The Truth War (6 page)

UNCERTAINTY IS THE NEW
TRUTH. DOUBT AND
SKEPTICISM HAVE BEEN
CANONIZED AS A FORM
OF HUMILITY.
RIGHT AND WRONG HAVE
BEEN REDEFINED IN TERMS OF
SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS AND
PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES.

Of course, the first casualty of that way of thinking is every kind of
certainty
. The central propositions and bedrock convictions of biblical Christianity—such as firm belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture, a sound understanding of the true gospel, full assurance of salvation, settled confidence in the lordship of Christ, and the narrow exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation—do not reconcile well with postmodernism's contempt for clear, authoritative truth claims. The
medium
of postmodern dialogue thereby instantly and automatically changes the
message
. And the rhetoric of the Emerging Church movement itself reflects that.

Listen, for example, to how Brian McLaren sums up his views on orthodoxy, certainty, and the question of whether the truths of Christianity are sound and reliable in the first place:

How ironic that I am writing about orthodoxy, which implies to many a final capturing of the truth about God, which is the glory of God. Sit down here next to me in this little restaurant and ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope's, whoever's) is orthodox, meaning true, and here's my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture . . . I'd have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong.
¹

McLaren suggests that clarity itself is of dubious value. He clearly prefers ambiguity and equivocation, and his books are therefore full of deliberate doublespeak. In his introduction to
A
Generous Orthodoxy,
he admits, “I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.”
²
A common theme that runs throughout most of McLaren's writings is the idea that “there is great danger in the quest to be right.”
³

Postmodern influences have come into the evangelical movement through other avenues as well.
Beyond Foundationalism:
Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context
, by Stanley Grenz and John Franke, was published in 2001 and has made a significant impact in the evangelical academic community, garnering lots of positive reviews and stimulating numerous papers and lectures from evangelical leaders who evidently find much to agree with in the book.

But as the subtitle suggests, the book pleads for a whole new approach to theology, with the goal of “contextualizing” Christianity for a postmodern culture. “The categories and paradigms of the modern world” are in collapse, the authors note in the book's opening sentence.
⁴
They go on to assert that Christian theology therefore needs to be rethought, revised, and adapted in order to keep in step and remain relevant in these changing times.

Grenz and Franke argue that the Spirit of God speaks through Scripture, tradition, and culture, and theologians must seek to hear the voice of the Spirit in each one. Moreover, since culture is constantly in flux, they say, it is right and fitting for Christian theology to be in a perpetual state of transition and ferment too. No issue should ever be regarded as finally settled.

The obvious casualty of all this is any sure and certain knowledge of biblical truth. That is okay with Grenz and Franke. They are convinced that every desire to gain a fixed and positive knowledge of any truth actually belongs to the collapsing categories of enlightenment rationalism. That is precisely what they mean by the reference to “foundationalism” in the book's title. They define
Classical foundationalism
as a “quest for complete epistemological certitude.”
⁵

Certitude naturally comes under repeated attack in the book. This culminates in the incredible claim that certainty is ultimately incompatible with hope.
⁶
Of course, there are some things we don't yet see clearly and still hope for (Romans 8:24–25). But it seems rather far-fetched to conclude that there is nothing we can know with a true and settled certainty.

Some readers have nevertheless found the Grenz-Franke argument persuasive, including John Armstrong. Armstrong is a writer, conference speaker, and former pastor who at one time was a defender of Reformation theology and a student of revival. The name of his ministry, Reformation and Revival, reflected that.

But after reading
Beyond Foundationalism
, Armstrong wrote a series of articles in his ministry newsletter declaring that he has changed his mind about several vital points of doctrine—including faith and understanding, the sacraments, the doctrine of revelation, and Christology—among other things. Crediting Grenz and Franke for helping him see the light, Armstrong writes, “I have been forced, upon deeper reflection about theological method, to give up what I call epistemological certitude.”
⁷
He goes on to explain: “Reformed dogmaticians and teachers on the conservative side seek a steady, unshakable and certain knowledge. . . . John Franke suggests that the agenda employed by such theologians ‘glorifies reason and deifies science.' I have changed my mind about the way to do theology, and I confess I now agree with Franke's conclusion.”
⁸

Armstrong reveals how far he has moved from his starting point with this statement: “If there is a foundation in Christian theology, and I believe that there must be, then it is not found in the Church, Scripture, tradition or culture.” Scripture is not the foundation for Christian doctrine? Then what is? Armstrong's answer echoes the central thesis of
Beyond Foundationalism
: “If we must speak of ‘foundations' for Christian faith and its theological enterprise, then we must speak only of the triune God as disclosed in polyphonic fashion through Scripture, the church, and even the world.”
⁹

Armstrong tries awkwardly to give lip service to the authority of Scripture by suggesting (in language Karl Barth might have applauded) that our doctrine must “always [be] in accordance with the normative witness to divine self-disclosure contained in Scripture.”
¹⁰
Cutting through the jargon and reading that statement in its best light, Armstrong seems to be acknowledging (for a moment, at least) that God's self-revelation in Scripture ought to be the ultimate yardstick for measuring all our thoughts, beliefs, and teachings about God. But even that morsel is instantly snatched away with the other hand and quickly replaced with a wholly subjective, irrational, postmodern antihermeneutic: “Theology must be a humble human attempt to ‘hear him'—never about rational approaches to texts.”
¹¹

Armstrong identifies the illusion of many under the sway of this error by boasting that his radical turnaround is the epitome of “humility” and “the very essence of servant-leadership.”
¹²
(In accordance with his shifting views, Armstrong has changed the name of his ministry from Reformation and Revival to Act 3—stressing his goal of being “missional” in the third millennium.)

Meanwhile, Armstrong employs caricature and exaggeration to attack the views he himself once held. He claims he has “routinely” heard “prominent Christians say: ‘I have never changed my mind—never.'”
¹³
He cites Wayne Grudem's
Systematic Theology
as an example of the “‘concordance' view of theology. You gather all the verses on a given subject, sort them all out, put them in their proper place in your system, and then develop (or write) a theology, formal or otherwise. This theology is then transferred as if the system itself contains, or is, the truth of God.”
¹⁴

Armstrong, Grenz, Franke, and the Emerging postmodernists have blurred the line between certainty and omniscience. They seem to presume that if we cannot know everything perfectly, we really cannot know anything with any degree of certainty. That is an appealing argument to the postmodern mind, but it is entirely at odds with what Scripture teaches: “We have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16).

THE EMERGING
POSTMODERNISTS
HAVE BLURRED THE LINE
BETWEEN CERTAINTY AND
OMNISCIENCE. THEY SEEM TO
PRESUME THAT IF WE CANNOT
KNOW EVERYTHING PERFECTLY,
WE REALLY CANNOT KNOW
ANYTHING
WITH ANY
DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.

That is not to suggest, of course, that we have exhaustive knowledge. But we do have infallible knowledge of what Scripture reveals, as the Spirit of God teaches us through the Word of God: “We have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God” (1 Corinthians 2:12). The fact that our knowledge grows fuller and deeper—and we all therefore change our minds about
some
things as we gain more and more light—doesn't mean that everything we know is uncertain, outdated, or in need of an overhaul every few years. The words of 1 John 2:20–21 apply in their true sense to every believer: “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.”

The message coming from postmodernized evangelicals is exactly the opposite: Certainty is overrated. Assurance is arrogant. Better to keep changing your mind and keep your theology in a constant state of flux.

By such means, the ages-old war against truth has moved right into the Christian community, and the church itself has already become a battleground—and ominously, precious few in the church today are prepared for the fight.

WAR IN THE CHURCH

This is by no means the first time the Truth War has intruded into the church. It has happened in every major era of church history. Battles over the truth were raging inside the Christian community even in apostolic times, when the church was just beginning. In fact, the record of Scripture indicates that false teachers in the church immediately became a significant and widespread problem wherever the gospel went. Virtually all the major epistles in the New Testament address the problem in one way or another. The apostle Paul was constantly engaged in battle against the lies of “false apostles [and] deceitful workers [who transformed] themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul said that was to be expected. It is, after all, one of the favorite strategies of the evil one: “No wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness”(vv. 14–15).

It takes a willful naïveté to deny that such a thing could happen in our time. As a matter of fact, it is happening on a massive scale. Now is not a good time for Christians to flirt with the spirit of the age. We cannot afford to be apathetic about the truth God has put in our trust. It is our duty to guard, proclaim, and pass that truth on to the next generation (1 Timothy 6:20–21). We who love Christ and believe the truth embodied in His teaching must awaken to the reality of the battle that is raging all around us. We must do our part in the ages-old Truth War. We are under a sacred obligation to join the battle and contend for the faith.

THE CURRENT CLIMATE
OF POSTMODERNISM
DOES
REPRESENT A WONDERFUL
WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST. THE
ARROGANT RATIONALISM THAT
DOMINATED THE MODERN
ERA IS ALREADY IN ITS DEATH
THROES. MOST OF THE
WORLD IS CAUGHT UP IN
DISILLUSIONMENT AND
CONFUSION. PEOPLE ARE
UNSURE ABOUT VIRTUALLY
EVERYTHING AND
DO NOT KNOW WHERE
TO TURN FOR TRUTH.

In one narrow respect, the driving idea behind the Emerging Church movement is correct: The current climate of postmodernism
does
represent a wonderful window of opportunity for the church of Jesus Christ. The arrogant rationalism that dominated the modern era is already in its death throes. Most of the world is caught up in disillusionment and confusion. People are unsure about virtually everything and do not know where to turn for truth.

However, the absolute
worst
strategy for ministering the gospel in a climate like this is for Christians to imitate the uncertainty or echo the cynicism of the postmodern perspective—and in effect drag the Bible and the gospel into it. Instead, we need to affirm
against
the spirit of the age that God has spoken with the utmost clarity, authority, and finality through His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). And we have the infallible record of that message in Scripture (2 Peter 1:19–21).

Postmodernism is simply the latest expression of worldly unbelief. Its core value—a dubious ambivalence toward truth—is merely skepticism distilled to its pure essence. There is nothing virtuous or genuinely humble about it. It is proud rebellion against divine revelation.

In fact, postmodernism's hesitancy about truth is exactly antithetical to the bold confidence Scripture says is the birthright of every believer (Ephesians 3:12). Such assurance is wrought by the Spirit of God Himself in those who believe (1 Thessalonians 1:5). We need to make the most of that assurance and not fear to confront the world with it.

The gospel message in all its component facts is a clear, definitive, confident, authoritative proclamation that Jesus is Lord, and that He gives eternal and abundant life to all who
believe
. We who truly know Christ and have received that gift of eternal life have also received from Him a clear, definitive commission to deliver the gospel message boldly as His ambassadors. If we are likewise not clear and distinct in our proclamation of the message, we are not being good ambassadors.