Contending for the Faith in a Postmodern Climate

When we talk about “postmodern evangelism,” we’re usually discussing methods of spreading the gospel within the context of our postmodern culture. However, we have much to accomplish, for from our earliest days we are “evangelized” with a different gospel—the gospel of “tolerance”—the epitome of postmodern ethics.

You’ve probably seen these bumper stickers before. “COEXIST,” the various religious symbols creatively read, urging all of us religious fanatics to get along. On the surface, this seems like a noble search for peace in a world of turmoil; after all, it is extremely troubling to hear of the violence and hatred between various religious groups. The postmodern solution to this chaos, however, is “tolerance.”

Now, I have no problem with “tolerance” if it is to be taken literally. But no, the “tolerance” we are expected to embrace doesn’t just mean getting along with one another. It means surrendering our belief in an absolute reality and accepting other worldviews as completely valid, yet different perspectives. In this way, our faith is emasculated and reduced to mere pleasant moral teachings, in order that we should have nothing to take a stand for (and therefore, nothing to fight about). This type of “tolerance” deprives us of any conviction and therefore forces our faith to become a jolly collection on wise sayings and moral lessons, lacking any real ultimate meaning. In many ways, it takes God out of Christianity. Our faith becomes nothing more than some empty, subjective set of spiritual ideas, lacking any transcendent meaning or eternal repercussions, and certainly far from something worth fighting over. Thus, in a world seeking peace, it is no surprise that this type of “tolerance” has been our answer.

Yet so-called “tolerance” will never bring us peace; after all, we will have no peace until Christ’s return, and this will happen only after his enemies are utterly destroyed (Revelation 20:15). As you can see, this truth is a direct contradiction of the postmodern gospel which proclaims multiple roads to “God.” Furthermore, it seems as though God is terribly “intolerant.” Could it be true that the ultimate Peacemaker, the One who restores humanity to goodness and tranquility could be so “intolerant?”

Be True to The Word

Jesus taught us to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Luke 6:27-35). Many of us point to this as a good example of Christ’s radical teaching—and it is. However, while we tend to focus in on these verses, we neglect an important verse that provides context for this teaching. Look at verse 26:

 

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

Luke 6:26 (NASB)

 

A lot of us think of Jesus’ teaching in v. 27-35 as a good ideal that is, however, irrelevant to us today. After all, in America, we are not persecuted unto death; our lives are generally safe even if we are Christians. But we should not overlook verse 26. It seems that if we’re not causing a stir and everyone praises us, we’re in trouble. Why? Being praised by all men is a sign of a false prophet.

 

Now, wait just a minute—a false prophet? Isn’t that a little extreme? Surely it is not bad to be well-liked.

 

The issue here is relative to the Gospel. It is good to be well-liked for the sake of the Gospel, but woe to us if, in an effort to be well-liked, we compromise the Gospel. We don’t need to build walls between us and the rest of the world; we needn’t go out of our way offend people. However, we preach an offensive Gospel—”a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”—that will undoubtedly cause a fuss. The Cross is offensive to people because it confronts them with their own sinfulness and inability to save themselves. It’s a direct attack on their (and our) pride.

An indicator of one who preaches the Cross is, without question, adversity. Therefore, if we are being true to the Word of God, there will be people who oppose us and hate us. If there aren’t, then we should be worried. Are we proclaiming the true Gospel or just coasting by, trying our best to just get along with a world that hates God?

Spurgeon on Limited Atonement

“Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by His death?” we answer that question by asking him another — “What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold — we are not afraid to say that we believe — that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them.”

(C. H. Spurgeon, from the sermon, Particular Redemption, Delivered February 28, 1858, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens)

We Need Godly Men

In this report put out by the University of Cincinnati’s School of Planning, it is noted that, in Cincinnati, while “poverty and female headed households are not synonymous…over 70 percent of the families in poverty are headed by a female.”

The problem, of course, is not women; it’s men (or lack thereof). These statistics show that 70 percent of poverty stricken families have no male provider. Single mothers, then, are forced to both raise children and provide for their household. The implications of this are deeply saddening. Along with children who lack healthy parental influence—especially that of a father—comes increased crime and decreased probability that these children will be successful in school (and, consequently, in their future career). With a feeling of little or no hope for the future, young people turn to drugs, prostitution, and violence, as they oftentimes find such industries to be more lucrative than any alternative. What makes this worse, however, is that babies are still being born under such circumstances. In other words, the cycle continues; many young men grow up without a father’s example of responsibility, and many young women lack a good protector and male role model. The poverty continues from generation to generation; the disease only seems to worsen. One might begin to think that this system cannot be escaped.

What urban Cincinnati needs is some good fathers. I don’t know how this can actually be accomplished, quite frankly, but I know it must involve the work of the gospel breaking into people’s lives. Revival is needed; the Church needs to train and equip young men to be good fathers and husbands, instead of baby-daddies who bail out on their family. The only way that the addictions, the broken homes, and the violence can truly be stopped in our city is by gospel transformation. How then can we reach these people and proclaim to them the truth?

Salt, Not Sugar

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.”

-Jesus, Matthew 5:13 (ESV)

 

I don’t know anyone, aside from my 85 year-old grandfather, who can drink their coffee black. His taste for bitter, unsweetened coffee came from serving on a naval cruiser in World War II, when sugar was rare. And even he adds a little sugar from time to time in order to sweeten things up. My generation of people has an obsession with coffee, but it’s not a plain cup of Folger’s in the morning that we’re raving about. No, it has to be some type of super sweet chocolate mocha caramel delight, something that’s so loaded with flavor and sugar that the bitterness of the coffee is masked. In a society that craves sweetness, it’s no wonder we try to give our religion the same taste.

Call it what you want, but “sugary Christianity” is destroying the atonement right before our eyes. It certainly seems harmless; after all, we want to include people and make them feel good about themselves. But all we’re really doing is giving them a nice, comforting pat on the back before we watch them plummet into eternal damnation, doing nothing to prevent their fall. We neglect to tell people about God’s wrath and their utter hopelessness without Christ, yet we call this “seeker-sensitive” Christianity.

Now, I’m not saying that nobody has ever come to know Jesus through such a system; God most certainly finds interesting ways to grab hold of those whom He chooses. However, preachers must remain true to the not-always-sugary word of God, choosing to promote the truth over a lie that is, in our eyes, perhaps more pleasant. I’m not advocating that we create unnecessary barriers between us and the world by coming on too strong; however, we must remain bold in our message and preach it with wisdom.

The salt analogy offers us some helpful insight in this regard. In the ancient world (and in fact right up until recent times), salt was used to season meat in order to prevent decay. In this way, it was a valuable commodity. Like salt, Christians should serve to prevent decay in the world around them which is, already, undoubtedly putrefying. Our culture rejects God and our world is dying in its sins. One moral lapse after another, our society is rotting away without any hope outside of Christ. As salt, our responsibility is to make this hope known, without denying the morbid reality that, without Christ, we are utterly hopeless. We are here to prevent decay. This is the will of our God.

However, we find sugar more appealing than salt. It tastes better to us, giving us a delightful euphoria that certainly doesn’t seem all that bad. But sugar does nothing to prevent decay; it tastes sweet but serves no important purpose. So, while we try to make the gospel more appealing and “sweet” by compromising the truth of our depravity, God’s wrath, and Christ being the only way of salvation, we do nothing to prevent the decay around us. We lead people not into salvation, but into the happy-go-lucky pseudo-Christianity our culture has come to embrace. By acting as sugar instead of salt, we are leading people astray. It may seem worthwhile now, as it seems to make our message more “pleasant,” but in the end, even sugar isn’t sweet enough to mask the taste of rotten meat. This world needs salt. Let us not act as sugar.

For, as Jesus says, salt that isn’t salty (that is, salt that does not serve its purpose) is worthless and “is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.” Let this serve as a warning to all of us, including myself, that we may be convicted of our sugary irresponsibility and be provoked to preach the true gospel of Christ.

Woes Concerning The Bride

“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready” (Revelation 19:7 NASB).

When Christ comes back, he’s getting married. To whom, you ask? Well, the Church, of course. Paul talks about this in the latter part of Ephesians 5, as well as in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Jesus also speaks of this analogy in all four gospels. This is a more than just a minuscule doctrine.

However, in today’s world, it is common to see the Church made out to be nothing of importance. Some keep away from church altogether. Others criticize it harshly, making it out to be some kind of monster. And still others attend “church” regularly but fail to grasp the concept of what the Church really is.

The Synoptic Problem & Oral Tradition

I would first like to note that I am not a PhD in New Testament Studies. Much of my opinion concerning the synoptic problem is influenced by Dr. Jon Weatherly; I am very much drawn to his point of view on this issue. Thus, a decent amount of the information in this post comes from him. My goal in writing is to present a case for non-literary dependence of the gospels and to do so in a manner that is coherent and understandable to the amateur student of the Bible. Whether or not that goal will be achieved at this point remains to be seen.

The so-called synoptic gospels, consisting of Matthew, Mark and Luke, are very similar to one another—hence the name synoptic. However, there are also a number of differences between these three accounts that, under the scrutiny of modern scholarship, must be accounted for. The issue at hand is commonly referred to the synoptic problem; post-Enlightenment thinkers have sought to unearth the sources of the gospels by determining which gospel writer actually wrote first. I will present the most prevalent views and offer a radically different alternative that, in my opinion, is actually the most probable.