Thus says the Lord: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.
But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'" --Jeremiah 6:16

 

30 January, 2007   comments: (0) Postmodernism   Don't Speak Today's Taboo "W-Words" Regardless of what you think of George W. Bush, you must admit that he got in a funny one at Al Gore's expense when in his first campaign he asked, "If Al Gore really invented the internet, why does every website start with a 'dubya'? (www)". In this post we are going to look at some recent comments that object to our use of some words that are out of bounds in postmodernism; I'm speaking of some other "W-words", one of which shows up in taboo sentences like this: "You are Wrong about that belief". We'll also take a look at two additional bonus W-words that if spoken, are sure to cause postmodern chafing. Here's a look at a couple of comments posted on Old Truth in the last 24 hours. Though they are coming from two entirely different contemporary church movements, they both contain the loud postmodern battle cry for tolerance, while at the same time whispering the subtle message of subjectivism towards truth. A comment from a megachurch pastor: (on this page) Just something to keep in mind when making statements about "the most innovative mega-churches" . . . They are NOT all alike. Just because some may not present the Gospel message in their feel-good topical sermons, it does not mean that all culturally-relevant "mega-churches" (and that term...a whole different topic...) are the same. I am part of one that DOES preach, clearly and wholeheartedly, the Gospel message. Nobody could ever visit that church even once without hearing the Gospel message. It is a shame that Christian's take sooooo much time bashing one another. It defies everything we stand for when even one of us does such. You may not agree with everything--hey, that's why we're in different churches, different denominations (none of which [has] a biblical perspective) to begin with. Please, please, please, lay down your stones...We are to be of Christ who is the Light of the World...not stoning our own brothers and sisters. May God bless you today! (emphasis mine) The commenter attempts to convince us that his church is culturally relevant while still maintaining the Gospel message. But the fact that he wants his megachurch to be identified as "culturally relevant" sets off red flags. That term (the way it's usually used today) is generally synonymous with adjusting the church environment around what unregenerate people think they need, or what they will find entertaining. No doubt that the Gospel must be presented in a relevant way, but as John Murray explains churches should be striving instead for a different kind of relevance, a biblical kind. I would also point out that all of the innovative churches mentioned on the page that he is objecting to - would make the same claim that he makes. They would say "we are doing both" (being culturally relevant and preaching a biblical message). But when the page compares their sermons to those preached in past centuries, the claim of an unchanged message begins to come apart at the seams. Maybe this commenter's church is an exception, if so - he is welcome to stop back and post his web address so that we will have an example that we can learn from. The sense that I get from his second paragraph is that nobody can really have a solid understanding of biblical truth (no denomination has a biblical perspective he says), and so the idea is - we should try to treat objectionable things as being just differences of opinion. Therefore, since everybody is at least a little bit wrong, then it would be hypocritical or presumptuous for anyone to tell someone else that they are wrong about something. He claims that when someone does this, "it defies everything we stand for". In reality however, what we should be standing for is truth. The bottom line for this commenter seems to be, anyone that objects to contemporary methods or messages had better just stay quiet, don't "throw stones", and focus instead on unity in Christ. From an Emerging Church commenter: (on this page) "there still must be SOME foundational beliefs that any [church] community is built on". That's for the community to decide [what those beliefs are]. Everyone in the community should have input into what the "essentials" are to be a part of that group. The issue comes in the misguided belief that everyone in a faith community must be saved and on the same page. I think it's possible - and desirable - to be together relationally and disagree on theology. I don't think there's any reason a Calvinist and a Weslyan should not be able to be in community together for example. I also think we need [the] "sinner" in our midst. We need to be friends of sinners as our Teacher was. But many believers haven't hung out with lost people in years - much less had any of them as part of their "community". You asked "Do Mormons and JW's who believe what their church teaches go to heaven?" That's God's call. It's not that we emerging-leaners are necessarily engaging in relativism. We're just engaging in discussion without judgment. If a JW meets one of you guys and you discuss scripture, at some point you're going to say - "Hey dummy! You're a fool believing a different gospel and you're on the way to hell!" (you'll say it nicer than that, but that's what you're thinking). If I talk with that guy at my local "brew + theology" session, I will listen to his ideas. I will ask questions like "but didn't Jesus say..." At the end of the discussion, we will not agree. I will tell them "I know you believe this. I personally don't see it, but I hope that works out for you because I know God really loves you and wants you to find him". Then, I'll take the last swig of Guiness and be on my way. It's not my job to judge the guy. And at the end of the day, I have a friend who might talk to me some more. You - on the other hand - have someone that you have made angry. You're OK with that because you'll just say that the gospel is a stumbling block, etc. The problem with that line of thinking in the post-modern context is that you'll be doing that to about 85% of the people you interact with. And at this point, it's not just the gospel that's a stumbling block. Oftentimes, our own attitudes are. From his previous comment on the same page: Of course, it's important to hold love above all (not necessarily for the purpose of unity - but for the purpose of love which we should be characterized by). There's so much that could be said about that, and it's so in synch with so much of the Emerging Church movement that I've encountered. Again, I'll hit the highpoints and leave the rest for anybody else who wants to comment. Perhaps without realizing it, our commenter abandons, and classifies as "misguided thinking", the patterns given to us in the book of Acts. He says for example, churches can be made up of a composite of believers and unbelievers alike (which is not the pattern in Acts 2:44a), and where the people need not have the same beliefs in common (which clashes with Acts 2:44b). I agree that churches should always be friendly to unbelieving visitors, but the New Testament pattern is always - churches are made up of believers gathering together. While we are talking about the book of Acts, it's interesting to note that in each of the evangelistic occurrences in the book of Acts, there is not one single instance of the commenter's "God loves you" evangelism; the message is instead to repent and believe. In the past we've discussed how no true unity can be had in an environment in which there are polar-opposite beliefs on important matters. Though the commenter talks much about love towards man, he seems to be missing the fact that love towards Christ involves love towards doctrinal truth, for doctrinal truth bears the image of Christ, or as someone once said "Christ comes to us wrapped in biblical teaching which is doctrine". Our Emerging commenter wants to avoid judging anyone's beliefs as being Wrong. Even with cultists, his ultimate reply to them is "I don't see it, but I hope that works out for you". Which begs the question, how does one hope that eternal destruction can "work out for you", being that Jesus said "for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). Those who don't believe what Jesus said about himself, should be Warned about the Wrath that is to come (there's two more W-words that are largely incompatible with postmodernism). Here's what the late Martyn Lloyd-Jones had to say about this, from the book Courageous Christianity: It is a good thing to give people warnings. Is the parent who warns a child about putting a finger in the fire doing something wrong and unfair? Is he bludgeoning the child's mind? Are the authorities on certain beaches in this country being unfair to us when they put up a sign, "Warning: Quicksand"? ... [We are told Acts 5], "Great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things." The church herself was filled with fear, and I would emphasize that this element of fear is an essential part of the true Christian experience. Why do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior? Some Christian people may say, "I came to Christ because I wanted salvation; I've never known what it is to be afraid". Well, I have only one question to ask you: Why do you call our Lord "the Savior"? What does He save you from? Why did you ever go to Him? Why did you ever believe in Him? You see, the very word savior means that we need to be saved from something. And what is it we need to be saved from? The Gospel record gives the answer -"the wrath to come". John the Baptist said to the Pharisees, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7). "Save yourselves from this untoward generation," said Peter, preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:40). It is no use saying that you believe in a Savior unless you realize that you are lost, under the condemnation of the law, and hell-bound. So I cannot recognize an experience as a true Christian experience unless there is an element of fear in it - not the fear that has torment (1 John 4:18) but the fear that makes men and women flee from the wrath to come, the fear that sends them running to the Savior. Great fear! Wrath, Warnings, and (you are) Wrong; those are three "W-words" that are going to require some amount of bravery for anyone who says them, especially as our postmodern age progresses. And there will continue to be professing Christians that will tolerate just about anything except for the use of words such as those. "The saints of old were both advocates and martyrs for truth" said the Puritan Thomas Watson, but the professing Christians of our day hardly even want to disagree with someone for the sake of truth. It's not tolerant, it's not humble, it's not loving, and it's very arrogant. Or so we are told in the age we live in. On a related note, I had the privilege of hearing some extraordinary preaching last Sunday. I don't often recommend entire sermons here on Old Truth, but Tom Chantry's message entitled "Whose Fault is Controversy?" is one that you don't want to miss, as it addresses in depth some of the same issues mentioned in this post. And if you don't take the time to listen to it, then I have to Warn you that it would be really Wrong of you to miss this excellent sermon! Ok, I'll stop with the 'dubya' words now. Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.607   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism