28 March, 2024

Is It Time to Move Beyond Truth? (Part 3)

Features

by | 1 February, 2009 | 0 comments

by Robert C. Kurka

In the first article in this series, we explained a nonfoundationalist approach to theology given shape by Stanley Grenz”s and John Franke”s 2001 book, Beyond Foundationalism. As we noted then, their work contributed a number of helpful insights to those committed to making an impact upon the postmodern world.

But it is also fraught with a number of serious problems restorationists should consider.

Last week we looked at two areas where Beyond Foundationalism encounters critical difficulties: the Bible itself and church history. We conclude this week by considering two more of these areas: philosophy, and missions and evangelism.

 

Philosophical/Epistemological Difficulties

The nonfoundationalist approach to theology presents some major problems philosophically, particularly in the area of epistemology.

As we have noted, these critics of modernity have rightly pointed out that the latter”s supposed objectivity and truth-making ability were themselves significantly conditioned by cultural glasses. Yet, if one also accepts the nonfoundational premise that this “filtering” tendency prohibits any person or group from claiming to know things as they really are, it becomes nearly impossible to escape from the clutches of relativism.

Granted, very few postmodern theorists advocate philosophical relativism””it is rather ridiculous to contend all viewpoints are equally valid, much less, live it””and yet, according to their own premises, we must ask how can one avoid this?

Who actually wants to defend the destruction of innocent human lives by terrorists, as simply an alternative system of cultural values and ethics? Given a philosophic framework that denies that truth belongs to any one culture, who can really say these actions are wrong?

In all fairness to Grenz and Franke, they do see a “preferred status” for the Christian story. However, given their epistemology, one cannot really argue that the Christian faith is “more true” than any other religious or philosophic variety; it simply has a record that it works.

But is this pragmatic basis enough to commend Christianity to another person or culture? If another “faith” can produce virtuous living, who cares which you choose?

Fortunately, despite these nonfoundational musings, most people do not live their lives in such a relativistic fashion. Medical schools do not teach their prospective physicians to do their medicine based on ethnic or cultural preferences; there is no Hindu medicine or Buddhist medicine, only medicine. Some things in this world just happen to be true, strongly implying that we approach our world with a critical realism. And the reason this is the case is best explained in the opening words of the Bible.

One can certainly appreciate the nonfoundationalist critique of modernism”s pretentious ambitions to put a “lock” on truth. Human creatures will never fully understand God”s wonderfully complicated creation, but this is not to suggest that we cannot get some or many things “right.” Of course as we continue to learn about creation, we take our knowledge to new and more detailed dimensions, many times refining our previous understandings, and occasionally changing the paradigms altogether.

The modernist promised exhaustive truth””an “impossible dream”””and unfortunately, the postmodernist exchanges this quest for an even more dangerous one that essentially abandons the venture. Neither view of truth can actually be lived out in the real world. We do not have perfect knowledge of anything and yet we do have some knowledge of many things.

Missions/Evangelism Difficulties

In identifying “community” as theology”s “integrative motif,” Grenz and Franke have once again presented the contemporary church with both a “fish” and a “snake” (compare Luke 11:11). The recognition that Christianity is essentially a corporate faith is indeed a needed corrective to the Enlightenment-inspired individualism that still permeates too much Western evangelicalism. Cultural anthropology has reminded us that communities are the primary caretakers of important beliefs, values, and orientation to reality.

However, the “snake side” to community talk emerges when we carry with it the foundationalist notion that since no culture can really know the world apart from its biases and filters, none of these “community narratives” (including Christianity”s) can claim to have normative power. This idea suggests that Christian evangelism and mission is at best a naïve attempt to persuade people to abandon their own, equally biased cultural stories, and at worst, arrogant activities that demonize the legitimacy of other religions. It is one thing for us, as Christians, to organize our lives around the “Christian story.” It is quite another to insist that all other people need to do the same.

In all fairness, I do not believe Grenz and Franke are against the Great Commission. And yet, given their presuppositions, we have to ask why we should give preferential status to this “Jesus-shaped version” of community stories? Is it not time to admit that the mission to take the gospel to every nation belongs to a bygone era that believed one could possess universal truth freed from cultural bias? If it is time to move beyond truth, then it is most certainly time to move beyond the Great Commission, or at least, politely offer prospective converts the caveat that our message of “only one name under heaven” (Acts 4:12) is really a great hyperbole that only communicates our enthusiasm about this Christian religion.

This all may sound a bit alarmist to some readers who cannot conceive of a Christianity devoid of telling others about Jesus. But tragically, it has been played out before””in fact, in the very history of the Restoration Movement. By the middle of the 20th century, the Disciples of Christ largely abandoned the notion that the Bible prescribed universal truth. This “new perspective” caused these Stone-Campbell descendants to repudiate their heritage”s plea to model our churches around a “New Testament design,” and reconstruct them around a “denominational” model.1 The results have proven to be disastrous, as our Disciples kin have witnessed several successive decades of plummeting membership, not to mention declining numbers of foreign missionaries.2

This has been the saga of most mainline denominations that have negotiated away the “superiority” of Christianity. And why should they expect anything else? If all Christians have is their own particular version of “community truth,” why should another generation be concerned about taking that message to another culture, perhaps at the risk of losing their lives?

While it must be noted that it was a modernist (especially anti-supernatural) worldview that brought about the denial of truth in liberal Christianity, the fruits of a postmodernist approach are not essentially different. Even though the latter is more accepting of “spiritual experience,” it still is not seen as any more than a particular faith group”s story and perspective. This does not seem to provide any more impetus for evangelism and mission than failed, mainline modernism.

One last thought: Is it really feasible to believe that the initial Christian community simply came together and assembled its unique story, as postmodernists would contend? This implies that community formation preceded the core of beliefs that identified this fledgling movement.

But was not the proclamation of a crucified, risen Messiah for the sins of the world something that was totally out-of-sync with both Judaic and Roman ideologies in the first century? Who in that environment would ever concoct such a group story? The only sensible explanation for the existence of the Christian church is that something occurred outside the parameters of anyone”s worldview””the raising of a man from the dead””and this unpredictable, counterintuitive, but true event gave rise to a movement that still confounds the world”s wisdom and ways.

 

“Yes” and “No”

Is it time to move beyond truth? The answer is both “yes” and “no.”

If we define truth in terms of a certitude grounded in the human mind””the rationalism of modernity””then the answer is clearly “yes.” Postmodern critics have rightfully pointed out the limitations of this way of thought that boasted of its objectivity and incontrovertible proofs.

On the other hand, the answer to the above question should be a resounding “no” if we refuse to concede that truth-talk is hopelessly modernistic. As we have attempted to argue in this series of essays, the concept of a universally binding truth is older than the advent of the modern era; in fact, one could borrow the popular cliché that truth is “older than dirt.”

Biblically speaking, truth is an attribute of the eternal, triune God who communicates his nature and purposes in speech (especially Scripture and the Incarnation) and in creation. Because language finds its origin in the transcendent God, we do not have to accept the postmodernist charge that human communication is trapped in the narrow and prejudiced viewpoints of competing cultures. And since creation exists and operates in ways independent of what human beings might “see” and even desire, human survival often depends on our ability to describe things “as they really are.” Consequently, truth is, and as God”s human creatures we are charged with rightly dividing his Word and world (cf., 2 Timothy 2:15).

Understanding truth in this latter sense will enable God”s people to present the gospel with conviction, clarity, and humility to a postmodern context that has erroneously assumed that nothing is left but opinion. As restorationists have long maintained, the path to the future is found in looking to the past“”primarily the biblical record, but also the subsequent narrative of Christian history. And as our spiritual ancestors journeyed back to define “the church” apart from the aberrations that had come to populate their landscape, let us, too, seek that ancient notion of truth that exposes and liberates us from the corruptions of modernity and its postmodern offspring.

________

1The Disciples of Christ story has been chronicled many times over, not to mention the decline of mainline, liberal churches over the past 45 years. A succinct, helpful, and nonpolemical article describing the recent history of the DOC is Mark Toulouse”s “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)” in The Encyclopedia of the Stone Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 177-84.

2Ibid., 181-84.


 


 

 

 


Robert C. Kurka is professor of theology and church in culture at Lincoln (Illinois) Christian Seminary. This three-part article represents a revision of the author”s more technical essay that appeared in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (See Robert C. Kurka, “Before “˜Foundationalism”: A More Biblical Alternative to the Grenz/Franke Proposal for Doing Theology,” JETS 50:1 [March 2007] 145-65).

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Features

Follow Us