In the coming weeks, Roger will be reviewing several books addressing the claims of The Da Vinci Code, but I want to throw a recommendation out there for one I just finished. It’s called Cracking Da Vinci’s Code by James L. Garlow and Peter Jones, and you can get a cheap paperback version for only $4.99.
I mentioned before that it seemed to me the issue of paganism in TDC has been overlooked as people rush to correct the historical inaccuracies. I strongly believe that, in addition to facts, TDC needs to be addressed at the more fundamental level of worldviews, and this book is just what the conversation needs.
We must, of course, answer its digs at the Bible and the authentic Jesus. However, the real significance of the book is its clear intention to undermine the very foundation of biblical faith and to establish in its place an opposing religious system. Because Brown has adopted the pagan worldview, he is not content to shoot a few BBs at the facts of church history. He wants to blow a hole in the foundations of the worldview of the Bible (p. 223).
Cracking connects TDC with the larger picture of paganism, ancient Gnosticism, and trends in our own culture as these ideas once again gain a foothold–and it does so in a readable, layperson-friendly way. The whole phenomenon of TDC‘s success makes more sense when you can get the larger view of the history and basic ideas of the system of belief in question (i.e., the “sacred feminine,” goddess worship, etc.). Understanding the full picture of this puzzle is crucial for us Christians because it will enable us to recognize (and reject) the ideas that fit into this system–possibly even scattered ideas we’ve already picked up here and there and accepted, not recognizing their origins and place in the larger pagan worldview.
Two views of religion are warring in our day….There might be hundreds of factions (religions) with their unique little agendas, but ultimately they all will eventually align themselves under two fundamental alliances: pagan monism and biblical theism (p. 223).
Behind the debates and conflicting facts, at its core The Da Vinci Code is a radical redefinition of God as the impersonal force of nature (pp. 225-226).
Think it isn’t important for us to get a better grasp of these ideas? Would you feel more motivated if you knew about the Center of the Sacred Feminine and its plans for a goddess temple in San Diego? New Testament scenarios like that of Acts 19 are not so far away from us.
Like Paul in Ephesus, the authors of Cracking approach paganism not from a place of angry attack, but with a clear love and concern for those who are suffering apart from God. After you read this book, I would suggest two things:
1) Learn more about paganism. I noticed another book by Jones called Capturing the Pagan Mind. I haven’t read it, but if it’s similar to Cracking,
I suspect he will offer ways to convey the gospel lovingly, intelligently, and intelligibly to those with a pagan worldview, so that might be a place to start. If the trend of our culture continues, this will be important if we’re to understand and communicate well with our neighbors.
2) Read the Confession of St. Patrick. Why? For hope, my friend. Jesus was greater, more beautiful, and more real, solid, and true than the entrenched paganism of Ireland, and the people came to Him. Let us respond to spiritual need as Patrick responded, remembering the exhortation of Romans 10:14:
How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), The Da Vinci Code 
5 Comments »
April 22, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
If the way I’ve described the roles and purposes
of men and women are accurate, then in a culture that has sought to distort
these roles any attempt to restore them should produce some positive results.
If the root problem has to do with man’s sin, then repentance of sin is part of
the solution. That is, we must restore the God crafted roles that sin has
corrupted. God knew what He was doing when He created men and women as He did;
meaning greater peace and joy will come from fulfilling what God has decreed.
God is God, and the culture’s attempts to deviate from His moral will can only
bring further devastation.
But we can go further than, “It will work because it’s what God intended.” I
think I can offer something more empirical. My dear friends Mark and Claire
have two beautiful daughters, Abigail and Sophia. Half the times I go over to
their house the girls are running around in pink or blue princess dresses. It’s
not because their parents are really weird, they’re not, it’s because the girls
want to be princesses. The beauty and magic of the fairy tales have captured
their imaginations and left them wanting more. They want the stories to come to
life, and they themselves want the starring roles.
Claire’s said that in many of the kid’s clothing shops they go to the princess
items are the most popular (since I don’t frequent kid’s clothing shops I’ll
take her word for it). It’s been a long time since Disney has produced stories
like Cinderella, The Little Mermaid and Sleeping Beauty, but their continued
success as products is a testimony to the timeless values they commend-
goodness, beauty, and truth. As long as these products remain popular we can
have hope.
Little girls, and perhaps big ones too, still want to be princesses. They still
long to look beautiful, to live lives that have a twist of fantasy and magic,
and even, to some degree, be rescued by Prince Charming. They are our little
Ariels, Princess Auroras, and Cinderellas, but where are their Prince Erics,
Philips, and Charmings? Who will rescue them? Where is the boy’s counterpart to
the girl’s dreams of princess hood?
Spiderman. I still see little boys running around Spiderman shirts, shoes and
toys. For years no prince or gentleman role model has been available for boys
(unless someone could point some out to me). That is until Spiderman was reborn
onto the big screen. Sure boys really like the web shooting, wall climbing and
fighting in the films, but the gentleman’s themes of self-sacrifice, humility,
loyalty and honor are so deeply embedded and apparent that they cannot be
ignored.
We can find hope in our children, in their dreams of becoming princesses and
Spiderman, but we would be remiss if we simply hoped. Too many other cultural
factors invade their imaginations and destroy the virtues the stories give
them. We must continue to seek the transformation of culture, tearing down
philosophies of men to proclaim the knowledge of God. And we must model
Christ-like living in our own lives. By God’s grace, there is yet hope.
Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts 4 Comments »
While everyone is busily preparing responses to The Da Vinci Code, billboards featuring a date and the cryptic message “The signs are all around you” have been quietly popping up everywhere for yet another fictional-yet-no-doubt-made-up-mostly-of-extended-historical-lecturing film called The Beast from Brian Flemming, the creator of The God Who Wasn’t There. The film will be released a few weeks after TDC…on June 6. Yeah, that’s right–the date is 6/06/06.
The description on IMDB:
When her father, a biblical scholar, mysteriously disappears, a Christian high-school student named Danielle investigates. She discovers that he had stumbled across a cover-up of Christianity’s best-kept secret: That Jesus Christ never existed. Now that she possesses proof of this dangerous fact, Danielle confronts two strong forces: A band of fundamentalist Christians who will stop at nothing to suppress the truth, and her own desire for Jesus Christ to be real. The Beast dives into factual territory well-explored by scholars but largely hidden from the view of the public.
Rats! They’re on to us, my marauding, fundamentalist, truth-suppressing friends! How could our Grand Master leaders have let that evidence get out?!
Come on now, Flemming, we aren’t hiding any such proof. Once you see The Da Vinci Code, you’ll understand that it’s the goddess worshippers who are suppressing this evidence, not us. We want to get our hands on it as much as you do.
All kidding aside, I have to say that unlike Dan Brown’s message in TDC, I appreciate this guy’s view that the truth matters. And as fascinated as I am by people and their beliefs, I’m looking forward to an interesting analysis of pagan vs. atheist anti-Christian strategies.
In the meantime, here’s a quick answer to the question of Jesus’ existence from our archives.
[Update: the billboards turned out to be for The Omen. The Beast‘s release date has been postponed, and the name has been changed to Danielle. (See a note from the director regarding this here.)]
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), The Da Vinci Code 9 Comments »
April 15, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
|
The Legacy of Sovereign Joy is Book One of John
Piper’s series The Swans are Not Silent. Each book of the series (of which
there is currently four) collects three of the biographical lectures Piper gave
at the annual Bethlehem Conference for Pastors over the past two decades. When
Augustine resigned as Bishop of Hippo it was said that the “swan is silent.”
Piper aims to show that the swans, those in our heritage of Christians
throughout the centuries, are in fact not silent.
|
This book expounds on the lives and thoughts of Augustine,
Martin Luther, and John Calvin. It begins with an introduction about “savoring
the sovereignty of grace in the lives of flawed saints.” Piper explains that
each of these men “had this in common: they experienced, and built their lives
and ministries on, the reality of God’s omnipotent grace.” (18) Noting some of
the flaws of each of these men, Piper believes that “the glory of God, however
dimly, is mirrored in the flawed lives of his faithful servants.” (37)
Each chapter is about half biography and half theological
survey and averages 34 pages. There is a pattern to each chapter: after a brief
introduction John Piper provides a biographical sketch and then brings out a
prominent theme from author’s theology. For Augustine, the theme is sovereign
joy, for Luther it is sacred study, and for Calvin it is the divine majesty of
the Word.
After these chapters, Piper concludes with four lessons we
can learn from the “flawed saints.” “1) Do not be paralyzed by your weaknesses
and flaws… 2) In the battle against sin and surrender, learn the secret of
sovereign joy… 3) Supernatural change comes from seeing Christ in his sacred
Word… 4) Therefore, let us exult the exposition of the truth of the Gospel and
herald the glory of Christ for the joy of all peoples.” (143-148)
It is evident throughout the book that John Piper has
done his homework; quoting often from primary texts and secondary sources.
While there may be some over simplification in regard to the theological
themes, Piper’s points are nonetheless insightful and practical. Each chapter
serves as a great introduction to the lives and thoughts of these Christian
men. The Legacy of Sovereign Joy provides a stimulating resource for
those looking to discover some of the motivating themes of the Reformed
tradition.
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts No Comments »
April 14, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Certainly my explanation of the problem of Radical Feminism is not without disagreement from some, and so likely will the solution I offer here. I offer it with the explicit warning I may be way off. But even if that is the case, I think my solution has some merit.
Wherein lies the problem, therein is often the solution. The root of the problem, as I came to it in my last post in this series, is the failure of men to take up and fulfill their God-given roles. More simply, men have failed to be men. The failure of women to be women is a problem as well, but is dependent first on the failure of men. Therefore the solution must be that men become men once again. We must not only own up to our failures, but we must seek to change ourselves.
Perhaps in today’s culture to “become a man” means getting around with women, having a high tolerance for alcohol, and an undivided love for football on Sundays. Thankfully I’m not this sort of man nor do I ever hope to be. The type of manhood that should be aspired to is something like the Gentleman. Since being a gentleman now means “nice,” I’ll elaborate on I mean by it.
As Brad Miner characterizes it in his book The Compleat Gentleman, there are three essential elements of being a complete gentleman: the warrior, the lover, and the monk. For a thorough history of chivalry and being a gentleman I recommend his book (though he doesn’t really discuss the demise much). The death of the Gentleman would make for another post sometime, but all I’m really concerned with now is what it the gentleman of the twenty-first century should look like.
I’m still learning what it means to be gentleman and I have many shortcomings. But we must start somewhere, and we must start now. When the culture disconnects us from the good ideals of the past we must make an effort to pick up the pieces and reassemble them. Being a gentleman is not some to-do list that we should follow in the dance hall or at the dinner table, though it has applications at those moments and every other. Just as works are a sign of salvation, actions are only signs of a true gentleman. Rather, the attributes of a gentleman are a set of virtues. Yet another word we have almost forgotten. (It becomes increasingly difficult to communicate past truths to a culture that has forgotten the words.)
Brad Miner quotes from an editorial in the Salisbury Review: “A gentleman is not a person with feminine gender and masculine sex. He was through and through a man. But he was gentle—in all the senses of that lucent word. He was not belligerent, but courageous, not possessive but protective, not aggressive to other men but bold, even tempered, and ready to agree on terms. He was animated by a sense of honor—which means taking responsibility for his actions, and shielding those who depended on him. And his most important attribute was loyalty, which implied that he would not deny his obligations, merely because he was in a position to do so.” Miner sums up his analysis in this way: “They [former knights and gentlemen] may have had feet of clay, but they aspired to the chivalrous attributes: fidelity, prowess, generosity, courtesy, and honor. I’ve suggested that the quality unifying them all is justice. The best men, chivalrous or not, as warriors, lovers, and monks have always been just men. Of all the chivalrous attributes, honor is the greatest, because it brings the burden of justice into every moment of a man’s life.”
Fidelity, prowess, and honor are words almost completely lost on our culture. Courtesy is thought of mostly as letting someone in front of you in traffic or good customer service. Miner argues that honor and justice are the core virtues of the gentleman. While these are essential, I don’t believe a man can live them without humility. In my first post on Feminism I suggested that true masculinity meant being selfless and considering the work of God, family, and society the most important. It is the laying aside of the self in view of others that is most foundational not just to the gentleman, but to any Christian. Thus I believe that the virtues commonly characterized as chivalrous are deeply Christian in nature, in that they are how the commandments of the Bible intend for us to act.
In the wake of humility comes pride. Not the blown up boastful kind, but a deep sense of dignity and honor. We are to be humble and proud of it. There is honor in self-sacrifice, particularly that which was demonstrated on the cross. Jesus is the model of the gentleman. He embodied all of the characteristics that have been suggested here for the gentleman. So the solution may be that men become gentlemen, but more specifically, we need to become more Christ-like.
The gentleman most essentially is humble, full of honor and dignity in his selflessness. He is prepared for anything, be it the opening of a car door for a woman, the defense of virtue, or the defense of his family or country with his own life. He is ready to do whatever is necessary to provide and maintain a stable environment for his wife and children. More than this he must be a Christian gentleman, making his faith central to his life. He is for God and country, God first and foremost. Every action is an act of devotion, of humble servant hood. He will preach the gospel without fear and defend the truths of the Word with incisiveness, yet with gentleness and respect because recognizes that all humans are made in the image of God and are therefore valuable. He applies the principles of God’s Word to everything He does, whether he’s sweeping the floor of a warehouse or being sworn in as the President of the United States. Key to his manner is self-restraint. He his thoughtful and slow to speak, weighing his words with wisdom and tact. He may be spontaneous but not brash, which often leads to sin. But this not to say he is a man without a chest. Also key is an unbridled passion for the truth, goodness and beauty. Only in the balance of these qualities can he be called a gentleman. In many ways, these principles can be applied to being a Lady as well. But as I know little about being a gentleman, I know far less about being a lady.
I’m far from this fellow that I’ve described, but he is not far from us. To be a Gentleman of this nature is to be Christ-like in the twenty-first century. Though we will not be perfect, we can take a good shot at it, and I believe we are called to do so. Primarily because it is honoring to God, but also because our culture is in desperate need of true gentlemen; of true Christ-like men.
Posted in Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
April 13, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
This is the 3rd and final part of my interview with R. Scott Smith. He is the author of Truth and the New Kind of Christian, our A-Team Blog Book of the Year for 2005.
|
Foundationalism is an example of where McLaren and Jones
have mischaracterized modernism. What is an example of how they have each
mischaracterized postmodernism?
The main
way I think McLaren in particular mischaracterizes postmodernism is that,
through his character Neo, he seems to think we can remain on the descriptive
level of postmodernism, and not have to dive into the philosophy behind it
(though, the implication is that Neo could do that). However, there are many implications of postmodern philosophy, in
particular with the people whose views McLaren cites very approvingly (e.g.,
Grenz and Franke, Murphy, Rorty, Derrida, and more). A key one is the implication that we cannot know reality as it
is, due to our particularity, biases, and situatedness, and the pervasive
effects of language. But as I argued
above, if we therefore are left with living within what we have constructed,
then there are plenty of implications for core doctrines of Christianity, like
I alluded to above.
|
|
How have some your own experiences with Christianity
differed from those of McLaren?
One major
way that we differ is that I found some believers who modeled for me a solid,
robust confidence in their knowledge that Christianity is indeed true, yet all
the while not embodying the nasty traits he says have come from modernity’s
influences on the church. In chapter 6,
I describe my experiences at Talbot, where I met professors who dearly loved
the Lord, embraced foundationalism and the view that we can know
objective truth (i.e., the way things are in reality, in a mind-independent
way). Yet, they were not pompous know-it-alls. Many of them had shepherds’ hearts, tenderly
caring for the flock of God entrusted to them.
Many had been deeply wounded and were very real and vulnerable, showing
me that they were not rigid, uptight, or controlling. Instead, they embodied both truth and grace, as well as the love
of the Lord, and that combination was a powerful tool in my life, to help set
me free from my own woundedness and other influences, which had helped to shape
how I often viewed my life as a Christian, and who God is. They helped extend grace to me, which was
just what I needed. In addition, I was
able to see that it was not an either-or proposition; that is, it was not the
case that I could have grace if I also gave up foundationalism and embraced
instead what Murphy would call “holism.”
Instead, I found people how believed they could know the truth, and they
could give good reasons why they thought that.
They also embodied grace and love.
You argue that Christianity cannot survive
transformation into a linguistic approach such as those advocated by McLaren
and Jones. What’s one area of Christianity that will be negatively impacted by
this shift?
This
approach ends up being, I think, a constructivist one, such that we construct
our worlds, and the truths of those worlds, by how we talk in our
community. If so, then core doctrines
would become true due to how we talk.
But I don’t think that is what the biblical authors had in mind when
they wrote. Paul would never have
agreed that the truth of the resurrection (not to mention the incarnation and
atonement) of Christ to be something that is true due to how Christians
talk. Rather, it is true in a
mind-independent way; it is true whether or not anyone believes it or talks
about it. I think that the doctrines of
God (who He is), revelation (especially, our ability to know what God had in
mind when He communicated these truths to us), hamartiology (sin),
justification and sanctification, and lots more all would become true depending
on how we use our language, within our community. Let me refer readers to chapters 5, 6, and 7 for more details,
since I have just summarized the conclusions I come to, without mentioning all
the reasons and steps leading up to that result.
Why is our ability to know some objective truths
important to Christian faith?
I think I
touched on this above, in the discussion of the resurrection. Christianity claims to be the true religion,
that Jesus Christ is the only way to God.
Christianity also affirms certain claims as being historical facts, ones
that actually occurred in history, and are knowable as such (e.g., the crucifixion,
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus).
One point is this: I think that Jesus and the apostles taught in ways
that wanted us to enter into the rich confidence we may have that their claims
are, in reality, true. As but one
example, Jesus wanted Thomas to have that kind of confidence, and He graciously
appeared and showed him His pierced hands.
As another
point, in general, if we cannot know some truths about how reality actually is
(i.e., objective truths), then we are forever working, as Husserl said, within
the “circle” of ideas, or of sense impressions, language, etc. That is, we are working within something,
and we cannot somehow escape the pervasive influences of that factor (or sets
of factors). In that kind of scenario,
we end up (in effect, at least) living in a world that we have to make, since
we cannot know that the world we make matches up with the real one.
How has your study of postmodernism and the emerging
church personally impacted your faith in Jesus Christ?
I think that
in some ways, it has helped bring into clearer focus that a big issue in my
life has been the way I was taught (and even caught) more legalistic, rigid,
and highly controlling ways of living as a Christian. That is, I caught the mind-set that I had to be perfect, and in
very tight control over my own life, lest I fail in some small way and be
rejected by God. I knew (cognitively) that
that is not true, and I could preach sermons on grace, eternal security, and
the like, but down deep were some emotional wounds that came from the
anxiety-filled environment in which I grew up.
Those anxieties were magnified due to fears that my folks had of losing
their salvation, but their roots were from deeper sources, and not merely
theological views. (I describe this in
more detail in chapter six.)
I wrote
bits and pieces of this book over a few years’ time, and during that period,
the Lord has helped bring healing to my soul, such that I now am able to engage
from the heart in deeper, more intimate worship of Him. I can enter into a much richer experience of
Him too. The Lord is making Himself
known to me in ways I just haven’t known before, and much of this stems from
healing in my soul at the level of the wounds I referred to above. He is helping me to know Him intimately as
Abba. As a result, I am able to
experience His love, grace, and joy in ways I just haven’t been able to before.
However, interestingly, knowing the
riches of His grace depends upon my knowing truth, too. What makes His grace so freeing and
liberating is that it is rooted in truth, which gives me confidence as I live
my daily life that I am indeed under grace, due to what Jesus actually has done
for me (e.g., Heb. 10:14; Rom 5:1, 8; Rom 8:1). That is a powerful combination.
When those two
factors (knowledge of His grace and truth) combine with God’s making Himself
known to me intimately and personally, the results are explosive and incredibly
freeing at the level of my heart, and they well up in me in a deep, rich
experience of who He really is.
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Interviews, Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
Click here for the chilling transcript of the last thirty minutes of Flight 93 and here for an interpretation of the events.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous No Comments »
(Spoilers below.) Yesterday, I spoke of the view of religious truth celebrated by the heroes of The Da Vinci Code. Their goal in the novel was to conceal truth that would upset people’s false beliefs. For them, religious claims are “true” in a different sense than we would normally use the word, so that even when they’re false, they’re “true.”
The villain, on the other hand, is one who would bring the truth to light at all cost, destroying the faith of millions. Since it’s all metaphor (the heroes would insist), what does it matter if the facts are false? Those false beliefs uplift, and that’s what religion is for! “Religious allegory has become a part of the fabric of reality. And living in that reality helps millions of people cope and be better people” (p. 342). Only an evil person would try to show the world the truth that Christianity (or any other religious belief) is false and another is true.
For Dan Brown, there are two kinds of truths. Spiritual claims are “true” in the sense that they inspire, but not in the normal sense of the word (i.e., that they reflect reality). As he says in TDC, “Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical” (p. 341-342).
Paul disagrees: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”
There is only one kind of truth. Either Christianity is true (and its claims match reality) or it’s false. Either the object of its faith (Jesus) can save, or he can’t. Either we should place our trust in Him, or we shouldn’t. Paul understood this quite well. Christianity declares itself to be true. The goal of religion is not to nurture an uplifting, inspiring faith inside ourselves. The goal is to worship the true and living God who exists outside ourselves. This is why Paul insists that our faith is worthless if it’s placed in something false.
I respect people who esteem truth enough and take the claims of Christianity seriously enough to reject them outright as false, but I’ve never been one to respect the patronizing idea that not only does the truth not matter (because, technically, all religions are false), but people ought to be protected from real truth in order to enjoy their little fantasies.
So I guess, in this case, that puts me on the side of the villain. Viva truth! Viva the living God!
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), The Da Vinci Code 1 Comment »
April 12, 2006 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
|
In chapter four, you explain some of the ways
postmodernism has affected our schools. As an example, could you summarize the
impact postmodernism has had on the teaching of law?
Often people
understand law as a human product, and not something that transcends us. Influenced by postmodern thought, people
tend to be suspicious of claims that someone knows what objective, universally
true laws are for all people. That has
direct import for how we understand and treat the “inalienable rights”
enumerated in the Constitution. They
easily could be understood to be but the result of a bygone way of
talking. If so, they can be changed just
by shifting how we talk. Alternatively,
judges can exercise their power by their language use and change the
laws. (Today, many judges do not
adjudicate based upon natural law theory, which supports the idea of universal,
objective rights.) If so, the law
literally is up to us. Moreover, since on
postmodern thought we cannot know the meaning of the framers of the
Constitution, we must interpret it and find out what it means to us now
(hence the phrase, “the living Constitution”).
|
Christian schools have not been immune from the impact of
postmodernism. What are some of the ways Christian colleges and universities
have been compromised by postmodern influences?
In the
book, I discuss how postmodern thought has influenced a number of disciplines,
and I trace those influences in terms of more secular schools first. Then I draw an application to Christian
schools, in that their professors often have been educated in the secular
schools, and thus they have been educated in postmodern thought too. You have to look at a school (and even
department, and their profs) on a case-by-case basis.
In terms of
the inerrancy of Scripture, postmodernists have their own reasons for rejecting
inerrancy as a fruitful way of talking.
While they will affirm the authority of Scripture, they have given up on
our ability to determine if it is without errors. That ability would presuppose, they think, an ability to compare
the Scriptures with reality, to see if there are any errors. But then we return to that same issue, just
in a different context.
I see the
expansion of literature on Christian postmodernism, in relation to various
disciplines, growing mainly in the fields of theology, philosophy, ethics, and
practical ministry, but there may well be more such work being done in other
fields, too.
You’ve noted that one of the central claims of
postmodernism is that we are trapped inside language and cannot get beyond it
to know anything about the real world, and that this view is promoted by
several Christian theologians. What is the most troubling affect this claim has
on Christianity?
I have not
met someone writing as a postmodern Christian who denies there is a real world
that really exists. However, they do
tend to deny that we can know reality as it is. If we cannot somehow know reality (or, certain aspects of
reality) as it is, due to the pervasive influences of language, culture, etc.,
upon us, then we seem left with our perspectives and interpretations, without a
way to know if they are indeed true (i.e., if our claims match up with
reality).
However,
the biblical writers make all sorts of claims about reality, including a core
one for our faith, that Jesus actually arose bodily from the dead. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul writes that if Jesus has
not been raised from the dead, our faith is worthless. Trouble is, on a postmodern kind of approach
to the faith, we cannot know that Jesus actually arose from the dead. Now, Paul, an eyewitness and apostle of
Jesus thought quite differently, for he clearly wrote in that chapter that
Christ has been raised, as a matter
of historical fact. However, if we
cannot know reality as it is, including the facts about the resurrection, not
only will that leave us as believers (and unlike Paul) without a key source for
a substantial degree of confidence in the truth of our faith, but it also will put
us in a bad position. We end up
constructing at least our view
of reality, if not reality itself. Nevertheless,
since we cannot know reality as it is, in effect, what difference is there
between constructing the world itself (by how we talk in our community), and constructing
our view of reality? After all, we have
to live our lives, and as Christians, we are to live in light of the
resurrection of Jesus. But, on this
kind of view, it seems we are left with living within what we have
constructed. The basis for our
confidence that Jesus arose from the dead, then, is due to how we live and talk
within our community (see my chapters 5 and 7, especially, for more explanation).
Foundationalism has become something of a dirty word for
many postmodern Christians. They usually claim we ought to be
post-foundationalist or non-foundationalist. What do they mean by this?
Foundationalism
is a view in epistemology that is about how our beliefs should be structured,
so that the justification (reasons, or evidence) of some “basic” (or,
foundational) beliefs may in turn support non-foundational beliefs. McLaren, for one, along with several others,
criticize it as the modern culprit that has hoodwinked us into thinking that we
must have absolute certainty in our beliefs.
Nancey Murphy also picks upon this line of criticism, but then she makes
an interesting turn. She rightly
acknowledges that there are other versions of foundationalism alive and well
today, besides this Cartesian version, which ought to be rejected. However, she then argues that even so, the
so-called “foundational” beliefs are dependent on our theories, too. The key issue then is that we never have
access to know reality as it truly is, apart from our theories, language,
etc. Every belief, even that I am alive
now, or that I am 48 years old, or that Jesus has risen from the dead, are
theory (or language) dependent. Therefore,
the real issue, for her and others, is that foundationalism presupposes that we
can know reality as it is. If you
reject that view, you must turn to other forms of accounting for how our
beliefs are justified, hence the turn toward “non-foundational” or
“post-foundational” forms of justification.
For more, see her Beyond
Liberalism and Fundamentalism, pp 90-93, as well as ch. 6 in my book.
Where do most philosophers (including Christians)
actually stand on foundationalism?
Foundationalism
is far from dead; in fact, it still is the dominant view about the structure of
justification amongst philosophers. I
give a couple footnotes with key references on pages 53 and 113.
Posted in Culture, Interviews, Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
See here for a brief summary of its finding and teachings, including a link to the full text. From the opening of the article:
On the first week of April, 2006, the National Geographic Society announced the discovery of a lost gospel titled, “The Gospel of Judas.” Every major news outlet covered this event with some hailing it as the greatest discovery of the century. Others remarked that this gospel would rock many Christians and force a re-examination of our faith.
Why do these late Gnostic teachings of “higher knowledge” seem more probable to some than the much-better-attested and older manuscripts of the New Testament? And why, as humans, are we so fascinated by the idea of secret knowledge and conspiracies?
Jesus is not an elitist, but makes the truth available to all–the worthy and the unworthy. And since we're all unworthy, that's lucky for us!
Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you question Me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them; they know what I said (John 18:20-21).
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Theology No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments