Hi BRETT,
****snip****
BK>If you are critical of postmodernism on the basis of its emphasis
BK>being relativism, then how do you stand on modernism and premodernism
BK>as both of them are flawed in the way they see truth as well.
I am critical of all three, Brett.  However, we simply cannot give up the 
Christian worldview and the Christian philosophy of science for a 
postmodern relativism that makes all worldviews equally valid.  What's true 
for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me.  No, no 
matter who you are if you step out of a 10 story window with nothing to 
support you the law of gravity will ensure that you splat on the ground 
below--no matter what your view of gravity is.  In the same way there are 
theological and spiritual truths that are absolute, though our 
understanding of the ultimate reality behind our limited perceptions is 
less than perfect.  To label the Bible as "premodern" may be somewhat 
accurate but on the other hand the Bible assumes a "supernatural" worldview 
that is the very essence of what it means to be a Christian.  The result of 
dismissing supernaturalism in the Bible is to take away its authority as 
redemptive revelation and as an apodeictic rule for faith and practice.
Modernism's major flaw was assuming a priori that miracles are impossible 
and the Bible is entirely mythological.  Postmodernism's major flaw is 
assuming that truth is relative and changes according to the perception of 
the perceiver.  Thomas Kuhn, the famous philosopher of science, has said 
that science is based largely on authoritative paradigms which those in the 
scientific community are unwilling to challenge until a major paradigm 
shift takes place.  However, that is not to say that everything learned in 
the previous paradigm was totally wrong.  What happens is that the earlier 
paradigm is fine-tuned and corrected where false assumptions or wrong 
perceptions were given authoritative status.  So even though science can be 
prejudiced and biased and even outright wrong about some things, the 
principle of uniformitarianism holds.  Unless scientists believe that they 
can accurately discover real and observable events science loses its reason 
for being.
 CR> You are right that postmodernism offers us an opportunity to share
 CR> Gospel with those who are curious about what we believe; however, 
 CR> presents a problem--if the Gospel is only true for us and is only 
 CR> perception of the world and our own imaging of reality, then it is
 CR> to
 CR> be difficult to convince others that God exists in ultimate being 
 CR> reality, that He is eternally self-existent (aseity).
BK>If it were our job to do the ultimate convincing then you have a good
BK>point. I don't believe that the ultimate convincing is our job, but
BK>rather that of the Holy Spirit.
Pietism sounds good, Brett.  And I agree with you to a degree.  Unless God 
gives a person the gift of faith no one can believe in Him.  I believe that 
the elect are chosen before the foundation of the world as an unconditional 
act of total grace.  However, that does not excuse us from evangelism.  And 
let me be perfectly frank here--the way we will bring the truly elect into 
the kingdom of God is by a thorough and detailed presentation of the 
Christian faith.  Apologetics rather than church growth is the way of the 
future.  Unless we know what we believe and why we believe it we cannot 
explain our worldview or our theology to others.  And make no mistake about 
it, when we trick people into decisions through theatre and contemporary 
music, etc., all we've done is to have brought pagans into the church.  The 
problem with pietism and with the church growth movement is that they are 
totally and completely subjectivistic, built on shifting sand.  People want 
to know the truth because they are tired of being lied to, manipulated, and 
taken advantage of.  If Christians do not take up the challenge to use 
their intellect as well as their heart, the church is in for a greater 
influence of the world upon it than the church can have on the world.  If 
you want to see the future of evangelicalism, take a long hard look at the 
mainline denominations where paganism, feminism, homosexuality, and 
subjectivism are the rule of the day.
***snip***
BK>I totally agree with your statements above regarding false doctrine.
BK>However if we are to take the same conservative approach to everything
BK>simply on the basis that some people will fall
I don't take the conservative approach on the basis that people will fall. 
I take the conservative approach because to do any less is not to make 
converts but take people of the world and make them ten times more a child 
of hell.
 then we will end up
BK>doing nothing. The spread of false doctrine was quite clearly an issue
BK>in the 1st century, but did that stop Christians of that day spreading
BK>the Gospel?
One does not have to have a fortress mentality to side with a Christian 
worldview.  In fact, we don't have to choose against evangelism simply 
because we take a hard line on the truth.  In fact, I think the way of the 
future is a radical proclamation of the truth.  Jonathan Edwards had it 
right.  What we really need to do is to confront people with their own 
sinfulness and with the absolute *holiness* of an *omnipotent* God who has 
no mercy for those who reject Jesus Christ.
***snip***
BK>I can't comment on the individual situation you found yourself in, but
BK>just because there is one bad apple doesn't mean the whole case is
BK>bad.
When the national leadership endorses obviously flawed revival movements 
and endorses those who promote false doctrine one is left with other choice 
but to believe they have compromised the truth for the sake of numerical 
growth.
 CR> 1 Timothy 4:16
 CR> Watch your life and doctrine closely.
 CR> Persevere in them, because if you do,
 CR> you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
BK>Very, very important point. It is something that St Paul was quite
BK>aware of when he spread the Gospel, but it didn't stop him preaching
BK>the Gospel. We do need to at all times focus on God for direction
BK>otherwise we will fall.
Paul preached the Gospel.  In fact, it got him beaten, stoned, and ship 
wrecked.  "We ought to obey God rather than man."  Where are the prophets 
today?  Maybe we should go back and read Jeremiah 23:(
****snip*****
BK>Postmodernism - Threat or Opportunity?
BK>--------------------------------------
BK>Is postmodernism a threat to Christianity or an opportunity for
BK>Christianity? Can it be stopped?  Should it be stopped?  What is
BK>truth?  Is truth absolute?  How can we know the truth?  Many will
BK>have differing views on these questions and how you answer them will
BK>dramatically effect your response to postmodernism.
While postmodernism may not be "stopped" it must be met head on.  To 
compromise the truth for the sake of a palatable presentation of the Gospel 
is to present a different gospel.  When Peter withdrew from the Gentiles 
because of the Judaizers, Paul confronted him with his ambiguity in public 
and to his face.  We should not compromise the truth for the sake of 
Christian unity any more than Paul did.
BK>Modernism represented a strong move away from things spiritual and a
BK>move toward the reasoning of mankind.
Modernism exalted reason above faith.  However, we cannot throw out reason 
for the sake of faith.  Christianity has used reason to support faith and 
to defend the Gospel since the time of Paul.  We may argue about whether 
reason precedes faith or vice versa but we cannot forsake rationality and 
maintain a "reasonable" presentation of the faith.  (See Isaiah 1:18; 1 
Peter 3:15).
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.
---------------