I was pleased that Andrew Sandlin dropped the label postmodernism recently. But it is not enough to just change the label on the bottle. In a recent post, found here, Andrew continues to advance some of the most problematic aspects of the pomo agenda, as it continues to work its way into the Church.
Andrew quotes Merold Westphal, from Overcoming Onto-Theology, as saying this: “[J]ust to the degree that human interests play a controlling role in the way we think and speak about God, that God becomes an idol, a God made with human hands. Conceptual and linguistic hands, to be sure; but since they are not less human than those that make graven images, the gods that result are no less idols.” Now my reason for quoting this here is that I agree with it completely. And one of the reasons I can agree with it completely is because of the big escape hatch there on the roof. That escape hatch is the words “to the degree.” Of course, to the degree that human interests play a controlling role in the way we speak and think about God, to that degree we are idolators. This is a Christian truism, a Sunday School chestnut. But what degree is that? Who says? How can we tell? To the degree that we are cooking up our own ideas about God, instead of listening to what He reveals about Himself, to that degree our brains are functioning, as Calvin put it, as idol factories.
But we have to be careful because we are living in time when a person who listens what God has revealed about Himself, nods, and says, “Yes, I believe that, I know it to be true, because God has spoken” is frequently indicted of idolatry in the Westphalian on the basis of his confidence alone.
Andrew makes his comment on this, and in my view what he argues here is extremely problematic. Here is the comment.
“Man is not God, and man’s knowledge is not God’s. Man’s knowledge — including the knowledge conveyed in these lines — may be truthful in a creaturely sense, but it is always perspectival, incomplete, tentative and subject to error. This is why all human constructions — even theological constructions that appear in creeds and confessions — are subject to revision in light of the Holy Spirit speaking infallibly in Sacred Scripture. Some individuals do not grasp this simple fact, however, and vest their own (or somebody else’s) deep theological reflections with the Truth as it exists in the mind of God. They do not grasp that all seeing is seeing as, and that the eyes of revered predecessors saw only — could see only — perspectivally and tentatively.” But this throws us into a hall of mirrors, a fact acknowledged in the phrase “including the knowledge conveye in these lines.” A series of questions really do require answers.
First, when we say that “Jesus is Lord,” is this simply true “in a creaturely sense?” Or is more involved? Can human beings possess the truth as revealed by God? Secondly, how do we know that the Holy Spirit speaks infallibly in Sacred Scripture? The table of contents in the front of our Bibles is not God-breathed Scripture. It is a creedal statement. As such, according to Andrew’s formulation, is that canon subject to revision? Related to this, Andrew’s phrase about the Holy Spirit speaking “infallibly in Sacred Scripture” — that is human also. Should it be stated more tentatively? Third, if the statement that “all human statements should be regarded as tentative” is itself tentative, then why shouldn’t we just wait until something better comes along? If this mandatory tentativeness is only mandatory for the next decade or so, and is not the last train out, why shouldn’t we wait for the next train?
And last, notice that Andrew sets aside his own principles in this and quite dogmatically tells us about the hearts and minds of others. “Some individuals do not grasp this simple fact . . . and vest their own . . . deep theological reflections with the Truth as it exists in the mind of God.” How does Andrew know this? Is this true, or just a creaturely truth? In either case, he presumably has someone in mind. From a distance, how does Andrew tell the difference between intellectual idolators and those who are not? Among those who state with confidence that “Jesus is Lord” (using a simple example) — with some of them confessing this as faithful Christians and others as idolators who are just saying their evangelical mantra — how does Andrew distinguish the two?
In short, I am genuinely puzzled. We have debated the meaning of certainty before, but I think we really need to discuss and debate the meaning of tentativeness. Shouldn’t those who are great advocates of being more tentative be, well, more tentative? To show us what they are talking about?