air. Give them five minutes and they will be shooting our horses.
All I am interested in defending is what Schaeffer used to call “true truth.” This is necessary because the slippery and sinful heart of modern and postmodern man has sought out many devices. The last century has been largely occupied with the orthodox trying to figure out how many ways a man can have his fingers crossed when he takes a vow. And they can do it lots of ways because having no bones helps.
One of the things I do is simply cash it out. When Christians actually do what we are all being urged to do, which is to take this epistemological crap seriously, what do their words and books sound like? Almost immediately? What do they start talking about? What do they urge upon us? Among other things, trendy environmentalism, feminism, homosexualism, and turgid, jargon-ridden prose.
To wit:
“Eloquent testimony to that sensitivity is found in the contemporary tradition of Jewish Passover celebration, in which the exodus narrative is remembered and rearticulated. During the course of the Passover meal, wine is ritually spilled in compassion for, and solidarity with, the suffering caused to the Egyptians by God’s deliverance . . .” (Middleton and Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used to Be, p. 93). The horse and rider thrown into the void! In here with us!
“This means that this is a dynamic, processive epistemology. We must totally abandon any lingering aspirations of epistemological arrival, of having finally got it right” (Ibid., p. 169). Ironically, their rejection of having “got it right” is one of the few things they got right in this book.
“I realize there are plenty of Christians who think it makes good sense to say that the proposition ‘Jesus Christ is Lord of the universe’ is objectively true; that is, our temptation is to insist that this is simply true whether we or anyone else believe it or not. But succumbing to such a temptation is deadly for the church. There is no place to stand and judge this statement as true per se. There is no view from nowhere” (Philip Kenneson in Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern Word, p. 167). But of course, this is not the view held from nowhere. This is the view held by the One seated at the right hand of the Father. Kenneson is an atheist, although I cheerfully admit that he doesn’t know it yet.
“And although the debate has been agonizing, liberals have blazed the trail in seeking to treat homosexual and transgender persons with compassion. Conservatives may follow in their footsteps in this issues just as they have in others, several decades down the road, once the pioneers have cleared the way (and once their old guard has passed away)” (Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 138).
Such quotations, of ostensible evangelicals giving away the store, could be multiplied many times over. Easily. But at a certain point in such discussions, if you have to explain why such sentiments are so wrong-headed, it will do no good to explain that they are wrong-headed.
But that does not alter the minister’s job description, which is to warn the Church of danger. And if we, or an angel from heaven, announce to you that the act of announcing is fraught with epistemological peril, and that we must repent of our old dogmatic certainties (that we learned from our Sunday School teacher, and not from Bertrand Russell), and that we must resist any confession of the Lordship of Jesus Christ (as true truth) as a temptation, but we may confess it to our heart’s content so long as we keep it inside our own stinking faith community, and that whether or not contemporary sodomy is the same kind of thing as first century sodomy should be treated as an open question (as McLaren does), then let him be anathema. But while we are on the subject, of course modern sodomy is quite different. Back then, they had leather, while we have leather and latex. This is a key difference, which exegetes thus far have inexplicably failed to take into account as they wrestle with the contours of this important issue in contemporary ethics. Honestly, all this hokie-pokie stuff is enough to make a cat laugh.
I do not need to read any more of this pomo and emergent treacle (although you can be assured that I will). But as I read, it will not be to determine what is going on. I already know that. The dwarves are shooting the horses.