The Gospel Coalition

Today’s book review is written by my brother, Justin Wax, a CDT who will be commissioned as 2LT on May 8.

In 1914, an uneasiness enveloped Europe.

Just four years prior, the publishing of Englishman Norman Angell’s The Great Illusion achieved resounding success. Angell’s offering, translated into 11 languages, provided impressive reasons why war had become unnecessary and equally harmful to both victor and vanquished.

The hindsight of history, however, reveals an equally influential book published one year later in 1911 by German General von Bernhardi entitled Germany in the Next War. Bernhardi’s work demonstrated an insatiable appetite within Germany for recognition. This unfortunate characteristic, coupled with Germany’s paranoid, autocratic government hurtled Europe and soon Asia and America into a devastating world war that stole millions of lives.

It is these events, along with many others, that historian Barbara Tuchman so brilliantly relates to her audience in The Guns of August, a book which would have a profound impact on a President of the United States, John F. Kennedy and quite possibly have influenced his foreign policy, from his disastrous management of the Bay of Pigs to his exceptional handling of the Cuban Missile Crises.

In The Guns of August, Tuchman tells the fascinating background of the events leading up to the Great War and the pivotal first thirty days that ultimately shaped the outcome.

For instance, Tuchman explains the exciting tale of the Goeben, a German cruiser that outraced the British navy in the Mediterranean and brought the Ottoman Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers. Shortly after Germany violated Belgian neutrality, Britain declared war on Germany and immediately set out to position its fleet to hunt and destroy German warships.

British naval leaders, tracking the Goeben, made a critical error by assuming the Goeben would sail west toward France or her colonies along the African coast. The thought that the Goeben would be on a political mission never occurred to the British. Consequently, the Germans strong-armed the Ottoman Empire into an alliance through the most daring and cunning military and political maneuvers and force the Allies to pay a heavy price.

While Germany’s initial operational plan was bold and sound, the German government’s blunder to invade France via neutral Belgium gained the Kaiser two additional enemies (eventually three in the United States) and tied up resources and manpower. Had the Germans attacked through France instead of bypassing her fortresses, the outcome of the war may have been very different. Germany unleashed new weaponry against Belgium’s fortifications that effectively rendered the fortress defense system obsolete.

Tuchman recounts multiple international law violations committed by the Germans. Prior to the war, the German government, trying to convince the Belgian government to acquiesce to the German army upon its movement through Belgium to attack France, claimed the latter had repeatedly bombed Nuremburg. The government ran this ridiculous lie in headlines and extras within Germany, apparently with enough believability that Nuremburg residents kept glancing nervously toward the sky waiting for the French to suddenly appear.

On another occasion, German soldiers changed into British uniforms and attempted to assassinate a Belgian general.

A German warship, violating the Hague convention forbidding the use of disguise in enemy colors, ran up the Russian flag before proceeding to shell the Algerian coast. German atrocities against the Belgium populace are arguably the most tragic of its war violations.

In the first few weeks of the war, the Germans secured resounding victories. The French were consistently on the retreat. The British forces arrived to find themselves a part of a failing war strategy. Britain’s focus shifted from a quick victory over the Germans to a survival strategy. The French, falling back, close to Paris pleaded with the British for cooperation.

At the battle of the Marne, thirty days into the war, the reeling Allies finally made a united, powerful stand and repelled the German onslaught. Although the Russians launched an attack on eastern Prussia with negative results, its invasion tied up German troops and resources that greatly contributed to the Allied victory at the Marne in the West.

The lessons of The Guns of August are vast. Before the war, Belgium’s army was scorned by its socialist population, could not attract the best and brightest and lacked the weaponry and leadership it needed to modernize. The French and British militaries were negatively impacted by naïve and socialist, anti-war dominated governments.

As a result, they were ill-prepared for the Germans in 1914. Russia’s officer corp was riddled with incompetent and lazy favorites. Russia’s infrastructure and resources could not keep pace with its armies, all of which led to its premature defeat and early withdrawal from the war.

The initial French war plan was fundamentally flawed. While the Germans invested in advanced weaponry, the French spent precious resources investing in obsolete fortifications. The French failed to adapt and modernize until later in the war. Its soldiers, ridiculously outfitted in traditional red pants, made themselves easy targets for its grey-clad opponent.

Every American should read this book. The lessons, particularly to military personnel, are powerful, fresh and relevant. So much of the tragedy of the First World War could have been at least mitigated with stronger foreign policy, stronger militaries and stronger cooperation on the part of the Allies. Tuchman’s Pulitzer Prize winning The Guns of August captivates her audience and offers a complete and exhaustive account from both the Allied and German commands.

written by Justin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

I never remember a time when I did not devote considerable effort to achieving good grades in school. In fact, until a few years ago, I always thought good grades were the primary goal of education.

So you can imagine how surprised I was to hear a seminary professor make this statement to the class before an exam: “For some of you, it will be a sin if you do not receive an A in this class. Your talents, giftings, and circumstances will be wasted if you do not do your best and earn an A. For others of you, it will be a sin if you do receive an A, as you will have chosen to sacrifice important things (like family) for a good GPA.”

For those of us who see good grades as something “good” in and of themselves, the professor’s point serves as a helpful corrective.

But I wonder if his point might also apply to preaching. Some of us measure good preaching by the time we spent in preparation. But what if preparing sermons that would receive an “A” in preaching class sometimes cost us in terms of long-term effectiveness in our local congregations?

I believe Scripture views preaching as the central purpose of those who shepherd God’s church. But “primary” does not mean “only.” Pastors have a variety of biblical responsibilities. Neglect of other pastoral duties can lead to a lackluster pulpit presence – no matter how well the pastor may understand the text he is preaching.

Many well-known pastors emphasize the many hours they spend every week in sermon preparation. Perhaps this practice is possible for pastors of larger churches who have considerable help in fulfilling other pastoral duties.

But I am concerned about the pressure this emphasis puts upon pastors of smaller churches. What happens to the small-church pastor devoted to faithful exposition who, out of a sincere desire to emulate a favorite preacher, takes this emphasis on biblical exegesis to an extreme? Can extensive sermon preparation ever shortchange a preacher and his church?

It depends on how we define “sermon prep.” If our idea of sermon preparation is a pastor locked up in his study with Greek books and Bible commentaries, then the answer is yes: this type of preparation may indeed keep pastors from fulfilling other important duties.

But true sermon preparation does not end when the pastor has successfully exegeted the text. True sermon preparation includes the efforts of faithful pastors to exegete their churches too.

Church exegesis has been going on since the New Testament times. The Apostle Paul did not write a series of letters to “the Church” in general. He knew the problems in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonica. So based upon the written revelation of God in the Old Testament Scriptures and the revelation of Jesus Christ, the Living Word, Paul wrote particular letters to particular churches. Why should our messages be any different?

Sermon preparation does not end with good exegesis of the Bible; it always includes good exegesis of the local congregation. The preacher who can parse Greek verbs must also be able to discern the imperatives and indicatives his own people are living by.

Great preachers not only know how to preach a particular text; they know how to preach a particular text to a particular people.

And that brings us to the practical side of sermon preparation. In order to faithfully exegete our church, we must know our people. The church is not a preaching station where individual Christians show up once a week to hear great oratory. The church is a community of believers who live together under the lordship of Christ. The preacher’s role in this community is to know the Scriptures and his people well enough to discern (through the power of the Holy Spirit) how best to exhort them faithfully and biblically.

If our enthusiasm for ”good preaching” keeps us constantly isolated from our congregation in sermon preparation, we might be shortchanging God’s people. If we are to preach effectively, we must spend time with our people, understanding how best to use the Word to train them, rebuke them, correct them, and comfort them.

Biblical exegesis and church exegesis go hand in hand.

Whenever we study the text, the faces of our people who need a word from God should be leaping from the pages.

Whenever we are in situations that necessitate pastoral counseling and comfort, the Word of God should be flowing from our hearts to our lips.

God, give us pastors who love the Word and love their people…

who know the Word and know their people…

who live in the Word and live among their people.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep,
if he has lost one of them,
does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country,
and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?”
- Jesus to the Pharisees “The Lost Sheep” – (Luke 15:4)

As Jesus taught the tax collectors and sinners gathered around Him, the Pharisees began to mutter to themselves about His open association with those deemed “unclean” according to the Jewish religious code. The parable of the lost sheep was Jesus’ defense of His welcoming of sinners.

Using a demeaning choice of words for the Jewish culture, Jesus compared the Pharisees to the lowest rank in the social class: the shepherd. The people in Jesus’ day knew that when a sheep went astray, the keeper was left no other choice of action except to search until he found it. The question was not “if”, but “when” he would find it. The safety of the remaining ninety-nine took second place to the all-consuming task of saving the one.

The prophet Isaiah wrote that just like sheep, we too have all gone astray. Yet God, in His grace and goodness, set out into the wilderness to seek the stubborn heart that had betrayed Him, and to restore His loving fellowship to the one who had turned his back. A humiliating task? Yes. But God comes not merely as the lowly Shepherd, but also as the Shepherd-King.

Christ’s mission on earth was to “seek and to save that which is lost,” a task that culminated in our lives the moment when He found us in our wilderness wanderings. This search and rescue assignment has been entrusted to us as well. The grace and mercy that we have been shown must be the same grace and mercy we show to others, even those who may have betrayed and hurt us in the past. We must be filled with the Shepherd’s love and be actively seeking out the lost, scared, and stubborn heart that has turned to its own way.

The shepherd left the ninety-nine in search for one lost sheep. Jesus abandoned the table of the “righteous” Pharisees to eat with the soul-sick people that needed a spiritual doctor. We, in turn, must renounce the luxury of our Christian subculture to venture out into the dark unknown where the lost and hurting live. The comfort of staying with the ninety-nine is no excuse for avoiding the wilderness where the soul of one may be perishing.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

O that God would come down even today
in the power of his Holy Spirit,
for the honor of his only Son,
and fill us with the hope of glory,
and break the bonds of wordliness
that bind the hands of love!
Amen.

- John Piper, “The Fruit of Hope: Love” – sermon, July 13, 1986

The salvation of God is for us. The Father has chosen us. Jesus’ blood has purchased us. We are adopted orphans.

Salvation is to us. The Holy Spirit stirs our heart, so that we come to faith in Jesus Christ personally. We are forgiven sinners.

Salvation is also through us. The world will be blessed by the good deeds we do in the context of the community of faith. We are commissioned communities.

- a quote from my forthcoming book, Holy Subversion: Allegiance to Christ in an Age of Rivals

Doug Wilson is reviewing N.T. Wright’s new book on justification. I suggest you read all of the posts (1, 2, 3, 4), but I refer you especially to these two (5, 6) on imputation. Wright’s reticence to use the traditional term for a concept he believes in robustly is the main reason he is viewed so suspiciously by those who would probably benefit most from his work.

Christianity Today is now recording podcasts. Check out a list of interesting subjects here.

Southern Seminary has a new website. Very impressive!

Pastor Matt Chandler speaks at the pastor’s conference at FBC – Jacksonville and claims that inverted priorities are causing us to lose the younger generation from the ranks of the SBC. Here are the notes from his talk.

Rob Bell on “death by paper-cuts.” Perhaps this article will help us be slow to criticize and quick to encourage.

Sunday People in a Friday World – a terrific blog post from Jared Wilson

If I weren’t leaving for Romania the very next day, I would definitely be attending the 2009 Band of Bloggers fellowship that will be held in conjunction with the Gospel Coalition.

Guy Davies is interviewing popular Christian bloggers. Check out this interview with Justin Taylor who hosts one of the most popular Christian blogs on the web. Also, an interview with Tony Reinke - a fellow book-lover!

Top Post this Week at Kingdom People: Are You a Sink or a Faucet Christian?

David Wells

Carl Raschke

This week, I have summarized two evangelical approaches to the arrival of the postmodern era: Carl Raschke’s challenge for evangelicals to embrace postmodernism and David Well’s challenge to resist it.

It is difficult to contrast the visions of David Wells and Carl Raschke because these two books are written for different purposes. Wells’ book puts forth a robust Christology that he hopes will sustain the evangelical church during the postmodern era. Raschke seeks to provide a philosophical justification for evangelicals to embrace several aspects of postmodern thought.

Despite the different purposes of these books, one can still discern several points of agreement and disagreement. Furthermore, one can find strengths and weaknesses in both views, along with some valuable insights that lead to practical implications for ministry in a postmodern world.

A Few Points of Agreement

We begin with points of agreement. Both Wells and Raschke see the Reformation of the sixteenth century as a high point in the development of theology. Both authors showcase a deep devotion to the Reformation, even if the aspects they admire are somewhat different.

Wells concentrates on the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone as a way to counter the idea that salvation can be found within the human soul. Raschke focuses on Luther’s theology of the cross as a way of summoning us back to faith alone, instead of faith in our human reason.

The authors also agree that postmodernism rightly critiques modernism at many points. Wells applauds the introduction of certain postmodern sensibilities into philosophy and theology, a development that tempers the unfettered optimism of unrestrained rationalism.

Raschke goes further than Wells in his appreciation for postmodernism’s critique of modernist thought. But both authors see at least some good in the postmodern turn, even if ultimately, they disagree on how much good is represented therein.

Disagreement #1: Postmodern Promise versus Postmodern Peril

Wells and Raschke disagree in their assessments of postmodernism. Raschke believes that the postmodern turn holds out great promise for Christianity and therefore postmodernism should be embraced. Wells believes postmodernism to be simply another manifestation of modernism and therefore should be confronted. In fact, Wells goes so far to say that “confrontation is always at the heart of the relation between Christ and culture because that relation is one of light in its relation to darkness…”

I agree with Wells that postmodernism is ultimately as faithless as modernism, even if the new philosophy offers us a few areas of opportunity. But I do not share Wells’ pessimism concerning the relationship between Christ and culture. It would help if Wells would define what he means by “culture.” If our “culture” is becoming increasingly postmodern, it would be more prudent to say that we should stand in opposition to those aspects of postmodern culture that necessitate confrontation.

Despite his somewhat ambiguous view of “culture” that needs to be confronted, Wells is correct to show how postmodernism is linked to religious pluralism in our society. Raschke devotes too little attention to the philosophical pluralism that has attached itself to postmodernism’s rejection of metanarratives. A better way forward would be to recognize the strengths of the postmodern critique of modernism while forcefully rejecting the weaknesses.

Disagreement #2: Which Reformation Principles Do We Apply?

As has been mentioned above, Raschke and Wells appeal to the Reformation to make their case. But these authors apply Reformation principles in different ways.

Wells directs us back to historic Protestant doctrines, church confessions and traditional practices. Raschke points us toward Pentecostalism, where we discover a more experiential faith that emphasizes grace and mystery and the limitations of our own reason.

If taken to extremes, both of these prescriptions could be unhelpful. Much of what passes as “postmodern ministry” today is more stylistic than substantive, as even Raschke concurs. But I have yet to see strong, evangelistic churches that have embraced postmodernism as an orienting philosophy.

At the same time, Wells’ prescription to return to historic Protestantism could also lead to weaker churches if Protestant doctrine is emphasized to the exclusion of experience. It is easy to swing the pendulum to one side in reaction to the other (be it experience-based Pentecostalism or confession-based Protestantism). Both of these aspects belong together.

I agree with Wells that the temptation today is decidedly in favor of personal experience than submission to an outside authority (such as the Scriptures or the traditions of the Church). Therefore, Raschke’s suggestions are like prescribing sugar candy as a cure for diabetes. Our society has already moved in a very experiential direction. The Church must resist this development, not embrace it.

Disagreement #3: Scripture as Propositional or Personal

Another area of disagreement between Wells and Raschke concerns the nature of Scripture. Raschke views the Word of God as vocative, not propositional. Wells does not specifically address this subject in his book, but I have little doubt that he would settle on the propositional side (with a nod to the metanarrative expressed by the Scriptures).

Raschke sets up a false dichotomy when he demeans propositional truth in favor of a purely relational approach. Questions regarding the nature of Scripture and the doctrine of inerrancy are not irrelevant or modernist. These questions go to the very heart of our confidence in the Scriptures.

Raschke is right to point out that evangelicals have failed to take Scriptural commands seriously at times. But every generation of Christians ultimately fails to obey the “vocative” of the Word of God at some points. To write as if the authority of Scripture depends upon God’s use of it in our personal lives rather than in the Scriptures itself is to set up a false choice. Scripture is authoritative both because of what it is and because of what it does.

The inerrancy debate helps us to have confidence in the truth of Scripture as it is, so that we then are able to submit to its commands. Inerrancy does not claim that some sort of “confessional insurance” is necessary before we can trust God. Inerrancy merely reinforces the beautiful truth that God, when he speaks, always tells the truth.

It is unhelpful to say that Scripture does not give us facts about God, but God himself. The truth is that Scripture gives us both.

I recognize that traditional evangelicalism has erred in overemphasizing the propositional nature of Scripture to the exclusion of its narrative structure and overarching Story. But surely the answer is not to abandon the nature of propositional truth completely, but to use the postmodern critique as a way to help us see the propositional and relational natures of truth as complementary, not in competition.

Concluding Thoughts

Every generation of Christians faces new challenges to the Christian faith. In the work of David Wells and Carl Raschke, we can see some of the areas in which evangelicals agree and disagree as to how best to respond to the rise of postmodernism.

The best way forward is to incorporate some of the valuable insights of postmodern thinking without sacrificing the historic, propositional truth claims of Christianity throughout the centuries. Discerning which aspects of postmodernism should be embraced and which aspects should be resisted is no easy task. But this ongoing task is of paramount importance if we are to faithfully proclaim the gospel in our contemporary world.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

The gospel is the good news that God, who is more holy than we can imagine, looked upon with compassion, people, who are more sinful than we would possibly admit, and sent Jesus into history to establish his Kingdom and reconcile people and the world to himself. Jesus, whose love is more extravagant than we can measure, came to sacrificially die for us so that, by His death and resurrection, we might gain through His grace what the Bible defines as new and eternal life.

Yesterday, I summarized The Next Reformation, a book by Carl Raschke that challenges evangelicals to embrace postmodernism as a way of returning to the principles of the Reformation. Today, I am summarizing  Above All Earthly Pow’rs, a book by David Wells that challenges evangelicals to resist postmodernism as a way of returning to Reformation principles. 

Assessing the Landscape

David Wells’ Above All Earthly Pow’rs seeks to provide a robust Christology for our postmodern world. Wells acknowledges two motifs that are transforming our culture: the postmodern ethos and religious pluralism.

In the first section of his book, Wells seeks to provide an accurate description of our modern life and to show how these recent cultural movements affect us internally. Of course, a proper understanding of today’s world must take into account the philosophies inherited from the Enlightenment – philosophies centered on freedom from the past, from God, and from external authority.

The development of society has paralleled the principles of the Enlightenment. Consumerism teaches us that consuming is essential to the nurture of self. Therefore, our purchases are often an attempt to buy reality, to find individuality in our style. We have traded the idea of unchanging virtues for the terminology of “values,” which are not normative for all people.

Postmodernism represents a rebellion against the ideology of the Enlightenment. Aspects of this rebellion deserve to be celebrated.

But Wells differs from those who cheer the new postmodern turn in that he does not see a “clean breach with the modern world.” Instead, he believes postmodernism merely reflects a different aspect of modern culture. The new philosophy is not faith triumphing over unbelief, but “unbelief taking revenge upon unbelief.”

The Death of Meaning

Postmodernism is notoriously difficult to define, which leads Wells to point to the common denominator he sees in all postmodern outlooks: meaning has died.

In the wake of the Enlightenment’s failed promises and stifled progress, postmodernism questions rationalism’s basic assumptions. But this questioning leads to a skeptical view of human reason, which in turn leads to further fragmentation and further departure from the idea of a metanarrative (a totalizing worldview).

Wells believes that postmodernism’s critique of modernism goes too far. He implicitly upholds the correspondence theory of truth, saying, “When we speak of truth, we are asking whether it is possible to have an understanding of reality which corresponds to what is there.”

Wells recognizes that humans have certain biases and presuppositions. He understands that rationalism cannot build a tower that allows us to see the world in its fullness.

But in taking away any vantage point from which to judge between truth and error, postmodernism leaves us without a worldview, without truth, and without purpose.

An Age of Pluralism

New social developments now offer plausibility to the rise of religious pluralism. A new wave of immigration in the United States has made America the most religiously diverse nation in the world.

Immigration has led to a downplaying of religious identity. People see religion as institutional and organizational. Many prefer a generic “spirituality” that can be discovered and practiced outside the church. The appeal of the new spirituality is in the way it separates the private world from the public world, offering an experiential grounding of belief that does not have to correspond with outside reality.

Christ Against the Gnostics

Wells sees the postmodern spiritual yearning as a seeking after consciousness, an inward turning for authenticity. Reaching back to the patristic period, Wells compares this new movement to ancient Gnosticism.

The Gnostic worldview contradicted the Christian faith. It required confrontation, not adaptation. Wells finds this confrontation in historic Protestant theology that portrays God finding the sinner, not the sinner looking inward to find God within himself.

Wells calls upon Christians to respond to this new type of Gnosticism by insisting upon the historic understanding of human sinfulness. This understanding views human beings as fragmented and flawed, not morally innocent.

Furthermore, Wells reminds us that Christianity concerns public truth, not private spirituality. And despite the myriad of spiritualities on the market today, only Christianity provides the personal relationship for which postmodern people yearn. Only Christianity gives us a divine summons from a personal God.

In short, Christ is the answer to our empty spirituality, the answer to our meaningless existence, and the answer to our sense of being “de-centered.”

Unfortunately, evangelicals are busy accommodating the postmodern mindset instead of confronting it. Evangelicals have deemphasized doctrine and religious identity and instead promoted values and principles for bettering life here and now. The church has been transformed into a place where the gospel can be marketed as a product to consumers.

Wells urges evangelicals to recapture the voice of “proclamation” of divine truth and not succumb to the consumerist temptation of secular society.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2009 Kingdom People Blog.

This week, I am summarizing the work of two evangelical theologians regarding the way forward in this postmodern era. David Wells, in Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, argues that evangelicals should, for the most part, resist the postmodern turn. Carl Raschke, in The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, believes we should, for the most part, embrace the new postmodernism. Today, I am summarizing Raschke’s Next Reformation.

Setting the Record Straight

Carl Raschke’s book attempts to accomplish three main purposes. First, he seeks to set the record straight for evangelicals by offering an accurate portrayal of postmodern thinking and countering the misrepresentations of postmodernism he finds in the writings of those critical of the new philosophy.

Raschke argues that postmodernism does not necessarily entail a denial of absolute and objective truth. Rather, postmodern philosophers merely question human ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

What postmodernism denies is the correspondence theory of truth – a view that perceives truth as something “out there.” Instead, postmodern thinkers call attention to the “finite boundaries of human knowledge and meaning,” a move which sets God free to communicate truth to us in his own way.

At its very core, postmodernism is a theology of language. God’s word to us is not logical or propositional. It is vocative. It is the language of relationship. “We are not reading a thing, but a Person.”

In focusing upon the revelation of God to human beings in finite language, postmodernism endeavors to “go beyond the identification of God with Being; it has positioned itself to transcend the metaphysical, or rationalist conception of God.”

Turning the Tables

Raschke’s second purpose in writing The Next Reformation is to turn the tables on the critics who believe postmodern theology is misguided. He seeks to accomplish this task by exposing an “unholy alliance” between evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment thinking that has existed since the seventeenth century.

According to Raschke, evangelicals mistakenly embraced Cartesian rationalism and moved away from the insights of the Reformers, especially sola fide and sola scriptura, and therefore went back toward the kind of rationalism that the Reformers had rightly sought to expunge from Catholic doctrine just one hundred years earlier.

Raschke believes that today’s evangelicalism is steeped in modernism, an idolatrous system of thought that puts a premium on the ability of the individual to use reason to discover truth. Therefore, fundamentalism and liberalism wind up being two sides of the same coin. Both movements seek to ground faith in reason, a disastrous idea that “empties faith of its content” and transforms it into moral imperatives and propositions.

Raschke believes the mystery of God cannot be explained in propositional argument and empirical confirmation. “Language from the Creator’s vantage point is not propositional at all. It is intersubjective. It is relational!”

Arguing for a personal God, Raschke challenges the “unholy alliance” made with Enlightenment philosophy. “The God of the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational.”

One may ask how evangelicalism has been so successful if it has been improperly aligned with modernism. Raschke argues that conservative Christianity has succeeded in America because of its emphasis on preaching and conversion, not on its reasoning from absolute, biblical principles.

Returning to the spirit of the Reformation will lead to an embrace of postmodernism. A new reformation will bring about radical humility in our thought, not just in our lives, which means that metaphysical disputation must give way to the cross, gospel, and grace.

Postmodernism as Opportunity

Raschke’s third purpose is to call evangelicals to see the postmodern turn in Western thought as an opportunity for true Christianity to flourish once again.

Embracing postmodernism means we must reject the correspondence theory of truth because “it cannot under any circumstances count on the temporal exactitude of correspondence between an assertion and its verification.”

Our attempts to find a firm foundation other than faith are futile. “Theology ends where faith begins.” Only faith is prior to presuppositions. To look for ultimate security in anything other than our faith in the Lord (including ontological or scientific foundations) is to pursue an idol.

Raschke calls evangelicals to abandon the idea of Christianity as a philosophy and to embrace its identity as a “relationship” – one that connects us to the everlasting God whose limitlessness exposes more and more our own limitations.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at David Wells’ Above All Earthly Pow’rs. Then, on Thursday and Friday, I’ll weigh in with some thoughts regarding the strengths and weaknesses of both of these approaches to postmodernism.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2009 Kingdom People Blog.