The World Has Ended?
I am currently reading The Present Future by Reggie McNeal, and in it he states that "We are entering a new epoch of human history called the postmodern age. The postmodern world will demand a new church expression, just as did the rise of the modern world" (5).
Now, I don't disagree that the church in North America is woefully irrelevant to its culture, and is doing very little on the whole to develop its members into winsome ambassadors for Christ to the world. However, it seems to me to be a non sequitur to say that the reason for this is because we're not enough like the culture around us, and so we need to find a postmodern church expression. The reason the church doesn't make a difference in the world is not because the church has failed to speak the language of the culture, rather it is because she has failed to speak at all. She has lost her ancient voice, and her ancient mission (or should I say commission).
The Church was born into a world of relativism, pluralism and polytheism; and what did she do? She transformed the culture around her- all the way up to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. She did not do this by conforming herself to the ideologies and thought patterns of that culture, but by proclaiming (in the power of the Holy Spirit) the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and His Kingdom has come and is coming. She did this by demonstrating through transformed lives that life needs to be transformed. She did this by being different from the culture around her, and therefore being relevant to the culture around her.
If the church in any way found a new expression at the rise of the modern world, so much the worse for the church. But the cure to a modern church expression cannot be its replacement with a postmodern one; no more than a cancer which eats up another kind of cancer can be considered a cure. As Doug Wilson once said, “Modernity? Postmodernity? A plague on both your houses.” The cure will come when the church remembers her ancient vision and commission, and dares to speak and act with the confidence and devotion of the martyrs.
Now, I don't disagree that the church in North America is woefully irrelevant to its culture, and is doing very little on the whole to develop its members into winsome ambassadors for Christ to the world. However, it seems to me to be a non sequitur to say that the reason for this is because we're not enough like the culture around us, and so we need to find a postmodern church expression. The reason the church doesn't make a difference in the world is not because the church has failed to speak the language of the culture, rather it is because she has failed to speak at all. She has lost her ancient voice, and her ancient mission (or should I say commission).
The Church was born into a world of relativism, pluralism and polytheism; and what did she do? She transformed the culture around her- all the way up to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. She did not do this by conforming herself to the ideologies and thought patterns of that culture, but by proclaiming (in the power of the Holy Spirit) the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and His Kingdom has come and is coming. She did this by demonstrating through transformed lives that life needs to be transformed. She did this by being different from the culture around her, and therefore being relevant to the culture around her.
If the church in any way found a new expression at the rise of the modern world, so much the worse for the church. But the cure to a modern church expression cannot be its replacement with a postmodern one; no more than a cancer which eats up another kind of cancer can be considered a cure. As Doug Wilson once said, “Modernity? Postmodernity? A plague on both your houses.” The cure will come when the church remembers her ancient vision and commission, and dares to speak and act with the confidence and devotion of the martyrs.
posted by DrewDog at 4:34 PM
2 Comments:
<<<...She did not do this by conforming herself to the ideologies and thought patterns of that culture, but by proclaiming (in the power of the Holy Spirit) the truth that Jesus Christ is Lord...>>>
True, though we should not forget that Paul did clearly seek to speak the language of the audience that he was addressing - using philosophy to speak to the philosphers, etc. Conforming to the world would be wrong - and too many church bodies today have done so. But using methods that are relevant, while still holding fast to the Truth, is not only wise but Biblical.
The more I think about this issue, and hear from different sides and voices, the more I am convinced that no particular "side" is right, but that a balance needs to be struck. I believe the church must hold fast to, as you put it, her ancient mission. But though the mission must remain the same we are practically begging for empty buildings - and blowing our duty to the great commission - if we refuse to adapt our methods and speak with voices that are, yes, relevant to the changing world around us. Every generation speaks with a different voice and it's just sheer stubornness (and foolisness) on our part if we refuse to speak that same voice back to them.
Just my thoughts. Love that you have a blog now, man. Tell your wife I say hello.
I wish to examine your statement “…no particular side is right, but a balance needs to be struck.” Now, of course, I realize that this is simply your opinion and so technically this is not a statement. That is to say, it has no truth value. However, since I am a student of philosophy I would like to practice my logic this afternoon. So, for the sake of the argument, I will assume that this is a statement. That is, it has a truth value. Now we ask: Is this true or is it false?
Let me begin by cleaning up your statement a little so that we can examine it a little better. Let’s put your statement into a conditional. We can show this symbolically as: ~P→Q or If not P then Q. Or, the negation of p implies q.
Now for the argument let’s begin by stating the conditional positively. That is, P→~Q or If P then not Q or P implies the negation of Q. Let’s let P=some particular side is right (since some is the opposite of no—that is to say, in order to show that your statement is wrong, the statement “no side is right,” one would only have to provide at least one counterexample. So we would say “some side (at least one) is right”), and let’s let Q=no balance needs to be made. So our conditional statement would be “If some particular side is right then no balance needs to be made (P→~Q). Now, the converse of this statement would be Q→~P or Q implies the negation of P, or “If a balance needs to be made then no side is right.” If we examine the inverse, we will see where your initial statement comes in. The inverse would be ~P→Q or the negation of P implies Q or “If no side is right then a balance needs to be made.” Finally, the contrapositive of our conditional statement would be ~Q→P or the negation of Q implies P or “if no balance needs to be made then some particular side is right.” Now, you will notice that the conditional statement and the contrapositive are the same (this is just another way of stating it) and the converse and inverse are the same. So if we began with your original statement ~P→Q we would have the contrapositive ~Q→P. Again, this is just another way of saying it. So we can either say “If no side is right then a balance needs to be made”, or “If a balance needs to be made then no side is right” (There are other ways of stating these… I felt that this was the clearest way).
Now we ask the question is your statement true? What would it take to falsify your claim? All that it would take would be one counterexample. That is to say, we would only have to show that some side (at least one) is right to prove that your original statement is false (Since the opposite of No…is Some...). In order to clarify, let’s choose a side. Let’s make one side “some side is right” and we will give it the letter R and let’s make the other side “no side is right” and we will give it the letter N. Now let’s suppose for the argument that if N is true then a balance needs to be made (Or we can say if N is false then no balance needs to be made—see point above). What would it take to prove this statement false? We would simply have to show that one side is right. If R is true then N is false and if N is true then R is false.
Do we have a side that is right? In your paper you write “I am convinced that no particular side is right…” Now this begs the question: Is this side right? Now, if it is right, as you assume that it is, that no side is right then we know that N must be false. That is to say, if you are right in saying that no side is right then it cannot be the case that no side is right. If it is not right that no side is right then it is not right that a balance must be made.
Now, let’s examine your argument. Perhaps we can lay out your argument as follows:
If no side is right then a balance must be made.
It is the case that no side is right.
Therefore, a balance must be made.
Now while the form of this argument is valid (modus pollens), I believe that it commits the fallacy of middle ground. The fallacy of middle ground is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is in the middle position. I can restate this negatively: Just because something is in the middle position between two extremes it doesn’t follow that this is the correct position.
Further, I believe that this position is a slippery slope. Just because Joe believes that God exists and he is all knowing, all powerful, and all good; and Smith believes that God doesn’t exist; it doesn’t follow that God exists but he is limited in power, knowledge, and goodness. Or, it doesn’t follow that a being which is powerful, knowing, and good exists, but this is not God. Or, …you get the idea!
I am not saying that we shouldn’t have a balance. Indeed, sometimes balance is good. I am saying that it is wrong to assume that balance is the correct position simply because it is in the middle ground. We must ask is conforming to the culture good, true, or right? Is not conforming to the culture good, true, or right? We must not assume that because we can’t see an answer to these questions that we should just take the middle ground.
We can conclude, however, that your statement “no particular side is right,” therefore, “a balance needs to be made” is false since it is self defeating. It is claiming that a particular side is right. Namely, the side that says no side is right. There must be a right side!
Post a Comment
<< Home