Postmodernism Part 4: A Biblical Approach to Knowledge

From a Modernist perspective, to know something was to be convinced of something because of observable facts.  From the Postmodernist view, to know something was to feel something strongly.  What does the Bible say about the source and mechanism of knowledge?
Genesis 2:16, 17
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Genesis 3:4-7
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
 I Kings 3:5-12
“In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee. And Solomon said…  O LORD my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in.
 And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?
And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing. And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment; Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.”
A minister sits on a subway observing a mother and her child.  The child is screaming and struggling to get away.  Finally, the mother places the child in her lap.  The child looks up in defiance at the mother, then slaps the mother in the face.
It occurs to the minister that humanity is just like this child.  As we build universities and governments and churches using politic and intellect and rhetoric to distance ourselves from and finally deny God, we are using exactly those tools and gifts that God gave us to defy Him.  In essence, we sit in God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face.
It should come as no surprise to us that the Bible teaches us that our capacity to know and understand things comes directly from God, and that using that knowledge at cross-purposes to God dissolves into non-productive foolishness.
Consider the first passage above which comes to us from Genesis.  Man and Woman were created to be caretakers to God’s creation.  As such, they were given sufficient knowledge and understanding to do their job.  Adam, we see, was even gifted with the creative capacity to observe and define the world around him by naming the animals.
What man was NOT given was the capacity to know right from wrong.  This area of morality was firmly God’s domain, and man was specifically forbidden from pursuing this knowledge.
This was a manifestation of God’s love and wisdom.  If man was responsible for his own moral choices, he would fall short of God’s standards.  This was not knowledge that was necessary to do the task for which he was created, and it could only be harmful to man.  So God took that burden off man’s shoulders.
Man chose, however, to seize this knowledge against God’s instructions.  We are told that, at the moment he did this, his eyes were opened and he knew things he had previously not known: specifically, that he was naked.
In the second story above, we read of Solomon who requested wisdom from God.  Since the reason Solomon requested this gift was to be a more effective ruler of God’s people, it pleased God to grant Solomon his wish.  Now, I need to stress that God gave Solomon wisdom for the purpose of governing the children of Israel.  Solomon, however, chose to USE this knowledge for self-glorification.  Since he did not use the knowledge for to purpose that God gave it, he ended his life in despair as we see chronicled in the book of Ecclesiastes.  No matter what task Solomon accomplished with his great wisdom, he found it meaningless because he was not using his gift correctly.
Finally, let’s examine the case of King Nebuchadnezzar as chronicled in the book of Daniel.  If you search the scriptures, you won’t find a single king who had more specific and direct revelation of the course of history than Nebuchadnezzar.  So much so, that critics of the scripture have a very difficult time explaining how the book of Daniel specifically predicted the rise of Alexander the Great, and resort to giving the book a late date of authorship or tell us it was edited later to include these predictions.
Despite having a Jewish Prophet of the Lord at his beck and call, and despite being given direct prophetic revelation from God, Nebuchadnezzar remained in willful ignorance, glorifying himself as an equal to God.
God’s final act of discipline to Nebuchadnezzar was to “Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him.”  In an instantaneous and miraculous act, God removed Nebuchadnezzar’s capacity for understanding and he was reduced to an animalistic nature.  When the disciplinary period was complete, we read Nebuchadnezzar’s own words regarding the matter:
“And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”
So we can ascertain from these passages that a Biblical approach to knowledge could be said to be this: that God gives man the capacity to observe and understand the world around him in a way that animals cannot.  We are given the capacity to define our universe, and this was given us originally for the purpose of caring for God’s creation.  As a result of Adam’s willful disobedience, we also have the capacity for determining right from wrong and making moral judgments. 
However, we have the freedom to abuse this ability with the consequence that the inferences we make from our observation of the universe are errant, resulting in a distorted and incorrect worldview.  This is a state that the Bible addresses at some length, defining it as “foolishness.”
“Wisdom,” as defined biblically, could be said to be the correct usage of knowledge to the glory of God, while “Foolishness” is the incorrect application of knowledge such that it robs God of the glory due Him.

Postmodernism Part 3: A Biblical Approach to Truth

Postmodernism attacks three fundamental ideas: Truth, Knowledge, and Language.  Why those things in particular?  It must be because those things are important to a right understanding.  It is therefore worth our effort to investigate what the Bible has to say about those things.

A Biblical Approach to Truth

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth… And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

“And he said to him, Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”

“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No man comes to the Father but by me.”

“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.  Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”
“You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.”
If Modernism’s definition of Truth is “That which adheres to reality,” then the Biblical definition of Truth is “That which adheres to, reflects, or reveals God’s nature.”
Now immediately we encounter a problem with this definition.  Because there are clearly things in the world around us which are in no way reflective of the purity, holiness and righteousness of God.  Are these things therefore illusions?  Let’s examine this.
God created the universe in general and man in particular to revel or reflect something in his nature.  We know this because God pronounced his creation to be “Very Good,” and Christ teaches us that the term “Good” can only be applied to God.  Therefore, on the seventh day, when God rested, nature must have been a perfect revelation or reflection of his nature. 
 God also specifically said that man and woman were created in his image so that, in a state of perfection man and woman are a specific revelation of God’s image.
Now here is a question for you: what was the first sin ever committed by a human being in the Bible?  If you answered “Disobeying God’s command and eating the forbidden fruit,” you are incorrect.  That was the second sin.  The first sin was believing the lie the serpent told over the word of God. 
We can all agree that Christ lived the perfect earthly life.  The primary characteristic that marked Christ’s life was obedience.  Christ was absolutely obedient to God’s will.  Christ obeyed when it wasn’t convenient, when he didn’t want to, and when it didn’t make sense.  Christ was fatally obedient.
When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, they were not just believing a lie, they were belying God’s nature within them.  God consequently withdrew his nature from them, and all of creation was cursed as a consequence. 
Let me make this absolutely clear: this is what makes sin so abhorrent.  It is a corruption or perversion of God’s perfect nature.  It is Satan taking his spray-paints to the cathedral and writing obscenities all over what God had made Holy. 
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
   ¹⁹Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
   ²⁰For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
   ²¹Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
   ²²Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
   ²³And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
   ²⁴Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
   ²⁵Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
   ²⁶For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
   ²⁷And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
   ²⁸And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
   ²⁹Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
   ³⁰Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
   ³¹Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
   ³²Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

In the original Hebrew, there are several words for “sin” in the Bible, and each one has its own flavor.  Sin could mean straying from the path.  It could mean failing to hit the mark.  It could mean deliberately turning ones back on God.  As you can see, there are many ways to not live up to the image God placed on us.  But whenever we sin, we choose to believe and demonstrate a lie rather than to fulfill the purpose for which God made us.  When men deliberately believe a lie, God withdraws the truth from them and chaos rushes in to fill the void.
C.S. Lewis once said, “There are two type of men: those who say to God ‘Your will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘Very well then, YOUR will be done.’”
The Bible tells us to draw near to God and He will draw near to us, but the opposite is also true: turn your back on God, and He will withdraw from you.  The atheist gets exactly what he asks for: a Godless existence.
God  and Lying
Exodus 1:15-20
And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
Joshua 2:1-6
And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country. And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were: And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

1 Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Ezekiel 14:9

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (King James Version)

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Each of these passages is a perfect illustration of a danger which directly relates to sin and godlessness, that is this: if God presents you with a truth, and you choose to disbelieve that truth, God will eventually bow to your disbelief with the consequence that truth itself is removed from you.  In the absence of truth, all that remains is a lie.  We see this principle of God “giving people over” to their sins throughout the Bible, but I feel it is best encapsulated in the statement that Paul made in Romans 1

However, before we explore this principle any further, let’s look at each one of those passages about God’s supposed lying or support of lying in context. 

The first two passages deal with situations in which a human deceived another human and God blessed their actions.  I will seek to prove that in both of these situations the person lying was not in violation of any commandment of God and the person being lied to had access to the Truth and willingly chose to reject it.

The first passage is from the Book of Exodus, and refers to the Pharaoh’s genocidal plan to wipe out God’s Chosen People by killing off the firstborn.  The midwives, who feared God and respected the Jews chose to disobey the King’s command and lie to him instead.  The second passage is from Joshua where the spies from Israel were harbored and hidden by Rahab who chose to lie in order to save their lives.

The ninth commandment is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”  Many people generalize this to mean “Don’t lie.”  However, that’s not the wording or the intent of the command.  The command specifically involves being a witness in a courtroom and could be rephrased to mean “if you have proof of your neighbor’s guilt in a matter, you are responsible to do your part to see he is brought to justice.  If you are assured of your neighbor’s innocence, you are responsible to do your part to see that he is acquitted.”  In other words, this commandment is about seeing justice served.  Justice is part of God’s nature and is one of our primary civic responsibilities.  That is why when the prophet Micah sums up the ten commandments, he says “But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”

In the first two passages above, both the Midwives and Rahab are put in a position where an injustice was going to be done if they had been honest.  The authority figures in both instances were working at odds to God, and as we studied in the first section on Truth, anything outside of God’s nature, including injustice, is lies, chaos, and deception.  We are told not to cast pearls before swine, and in both of the instances mentioned, giving God’s enemies the truth would have done harm and worked counter to God’s command, because they were already living in deception.     

Second of all, the Pharaoh had had access to God’s truth.  God’s people had been living in his land for hundreds of years, and Joseph, a prophet of God, had once been installed as the second highest authority in the land.  Had any of the ruling class of Egypt wished, they had ready access to God’s truth, but they never took advantage of it. 

In the Story of Rahab, the Israelites had been wandering around in a little desert next door to Canaan for decades.  The stories of their miraculous deliverance from Egypt had spread throughout the land.  So much so, in fact, that Rahab herself came to a saving fear of Jehovah through the hearing of these stories.  If Rahab was capable of recognizing God’s Truth from these stories, anyone in Canaan could have done the same.  And as Rahab’s story tells us, there was ready room in the Mosaic Law to accept converts into the Jewish nation.  The Canaanites chose instead to reject the evident truth in front of them and work at odds to God’s Chosen people, and so they were brought to destruction.  In both instances, the lies they received were part of God’s righteous judgment upon them.

The third passage comes to us from the first book of Kings.  In this passage, King Ahab of Israel has made an arrangement with King Jehosophat of Judah to go into battle together against the troublesome Syrian army.  In case you aren’t terribly familiar with Old Testament history, there was a split in the leadership of Israel after the death of King Solomon.  The nation was split into Israel to the north, composed of ten of the twelve tribes, and Judah to the South, composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. 

Since the split occurred, Israel remained in constant rebellion against God, worshipping whatever pagan idols the neighboring countries were worshiping.  As bad as all the kings were, the worst of them was Ahab, who was militantly against God, and tried to wipe out all of his prophets and worshipers. 

Now Israel and Judah did not typically get along, however in this instance, the Syrians were such a powerful threat, that they decided to join forces.  This kind of action had previously been forbidden by the Lord, who did not want Judah to have anything to do with Israel.  In other words, Jehosophat should have known better.

As they are gathering to go up to battle, Jehosophat insists that they consult the prophets first.  This is consistent behavior recommended by the Law of Moses, so Jehosophat is at least paying some lip service to God.  Ahab parades in all of his yes-men prophets, who serve the idol Baal.  Each prophet says the same thing: go up and fight the Syrians.  You will be victorious.

Jehosophat quickly realizes that none of the prophets represent God, and so he asks Ahab if there is a prophet of the Lord available to consult.  Previously in the book, Ahab has made it his policy to kill all the prophets of the Lord he can find, but he is able to find one named Michaiah.  Ahab warns Jehosophat ahead of time that Micaiah never tells him what he wants to hear.  When they ask Michaiah, the prophet responds “Go ahead and fight the Syrians, you will be victorious.”  He must have said it sarcastically, because Ahab immediately recognizes that he is not being sincere with them, and threatens him if he doesn’t tell the truth.

At this point, Micaiah tells a very odd story about a bunch of spirits gathered together before God.  God asks which one of them would be willing to go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all the prophets to convince Ahab to go up to battle so that he might be killed.  One of them steps forward and volunteers, hence the consistent prophesy of all the prophets of Baal.

One of the prophets slaps Micaiah, saying “Which way did the spirit go from my mouth to tell you this?”  Then Ahab has Micaiah locked up and tortured.   Then he goes up to battle and dies.

Let me pause at this point to mention that when we see prophecy occur in the Old Testament, it tends to occur in one of two ways: either the prophet is given a vision (such as occurred in the case of Micaiah) and then relates the vision in his own words, or the prophet is “filled with the Spirit” and speaks Gods words directly.  In this case, Micaiah knew from his vision that God wanted Ahab to go up to fight the Syrians and die.  This may explain why his initial response to the question was the same lie that the false prophets had told.  It is important to note that he was not speaking directly for God at the time, though.

The second passage comes to us from the fourteenth chapter of Ezekiel.  Historically, Israel was in captivity to the Babylonians at this time.  Some of Israel’s elders come to the prophet Ezekiel looking for some oracle from the Lord.  As they approach, God speaks to Ezekiel to tell him that these Hebrew men have adopted the worship of Babylon’s idols, and asks Ezekiel if such men deserve the truth of God.  Then God speaks audibly through Ezekiel to tell the elders that first they must destroy their idols and turn their hearts back to God.  Until they do, no prophet will speak to them.  If a prophet is somehow foolish enough  to try to prophesy to them, God will make certain that the words he speaks are NOT the truth of the Lord, and judge that prophet along with the idolaters. 

The final passage comes from Paul’s second epistle to the church at Thessalonica.  This epistle was written primarily because this church had begun to spread rumors that the end of time was near.  This was resulting in a great deal of distress among the church members.  Paul wrote this epistle to correct this error in thinking.  In this passage he is mentioning one of the signs that the end of time is near will be the revelation of “The Man of Sin.”  This is the person more well-known as the Antichrist.  What Paul explains to us in this passage is that the period of time between the resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Antichrist has been for the benefit of the entire world, that everyone should have a chance to hear and believe in the message of the gospel.  When the end of time finally DOES come, everyone will have had the opportunity to believe and repent; so that those who are still unbelieving at this time have willfully turned away from the truth.  We see this in verse ten where it states, “with all the deceit of unrighteousness in those who perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

The passage goes on to state that God will remove his truth from the world at this time, resulting in a strong delusion.

In each of these passages, we see the exact same principle. The people being "lied" to are in willful rebellion to God. Moreover, they were openly offered the truth and the opportunity to follow it, and they outright rejected it. In the first passage Ahab, a man who had been mercilessly killing prophets of God and had sought his council from false prophets worshiping idols was STILL given the truth, and rejected it.

In the second passage, the Jewish elders, who had the writings of Moses warning them away from idolatry were in rebellion, worshipping idols, and God told them outright that they would need to abandon their idolatry and come back to their worship of God before he would speak to them.

In the final passage, the people, having been exposed to the gospel for their entire lives, eagerly followed after the Antichrist, outright rejecting the truth they had been offered. So the truth was removed from them.
This just highlights the amazing constancy of the Bible. These passages are pulled from five separate texts with entirely different authors that were separated by hundreds of years of history, and each one illustrates the EXACT SAME principle.

God is a God of truth.  In John 18:37, Jesus says to Pilate, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is on the side of truth hears My voice.”

Solomon tells us that “²⁰Wisdom cries without; she utters her voice in the streets.
   
   ²¹She cries in the chief places of concourse, in the openings of the gates; in the city she utters her words, saying,
   
   ²²"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love to be simple, and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
   
   ²³Turn you at my reproof: Behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you; I will make known my words unto you.
   
   ²⁴"Because I have called and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand and no man heeded,
   
   ²⁵but ye have set at nought all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
   
   ²⁶I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh,
   
   ²⁷when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind, when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
   
   ²⁸Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me,
   
   ²⁹because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD.
   
   ³⁰They would have none of my counsel, and they despised all my reproof:
   
   ³¹therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own ways, and be filled with their own devices.
   
   ³²For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them;
   
   ³³but whoso hearkens unto me shall dwell safely, and shall have quiet from fear of evil."

The truth God offers us is a privilege.  God will offer it freely, He will pursue us with it, but you can only reject it so often before the privilege of truth is removed.  If God tells us the truth, and warns us of the consequences of denying it, He is just.

Postmodernism Part 2: Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a relatively new system of thought in the West, but many of its aspects can be seen in the thousands of years of Hindu and Buddhist thought and philosophy in the East.  Briefly stated, Postmodernism is the belief that each individual creates and is responsible for their own reality separate from every other individual’s reality.

While this line of thought has been cultivated for millennia in the East, its introduction and subsequent popularity in the West was helped in large part by advances in Science.  As quantum physics became more and more recognized by the scientific community and then by the public, some of its ideas found their way into thought and philosophy.  For instance, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which states that while observing certain particles in motion, the observer changes the outcome by measuring it, is applied in popular philosophy by stating that a person can change their destiny by imagining the outcome.  In other words: think positive.  Einstein’s Law of Relativity, which specifically applies to mathematical calculations regarding the relationship of bodies in space, is applied to life by stating that “Everything is Relative.”  And the very debatable theory of Alternate Realities has been adopted into popular thought to state that my reality can differ from your reality.

Let’s look at how Postmodernists view Truth, Knowledge, and Language.

Postmodernists View of Truth

“Truth is relative” is the watchword of the Postmodernist.  The Postmodernist view is that each individual is living in their own little bubble universe which is constructed from their beliefs and ideas.  This has two effects.  First, it means that nothing I believe to be true should have any bearing on you.  I can completely respect and live with your views, even when they widely differ from my own, and can simultaneously dismiss any bearing that your views have on me. 

Secondly, it means that I can hold two beliefs that contradict one another, and I can live with the contradiction.  I can believe, for instance, that Hitler went to Hell for his actions, and at the same time I can believe that there is no Hell.  It’s not that the contradiction doesn’t occur to me, it is that it doesn’t matter because truth is whatever I choose to believe is true. 

Each person makes their own truths by their beliefs.

Postmodernists View of Knowledge

We live in the information age where facts are cheap.  Perhaps as a consequence of this, and as a consequence of their view on truth, Postmodernists have a very low view of knowledge.  Or, put another way, facts are divorced from knowledge. 

In the Modernist area, if I was in possession of what I believed to be a fact, I knew that thing.  In the Postmodern age, if I FEEL that something is true, I know that thing.  Knowing something is identical to feeling something.  Facts are largely inconsequential. 

In the Modernist era, sound argumentation was based on producing facts and then building a logical conclusion based on those facts.  In the Postmodern era so many facts are available, that the perception is that any fact you can produce to prove your point, I can produce a fact that seems to contradict yours.  This being the case, debates are based largely on who can form the most impassioned argument for their cause while demeaning their opponent’s cause.

Postmodernists View of Language

In the Modernist view, Language was used to encode and convey information.  In the Postmodernist view, Language is equated with Art: it may mean one thing to the artist and something different to the observer. 

In Modernism, a real attempt was made to preserve the integrity and accuracy of language against such threats as lingual drift and slang.  In Postmodernism, lingual drift and slang are celebrated and encouraged.

This is seen in the Postmodern practice of Literary Deconstruction.  What a Deconstructionist does is that they take something someone has written, they examine the history and background of the writer, and they try to determine, based on that person’s background, what the person was attempting to say.  They will then create their own meaning for the writing as it applies to them based on THEIR feelings.

This is like me telling you, “Sex is wrong outside of marriage.”  You take my meaning to be, “Sex is wrong outside of a committed, loving relationship,” and then you apply this to yourself to mean “Sex is the ultimate expression of Love.”

How Postmodernism disagrees with Christianity

Postmodernism has had a profound effect on society as it relates to Christianity.  First of all, it has made communication of the Gospel to be nearly impossible.  When I tell a person that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no man comes to the Father except through him; they can comfortably say that it is nice that that belief works for me, and go away entirely unaffected by what I have told them.  Or, if they do take my message to heart, they can comfortably adopt Christianity without changing any of their previous beliefs or lifestyle.  In so doing, they violate the First Commandment.  For the Christian, sin and unrighteous living become easy to justify based on what I want to define as righteous living.  If my practices don’t meet God’s standards, I simply re-interpret God’s standards to fit my lifestyle.

Finally, and probably most importantly, Christianity is seen as highly offensive to the Postmodern Culture because we make absolute claims to truth.  In an age where tolerance has come to mean “absolute acceptance of all beliefs and lifestyles to be equally valid” we draw lines in the sand, see things in terms of black and white, and still believe in “right” and “wrong.”  This has led to intellectual and political persecution against the Christian faith, and it is likely going to get worse.

Next, we will examine the proper Biblical worldview as it relates to Truth, Knowledge, and Language.

Postmodernism Part 1: Three Worldviews

Postmodernism is the predominant worldview of our day.  It is the worldview that most people in America, Believers and Nonbelievers alike, share, and yet very few could define it for you. 

However, to understand Postmodernism, it is important to understand the worldviews that came before it.  There have been a total of three predominant worldviews in recorded history.  Each worldview had specific ideas about the nature of truth, knowledge, and language.  With each of these worldviews, there is a particular attack against the Christian worldview.  Let’s explore these one at a time.

Superstition/Supernaturalism

The first recorded worldview was what could best be called Superstition or Supernaturalism.  This is, by far, the longest lasting worldview, which isn’t surprising because many of the assumptions of this worldview stem from ignorance and a lack of information.

Superstition could best be defined as the belief that the universe is a vast and dangerous place ruled by powers beyond understanding.  This was the predominant worldview up until the period of the Enlightenment.

Superstition’s view on Truth

Since the Superstitious worldview was based in a world where information was difficult to come by and ignorance was the norm, there was little or nothing written that formalized their ideas on truth, knowledge, or language.  However there were two Greek philosophers that lived in the 500’s BC that tried.

Socrates

The first documented western philosopher was a guy named Socrates.  He founded the Grecian school of philosophy which is still the foundation of western thought. 
Socrates founded his school of thought on a seemingly simple question: where does wisdom come from?  In his quest to answer this question, he interviewed poets and politicians, scholars and playwrights; in short, all the respected men of knowledge of his day.  One at a time he probed them with queries as to the foundation of their knowledge and brilliance.  What he discovered was startling and disturbing: none of these men had any real explanation for their success.  In every case, when Socrates questioned back along their line of reasoning, their reasons dissolved into irrational speculation, assumption, or ignorance.
This led to the foundational statement of the Socratic school of thought: "Wisdom starts with the realization of how ignorant you truly are."

From Socrates investigation, ignorance was the norm and brilliance was an inexplicable aberration.

Plato

Socrates, to his credit, never attempted to speculate about the unknown, he simply tried to define the parameters of human understanding.  His student, Plato, took this a bit further.  Plato conceded that human perception was limited, and speculated that there was an ideal universe of elevated truth that humans had very little access to.  The things we see and are able to comprehend, Plato theorized, were mere shadows of the reality that lay behind them. 

In a famous parable, Plato illustrated it thusly:

A busy merchant road runs through a tunnel.  All day long merchants and gypsies and pilgrims travel along the road in great caravans, laughing and singing and telling stories.  On one side of the path that runs through the tunnel, large fires are built to illuminate the way.  On the other side of the path, a group of prisoners are chained up, facing away from the path.  The prisoners cannot see any of the people, animals, or objects that travel along the path, but they can hear the distorted echoes of their voices, and see the shadows of these things cast on the wall in front of them.  Since the prisoners are poor men who have never seen camels, or circuses, or any of the various exotic sights that travel the path behind them, they can only speculate as to what these things are based on the shadows and echoes they can see or hear.  A foolish man would come to believe that the shadows and echoes they can perceive are the reality of these objects, but a wise one knows that they are simply a poor representation of the actuality.  Either way, they cannot really come to know the true nature of these objects in their degraded condition.

To Plato, humans lived in a shadowland, incapable in our own power to comprehend the true nature of the universe.

As we can see from an examination of these two philosophies, the pre-modern view of truth was not an optimistic one.

Superstitions View on Knowledge

From the vantage of Superstition, Knowledge always came from the past.  There was a very real sense, shared in most ancient cultures, that people were progressing AWAY from knowledge and comprehension, and TOWARD ignorance.  This can be seen in the elevated status that was accorded the elderly for their wisdom, and in the constant search for, and preservation of, texts and stories that told them about their pasts and origins.

Knowledge was almost always tied to mystical authority figures.  Religious Priests, Rulers (who, in the ancient world, were almost always closely tied to the gods) or Oracles were sought out to confer knowledge, and were awarded with final authority in such areas. 

Superstitions View on Language

From a Superstitious worldview, language is very powerful to a mystic degree.  We see from most ancient cultures that various occultic practices such as spell casting were all about knowing the right words to say.  Certain words were ritualistically avoided, and written texts were accorded priceless value.

How Superstition Disagrees with Christianity

In the instance of the Superstitious worldview, people are enslaved by fear of the unknown.  They come to believe that the universe is a large and shadowy place, full of sinister things that will attack them if they stray out of their narrow lives.  Not only does it obscure information, but the Superstitious worldview encourages ignorance as “safe.”

The Superstitious worldview takes as given that the universe is controlled by supernatural forces.  You do not need to convince someone of the Superstitious persuasion that God or Spirits exist.  They believe in these things fervently and they live in fear of them. 

The challenge lies in freeing them from their fear and slavery and convincing them of God’s love.  Done improperly, ministry to the Superstitious will lead to syncretism- the integration of Christian beliefs and practices with their existing  beliefs and practices.

Modernism

Modernism is characterized by humanism: the belief that man is the measure and measurer of all things, by the belief in single, unified truth, and by the belief that the universe is a largely mechanical structure that can be studied and understood by the human mind.  It is a categorical rejection of the Superstitious worldview in that, while the Superstitious worldview believed that the universe was controlled by Supernatural forces and could never be comprehended by mere mortal minds, Modernism tends to deny the supernatural and elevate human intuition and knowledge to the highest degree.  While we see Modernist tendencies as early as the Greek philosopher Aristotle, it was the rise to prominence of the Christian Church in the Medieval era that ironically laid the foundation for Modernism.  The high value that the Church put on human thought and creativity combined with what was most likely an over emphasis on Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, the Church age lead to the Enlightenment when the culture at large took the human values of the Church and divorced them from their Spiritual basis.  Modernism can roughly be traced from the rise of the Enlightenment to about the 1960’s and 70’s when it began to be supplanted by Postmodernism.

Modernism’s view on Truth

Unlike Postmodernism, Modernism holds to the idea that there is one, unified truth.  Thus, if two ideas contradict one another, they cannot both be correct.  This is called the Law of Non-contradiction.   Modernism’s definition of truth would be “That which conforms to reality.” 

Modernism’s view on Knowledge

With Modernism came the rise of Science and the belief that we can construct a realistic base of knowledge simply by observing the world around us, deducing from the observations, and testing our deductions.  One of the fundamental beliefs of Modernism is that Man is equipped to comprehend the universe. 

In fact, the holy grail of Modernism is what they call a “Universal Equation.”  This is a hypothetical formula that would fundamentally explain everything in reality.  If such an equation existed, we could extrapolate from it everything that exists and understand all of reality.

If the Superstitious worldview believed that Knowledge lay in the past, and we were progressing toward ignorance, Modernism believes that Knowledge lies in the future and that we are progressing away from ignorance.  Instead of some ancient wisdom that we once all shared, Modernism believes we came from a place of complete ignorance, and that our efforts to test and construct the world around us are leading us toward a place of complete understanding.

However, very much like the Superstitious worldview, Modernism ties knowledge to Authority figures.  The lab-coat-wearing scientist is accorded final authority in all areas of knowledge, and disagreeing with The Experts, whoever they may be, is laughable.

Modernisms view on Language

If Language held a high, almost mystical value in the Supernatural worldview, it holds a medium value in the Modernist worldview.  Language is the tool we use to encode knowledge.  A more precise language leads to a more accurate way of transmitting and recording knowledge.  For this reason, Science adopted Latin.  As a dead language, it is not subject to lingual drift, so all the words and terms will remain precise. 

How Modernism Disagrees with Christianity

Christianity freed people from the chains of Superstition.  Modernism claims to free people from the chains of religion.  Because of its high view of Humanity in general and the Human intellect in particular, Modernism claims that we do not need Religion or God to explain the world around us, and we do not need such crutches to define our own destiny.  Using the Law of Non-Contradiction, Modernism claims that, since Science proves that the Universe came into existence by natural forces, we can explain everything that exists without having to refer to a Creator.  Modernism attempts to create a false conflict between Science and Christianity by claiming that Science observes and accepts what is, while Christianity relies on a blind belief in things that we do not observe, cannot record, and are not supported by History or Nature.

We have examined the worldviews that preceeded Postmodernism.  In the next article, we will take a close look at the rise of Postmodernism, and it’s fundamental beliefs.

The Best Apologetic

In logic and debate, they teach various techniques that are considered to be logical fallacies.  One of these is to attack your opponent rather than attacking your opponent's arguments.  So, for instance, if I am presenting a case against global warming, and my opponent responds to my argument by saying "Yeah, but you never graduated high school, so what do you know?" his response may be convincing at an emotional level, but it does nothing to disprove my premise.
When it comes to presenting a case for the Christian faith, however, this idea of attacking the opponent actually DOES hold some water.  Not on the side of the Christian, but on the side of the non-believer.  The reason I say this is that one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that it is supposed to change the believer.  If I profess to believe in Christ and his teachings, but I act no different than I did when I was an unbeliever, my claim looks suspicious at best.
The best apologetic is a life well-lived.  One of the main reason that Jesus is such an intriguing figure to all people-groups the world over is that his life was lived so purely.  Even the most ardent atheist must admit that he was "a great moral teacher." 
On the flip-side, one poor choice can utterly ruin the testimony of the most well-intentioned apologist. 
In the twenty-third psalm, the psalmist says, "He leads me in paths of righteousness for His name's sake."  What the Psalmist is saying here is that God keeps His followers pure because they are representatives of Him.  They reflect his name and reputation, and so He keeps them from straying.  I think this should be the first prayer of any minister, and of believers in general, that God would purify their actions so that they may properly represent Him to the world.
A poorly educated person who is unable to make a verbal defense for his faith, through living out the Christian life in a faultless way, may do more to redeem those around him than the most silver tongued theologian.

God and Time

One of the classic arguments for the existence of God has to do with the origins of the universe.  Briefly stated, this argument says that it is logical nonsense to believe that the universe has existed forever, because if something exists forever into the past, you never reach the present moment.  Therefore, the universe had to have a beginning in time, and if it had an origin, it must have an originator.
The classic skeptical response to this is to turn this line of logic around on God himself.  That is to say, if the universe cannot logically exist forever into the past, neither can God, and therefore God must have an origin and originator, in which case you have an infinite regression of Gods: also logical nonsense. 
This is, in fact, a sound argument as far as it goes.  God cannot exist forever into the past, but neither can he have a beginning.  So where does that leave us?
The answer is that time itself had an origin, and that God exists in eternity, or put another way, He is not subject to the dimension of time. 
This may be a concept that is difficult to wrap your mind around, but is the only conclusion we can make about God's existence.  If God were subject as we are to the progression of events from past to present to future, then He would be limited in some way.  That limitation would be a force greater than God, and therefore Time itself would be God.
We can see God's eternality reflected in the nature of biblical prophesy.  The prophetic books of the Bible, beginning with Isaiah and ending with Malachi, can be some of the most difficult books of the Bible to read and to understand.  They seem somewhat jumbled in their progression, for a moment reflecting past events, then jumping to some highly symbolic imagery and then speaking about the end of time.  Many people define "prophesy" to mean predictions about the future.  However, from a Biblical perspective, a prophet was simply a man or woman who brought a message from God.  And so, in a way, the books of the prophets reflect the thought processes of God Himself.  If God exists outside of time, then it is little wonder that his thoughts flow through past, present, and future events in a way that is difficult for our lesser minds to follow.
I also firmly believe that God's existence outside of time does a great deal to reconcile the apparent differences between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God.  Theologians state that one must necessarily limit the other.  However, given the fact that we reflect on the past to make decisions in the present that effect the future, whereas God's actions are based on an absolute knowledge of past, present, and future, and those actions can affect any and all points along the timeline, I am not certain that man's free will and God's sovereignty DO limit one another.

The Beginning of Wisdom

The first documented western philosopher was a guy named Socrates.  He founded the Grecian school of philosophy which is still the foundation of western thought. 
Socrates founded his school of thought on a seemingly simple question: where does wisdom come from?  In his quest to answer this question, he interviewed poets and politicians, scholars and playwrights; in short, all the respected men of knowledge of his day.  One at a time he probed them with queries as to the foundation of their knowledge and brilliance.  What he discovered was startling and disturbing: none of these men had any real explanation for their success.  In every case, when Socrates questioned back along their line of reasoning, their reasons dissolved into irrational speculation, assumption, or ignorance.
This led to the foundational statement of the Socratic school of thought: "Wisdom starts with the realization of how ignorant you truly are."
Five hundred years before Socrates came to this conclusion, the King Solomon came to a different conclusion about the start of wisdom.  He said, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."  Like most of his proverbs, Solomon does not greatly expand on this statement, leaving the reader to wonder in what way is the fear of God the beginning of wisdom, and what does he mean by fear of God?
Fear is typically a force that drives one away from something.  If I fear the woods, I am not going anywhere near the woods.  Yet coming from a Jewish vantage, and in light of his other writings, it is fair to assume that Solomon would advise wisdom seekers to pursue God, not to flee from him.  What kind of fear drives you toward the object of your fear?
In Jesus' famed Sermon on the Mount, he begins by blessing a number of pitiful groups: the poor in spirit, the meek, those who mourn, etc.  We are told these people will, among other things, inherit the earth and see God.  However, as the sermon proceeds, the people are told that unless their righteousness exceeds that of the holiest group in Israel, the Pharisees, that they will not enter the kingdom of God.  The people are shockingly advised to remove any body parts that are causing them to sin, and finally they are told that they must be perfect in order to enter the kingdom.
Was Jesus harsh advice to, among other things, pluck out your eye or cut off your hand if they are causing you to stumble, rhetorical?
In the most famous section of Dante's Divine Comedy, the writer tells of his journey through Hell as he makes his way to Heaven.  The writer had a very specific purpose for taking his readers through Hell first: for Dante, Hell represented the recognition and rejection of sin.  God is not kidding around.  Sin really IS that serious to God.  And Jesus advice to cut off your hand was no mere rhetoric.  If that's what it takes to free you from sin, it is worth every drop of blood.
However, Jesus also knew that self-mutilation would not remove the problem.  Because the eye-less, hand-less man would still be thoroughly corrupt through every cell of his body.
These words of Jesus were intended to drive the hearer to despair.  It is a technique he employed more than once. 
People are quick to find solace in the first part of Jesus' sermon where the poor and meek are given glorious blessings, but rarely do we find anyone enthusiastic about the second part of the sermon. 
Those who find a shocking dichotomy between the God of wrath and judgement and the God of love are not wrong.  Frequently God is both in a single breath.
There is another story that Jesus told.  The story concerns two men praying in the temple.  One is a holy man, a Pharisee, who thanks God for his virtue and for the fact that he is not like the lowly men.  The other is a corrupt tax collector.  This man, in contrast to the Pharisee, tears his clothes, falls face first on the ground  and cries in misery "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"  Jesus says, "I tell you, this man went home justified before God."
The same God who shows his wrath and judgement will heal and justify the man who acknowledges his corruption and helplessness.  THIS is the God of Love.  But the man unwilling to come to grips with the fact that he is truly hopelessly lost will never get to meet this God.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.