The Death of Truth
Group Study Guide
Facilitator's Guide only. See Discussion Guide for group members
Dennis McCallum, general editor
Contributors:
Gary DeLashmutt
Roger Braund
Jim Leffel
Donal P. O'Mathúna
Introduction
Western people in the 1990's are experiencing the most sweeping shift
in perspective since the enlightenment. The Death of Truth details
the dramatic and earth-shaking conversion of western society from the
modernist world view to the postmodern world view. No book can take
you more quickly and painlessly into the heart of the new postmodern
outlook than The Death of Truth. You will feel the lights going
on time after time as you read this easy-to-understand volume
This Study Guide is designed to help groups discuss the book section
by section as members read through it on their own. Each week, appoint
one discussion facilitator. The facilitator needs to carefully read
the section in The Death of Truth for that week, and look over
the discussion questions and suggested answers in the facilitator's
guide ahead of time in order to offer leading thoughts. For each week,
we have provided more material than you will likely be able to cover.
Therefore, the facilitator should select the questions for study each
weak. Avoid lecture, except for short 2 to 3 minute explanations or
transitions. If people discuss and struggle with these concepts they
will feel more satisfaction and depth in their learning.
Encourage every participant to buy his or her own copy of The Death
of Truth, (couples can share) and to bring them to your meetings.
The Death of Truth is published by Bethany House Publishers,
and is available through any bookstore, especially Christian bookstores.
Discounted copies are also available from our Worldwide Web Site at
http://www.crossrds.org. When the guide says to read a section from
the book, ask one of the members to read aloud, while the others follow
along. Reading is an easy way to help start people speaking and participating.
As written, this study could take 15 to 20 weeks to complete. If you
want to shorten the number of weeks, we recommend skipping some of the
"Postmodern Impact" chapters. We do not recommend skipping
the first three or the last two chapters.
We have arranged each week's study so you can copy the "Discussion
Guide" for your group members while giving only the facilitator
the "Facilitator's guide" which includes suggested answers.
Questions asking only for personal opinion have been left without suggested
answers.
The entire discussion guide is copyrighted, but you may copy it for
non-commercial study purposes provided you copy and distribute at least
whole weekly sections unaltered, and give credit to the authors. You
may also get a FREE copy of the guide on-line for use in your
word processor at our Worldwide Web Site.
Chapter 1;
Facilitator's Guide for Chapter 1:
Are we Ready?
- McCallum claims that Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species
changed the course of history. Are you aware of any of these changes?
- Increase in atheism and agnosticism
- Growth of theories based on Darwinian principles such as Social Darwinism,
Religious Darwinism and Nazism
- Declarations that the Bible is unscientific
- Has your personal life ever been impacted by the doctrine of naturalistic
evolution?
- Most people have faced doubt, difficulty in witnessing, and even
persecution at school
- Imagine trying to discuss natural selection with a group of Christians
in 1865. Would they be aware of what was happening, or interested in
the subject? Should they have been?
- Natural selection would have been very difficult for lay people to
understand at the time, but those who failed to learn what it taught
were unable to resist its influence
- McCallum claims the real problem is that "once again, Christians
aren't ready for a major challenge to the Christian world view."
What would be involved in "being ready" for the onslaught
of a new world view?
Consider passages like I Peter 3:15 and Colossians 4:5,6. Consider
that Paul was familiar with the false teachings of his day (Acts 17:23,
28). Would you accept someone's testimony that your view on something
was wrong if it was clear that person didn't understand your view?
- Look at the list of bulleted social features listed on page __ and
___ . Have you seen any of these? How do you feel about them?
- McCallum says these features aren't necessarily bad. What good can
you see in any one of the bulleted items?
- What concerns to you have about any of these items?
- McCallum says, "postmodernists have no problem with religion,
as long is it makes no claim to universal truth and has no authority.
Look for more of the social revolution to come from the religious sector
than in the past."
Check the ones you think are correct endings to the following sentence:
Compared to 15 years ago, western culture today is becoming. . .
______ more ______ less ______ about the same
religious religious
______ more ______ less ______ about the same
Christian Christian
- Compare which blanks people in your group checked.
- For those who see a change, considering the trends you see, why do
you think things are moving that way? Can you name more than one factor
causing change? Which are the most important?
- Possible answers: Problems with the church, increased drug use, immigration,
international business climate, mass media, better communications with
other cultures. . .
Chapter 2
Facilitator's Guide, Chapter 2:
Our Old Challenge: Modernism
The chart on page ___ provides an outline of the issues discussed in
chapters 2-4. Briefly review the chart, focusing on the column under
modernism.
The easiest way to understand postmodernism is to see that it is a
rejection or revolt against the assumptions of modernism. This chapter
is arranged around the four key areas of modernist assumptions:
- Human nature
- Human autonomy
- Human knowledge
- Human progress.
- As you review the chart's left column, how do you see these assumptions
working out in our culture today? To help answer this question, think
about each of the following four quotes:
"Each human being is a superbly constructed, astonishingly compact,
self-ambulatory computer." Carl Sagan
- Modernists view people as machines. No wonder some are prepared to
practice abortion and euthanasia. Compare Sagan's statement to the next
quote.
"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout
the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law
of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot
be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow
their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where
the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject
to such laws must obey them or be destroyed. Man must also submit to
the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand
them but he can never free himself from their sway."
- Don't tell you people until after they discuss the quote for awhile,
but this quote is from Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 140! Where
did this mechanistic thinking about humans lead in his case?
"Nothing is in the mind that isn't first in the senses."
Classical statement of empiricism
- Isn't it true that we can receive knowledge from sources other than
the five senses? Can't God speak to us through spiritual conviction?
- If modernistic thinkers only know what comes to their senses, as
they say, how did they find out that no one else can know anything by
any other means? If you or I had a direct experience with God, a modernist
observer would have no way to determine whether it was authentic using
only his senses, right?
- Therefore, empiricism leads to an arrogance in the form of claiming
to know the exact limits of human learning and knowledge, even though
no empirical means exists for acquiring such knowledge. This is a blind
faith claim, not an empirical finding.
"Such is the aim of the work that I have undertaken . . . to show
by appeal to reason and fact that nature has set no term to the perfection
of human faculties; that the perfectibility of man is truly infinite;
and that the progress of this perfectibility from now onward is independent
of any powers that might wish to halt it, has no other limit than the
duration of the globe upon which nature has cast us." The Marquis
de Condorcet
- How has this optimism worked out? He thinks man has no limits. Have
we become more aware of our limits recently?
- See the arrogance in this statement. Such arrogance has offended
not only postmodernists, but also theists.
- Modernism has produced unexpected negative outcomes in society. See
how many your group can name.
Possible answers:
- Reducing all knowledge claims to scientific verification eliminates
the possibility of knowing spiritual or moral truths.
- Human dignity lacks any meaningful basis, because as biological machines,
there really isn't any difference between people and animals.
- No wonder modernistic, materialistic theories like Marxism have resulted
in unbelievable immoral atrocities.
- Progress, as it is conceived by modernists, has had a disastrous
effect on the environment. It has also been at the expense of native
populations and given rise to colonial exploitation.
- Religion, and specifically Christianity, has been effectively pushed
out of its position of respect in society. Millions have been convinced
that Christianity is unscientific.
- We do not accept, however, that war and violence are the result of
modernism. (See Chapter 14) Also, realize that religious worldviews
have produced atrocities as well. Why is this?
Chapter 3
Facilitator's Guide to Our New Challenge: Postmodernism
Be sure group members have read the chapter. This is the hardest chapter
in the book, so be prepared for some confusion from members.
In this chapter we consider how postmodernism offers a response to
modernist assumptions. Review the chart on page ___ focusing on the
middle column, labeled "postmodernism."
Perhaps its best to think of postmodernism as the death of truth.
Consider the statements below, taken at random from a series of recent
interviews at a major university.
"Truth is whatever you believe." "No, there is no absolute
truth, and if there was, how would we know what it is? . . . People
who believe in absolute truth are dangerous."
- Have you encountered comments like this from your non-Christian friends?
- What barriers might such views create to evangelism?
To understand why people think this way, we need to understand
the postmodern shift in thought. A key underlying assumption of postmodernism
is how they conceive human nature. While modernists viewed people
as autonomous (and capable of independent rational thought), postmodernists
see human identity and thinking as the product of culture. Leffel states,
"postmodernists deny we have a "self" that exists independent
of our social reality. Culture and society create individuals
as well as all their thoughts and attitudes." The following quote
is by Peter Berger, whose analysis is often cited by postmodernists:
"A thought of any kind is grounded in society . . . The individual,
then, derives his world view socially in very much the same way that
he derives his roles and his identity. In other words, his emotions
and his self-interpretation like his actions are predefined for him
by society, and so is his cognitive approach to the universe that surrounds
him."
- If "a thought of any kind is grounded in society," certain
important implications follow. These implications are widely accepted
in today's postmodern influenced social sciences and in popular cultural.
What are these implications?
- Possible answers:
- Cultural relativism--the view that each culture has it's own truths
that are relevant to them, but not relevant to other cultures. Consequently,
it's inappropriate to judge the actions of other cultures.
- Postmodern rejection of personal autonomy leads to a view of people
reminiscent of the modernist who contended that humans are impersonal
biological machines. What kind of impact might this have on areas like
medical ethics?
- Culture provides and interpretative grid on perceptions that makes
the modernist idea of rational objectivity impossible. When people think
they are being rational, they are really just living out their western
cultural bias.
- Leffel says, "one of the main ways society shapes individuals
is through language." This is probably the most abstract and difficult
parts of the postmodern argument. Postmodernists point out that individuals
always interact with reality through the medium of language. All mental
activities, they say, are based in language. We think in words. We communicate
with words. People are connected to reality through the labels they
assign to their perceptions and ideas. These labels, or words, are arbitrary,
and evolve in society. The more abstract (and often more important)
our ideas are, the more dependent we are on words alone to provide meaning.
But if language is the way people relate to reality, then we must understand
the nature of language.
Let's think about the components of language that postmodernists say
makes objectivity impossible:
- Semantics--the meaning of words and phrases. Postmodernists
say that, since societies define words, and our thinking is rooted in
language, we can't go beyond a culturally relative way of knowing. Knowledge
claims themselves are just a matter of cultural conditioning. Can you
think of any evidence that knowledge is not necessarily limited to a
given culture?
- How do some members of a given culture come up with new ideas not
found in their culture?
- How do foreign missions ever succeed?
- Syntax--the structure or logic of language. Postmodernists
say that every language has a structure, or logic. Words are related
to each other by connective words such as "if/ then," "and,"
"either/or" and so on. Postmodernists say that the linguistic
constructions for the West promote a hierarchical, "either/or"
way of thinking. The language of science, logic, and progress shape
the way we think. That's why we don't think holistically and
inclusively. Have you heard this kind of idea before? Where?
- Do you think there is a link between the postmodern view of language
and the demands of "political correctness"?
- Possible answers:
- The movement to make language "gender neutral" is one example
of the linkage between postmodern views of language and postmodern political
activism.
- By attempting to restructure language, people will loose their "patriarchal"
prejudices. What do you think of this? What implications do you see?
- Do you think there are broader implications to the postmodern view
that language shapes thought?
- Some implications are: All "truths" are merely linguistic
constructs. We are trapped in the "prison house of language."
What we believe doesn't have any real connection to reality--we simply
think in the framework of our language. We can't check the map against
the territory.
- Do you think language controls what you think?
Problems with postmodern analysis:
Postmodernists rightly critique the modernists' overconfidence in autonomous
human reason. However, Leffel argues that they've thrown out the baby
with the bath water.
- They critique the correspondence view of truth. Postmodernists hold
that all knowledge claims are arbitrary, and that none are ultimately
more objective than another because we lack certainty. On a practical
level, what's wrong with this critique?
- Possible answers:
- Remember the point that all cultures use scientific modes of reasoning,
even the so-called primitive cultures. How does this respond to the
postmodern view that "scientific reasoning" is a Western cultural
paradigm?
- Isn't the postmodern view based on reason, or at least put itself
forth as an objectively true theory? Since this is so, it seems that
the denial of reason and truth is self defeating:
- Imagine this discussion:
"There is no such thing as truth"
"Really, is that true?"
"Yes it is"
"Well if that's true than there's at least one true thing--your
statement! So that means it's not true that there's no such thing as
truth."
"But my statement is that there is no such thing as truth."
"Okay, but then your statement isn't true, is it?"
- This conversation sounds absurd, and it is. Is the dialog between
Christians and postmodernists the same or different than this discussion
- Postmodernists say all thought and reason is shaped by language. But
as Leffel points out, this is inconsistent with some things we know
about psychological development and the development of language. Leffel
cites authorities who show that the mind is active and makes clear rational
distinctions prior to the acquisition of language. How do these
findings impact that postmodern view of linguistic cultural determinism?
- These findings directly refute the postmodern notion that all thought
is based on language. While language may have an influence on
how we think, we have evidence that the relationship of reason to language
is different than how postmodernists say it is. In McIntyre's words,
"words are a sort of a handle on concepts" that we have already
come to know independent of language.
Chapter 4
Facilitator's Guide to Two Visions
This chapter makes the distinction between two types of postmodernism:
skeptical and affirmative. Both types of postmodernism reject the possibility
of rational objectivity. In the place of reason, they say we are left
with nothing but power.
Skeptical Postmodernists
Skeptical postmodernists claim that when people make claims to ultimate
truth, usually religious or philosophical, the one thing we can count
on is that it will be used to justify self interest and power. Among
the examples Leffel cites are: so-called "Manifest Destiny"
and the alleged inferiority of African Americans. These are example
of what postmodernists call "epistemological tyranny."
- What does "epistemological tyranny" mean? What other examples
of epistemological tyranny can you think of?
- "White man's burden" as used by colonial powers
- "Scientism" is the view that nothing but the findings of
empirical science are valid
- Postmodernism is also epistemological tyranny, because it discounts
all other views.
- Leffel cites contemporary music and cinema as examples of skeptical
postmodernism. Discuss song lyrics and movies you've see that carry
the cynical view that skeptical postmodernists hold.
Affirmative Postmodernism
- Affirmatives are sometimes referred to as "constructivists."
What does this term mean? Can you think of any good examples of constructivism?
- Talk about examples like the gay rights movement and how they manipulate
public opinion by creating words like "homophobia." By inventing
this kind of language, they seek to create a new paradigm for social
morality, without seriously engaging the deeper moral issues. We just
label people "homophobes" if they have problems with the ethics
of homosexuality. Try to think of other examples.
- Where and to what extent do you see constructivism in the university
today? Do we see constructivism in other areas of culture too?
- Get the group to talk about what they find in literature classes,
political science and other related fields. There will be many illustrations
of constructivism from the university environment and the curriculum.
- You could also discuss the recent motion pictures, The Scarlet
Letter and Nixon as affirmative, or ideological reworkings
of history and literature.
- In this chapter, Leffel makes a distinction between postmodern ideology
and postmodern culture. We can pick up postmodern ideology though comments
and sentiments people express. Postmodern-influenced people will often
say,
"Intuition and feelings might tell us more about reality than does
reason"
"People do what they do because their culture made them what they
are (we are cultural constructs)
"Government is nothing but a bunch of self-serving politicians.
They'll never really serve the people"
"The legal system is set up to cater to the rich and powerful.
You can't get justice if you're a minority or poor."
"No one knows what really happened in history, because people have
burned the accounts they didn't want to pass along"
"You don't look to religion for objective answers. It's just a
matter of personal belief and what works best for you."
- Discuss these views in the group. To what extent does the group identify
with them? Why or why not? Is it possible some statements might have
both a bad and a good component? What would be a biblical view of these
thoughts?
Chapter 5
[coming soon]
Chapter 6
Facilitator's Guide for Literature
Review the chart on p. ___. Focus on the section under the heading
"grammatical-historical approach."
- Think about the Bible as a text. What are the main questions we ask
of a biblical passage to get at its meaning.
Consider questions like:
- Who is the author?
- Who was the original audience?
- What historical factors about the audience might be important in
understanding the passage?
- What is the broader context of the passage being studied?
- What words or concepts in the passage relate to central biblical
teachings
- Why do we approach the Bible this way? Isn't it because we think that
if we ask questions about the author, audience and the context of a
passage, we can discover the author's intent and therefore the true
meaning of the text? But postmodernists step in at this point and say
that we're operating from a faulty paradigm. They say our assumptions
about author, text and reader are wrong. Again review the chart on p.
___. This time focus on the column under Let's explore this a bit further.
The Author
- Why do postmodernists argue that the author doesn't stand over the
text as an authority?
- For the discussion leader: Because authors are merely an expression
of the cultural context that shapes their thought, values and beliefs.
So there is nothing original being stated in the text. The text is merely
an expression of the author's social reality. And that reality may or
may not be relevant to the reader.
- Do you think that postmodernists have some important insight when
they say that the authors' writing reflects the biases, values and beliefs
of their culture? What examples come to mind? How might this effect
the way we view scripture?
The Text
One of the big problems many postmodernists have with texts is that
they "privilege" certain values and ideas over others. Since
values and truth claims are social constructs, texts that are "privileged"
(accepted into the social and literary canon) perpetuate views that
keep power for the dominant culture while marginalizing minority cultures.
- Is this viewpoint familiar to you? Where have you come into contact
with it? Do you think this outlook perpetuates cynicism? How so?
- How might the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution be
viewed in terms of privileging certain values that perpetuate power
at the expense of minority cultures?
- Property rights included ownership of human slaves. "One man,
one vote," meant "One man, but not one woman."
- Rights under the constitution only applied to citizens, not to Native
Americans.
- But at the extreme, see revisionist judges who feel we have to read
the constitution as it would be understood today, not then. Under this
premise they invent new meanings never considered by the framers.
The Reader
One of the tools postmodernists use to wrestle authority out of the
text and into the reader is "deconstruction." Deconstruction
purges texts of socially constructed hierarchies, contradictions and
identifies things excluded from the text.
- Why is being "logocentric" such a concern for deconstruction?
What does this mean?
- People are logocentric when they believe there are controlling ideas
that are objectively true. People who favor one point of view as the
"right" one are said to be logocentric by postmodernists.
- How does using deconstruction allow the reader to be an authority
over the text?
- The reader discerns what antitheses were at work in the original
writing. The reader determines what the author's real motives were,
and why he believed as he did.
- Postmodernists say that in the final analysis, no one has final authority
over the text. Why is this? What is the consequence of this view?
- They claim that the individual only has authority over what the text
means to him or her, not to what it might mean to others.
- Texts' meanings can change depending on the reader.
Chapter 7
Facilitator's Manual for Education
- Many Christians argue for "value-free" education in the
public schools. They say teachers should simply teach students facts
and leave the ethics and belief systems to parents in the home. Other
Christians hold that "value-free" education is impossible.
For example, forbidding cheating, requiring academic performance, etc.
are necessary for the educational process, but they are values/ethics.
What place do you think values, religious/philosophical beliefs, and
ethics have in public education?
This is a very difficult issue. Certainly it is impossible to completely
detach values from education. When there was a Judeo-Christian consensus
in our culture, it was much easier to trust that the values taught in
public schools were for the most part biblical. As our culture becomes
truly post-Christian, the amount of common ground in values and ethics
has shrunken dramatically.Ideally, a local community could delineate
the values on which there is large agreement, and then agree to emphasize
these values in the school system. Communities that have done this have
been pleasantly surprised at how much consensus is possible (e.g., honesty,
diligence, respect for authority, etc.). Where no consensus is possible,
they could agree to avoid those issues in lower grades and try to give
a balanced treatment of the different views in higher grades.
- What are the similarities and differences between the postmodernists'
espousal of Afrocentric schools and Christians' espousal of Christian
schools?
- Christian schools are privately funded
- Christian schools are not based on race but on a religious point
of view
- Christian schools are often open to non-Christians
- Consider the following passage by a science educator and then give
your opinion on the questions that follow:
"The study. . .[see Discussion Guide]
- What postmodern ideas are evident in this passage?
- Science and technology are western cultural biases.
- Rationality and linear thinking is male.
- Whether a particular scientific proposition is true or false is never
considered--only that it reflects male European thinking.
- Competition and individual achievement are European and male.
- Belief that there is a real objective world is male and European
- According to postmodernists, androcentric instructional models are
those which focus on "male" or individual ways of knowing
and doing things. This includes emphasizing famous "men of science"
to children, while ignoring contributions by women and other groups
to the history of science.
- What are these female and non-European views of truth that the author
claims to be different than "realism"? Do women, men, Europeans,
Africans, etc., as groups, view truth differently?
- The question is not whether there are differences between women and
men or between ethnic groups. The question is whether they view truth
differently.
- If there are differences between one group and another on how they
view truth, what is the solution? Different "truths" for each
group, or that one or both groups are wrong?
- Is it true - wholly or partially - that science is merely a white,
European, male, worldview and therefore scientific knowledge is infected
with this bias?
- Detailed answers to this suspicion will be given in Chapter 11. We
believe science is not merely European or male, although it could be
applied in a biased way if scientists are careless.
- Are competitiveness and individualism in education a result of white
European male influence? What does the Bible say about competitiveness
and individualism that is relevant to schooling?
- This authority is wrong on this point. Non-western cultures are also
competitive. Western culture is more individualistic than other cultures
in general, but western women are just as individualistic as western
males.
- How would education be different, if at all, if women and non-Europeans
were in control of it? Who should control the education system?
- To what extent is it true, if at all, that students "must assimilate"
a certain instructional model in order to be successful at school? Do
you think students should have to assimilate an instructional model?
- Consider this passage, also from Barba:
"Sometimes teachers. . .[See discussion guide]
- What postmodern theories and attitudes are evident in this passage?
- Is it true that sometimes, or all the time, that students do not succeed
because of differences between their culture and "school culture"?
Are there other reasons for why some students might not succeed?
- For someone who does not believe that the schools should "change
learners," what, then, would the school's job be? What is a biblical
perspective on the task of schools (including the job of "fixing"
students)?
- Go around the room and have people read these verses as part of your
discussion
(Prov 10:13 NIV) Wisdom is found on the lips of the discerning, but
a rod is for the back of him who lacks judgment.
(Prov 13:24 NIV) He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves
him is careful to discipline him.
(Prov 22:15 NIV) Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the
rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
(Prov 23:13 NIV) Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish
him with the rod, he will not die.
(Prov 23:14 NIV) Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
(Prov 29:15 NIV) The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child
left to himself disgraces his mother.
- To what extent is diversity a "deficit" and to what extent
is it a "valuable educational resource"?
- A classroom where people are so diverse they cannot understand each
other's language is ill-suited to learning. Students need sufficient
common ground in their suppositions to be able to communicate.
- Which "world view" - the "deficit" or the "multicultural"
- is closest to the biblical world view? Or, is there a preferable third
alternative?
- Here is one more quotation from Barba:
"Students cannot be. . .[See discussion guide]
- Why do you think this author considers it important to assume that
students are not "deficient"? Do you agree that this is an
important assumption?
- This belief is based on the notion that what we believe creates
reality. In truth, some students are deficient, and denying this
only endangers those students. Many students do need remedial classes
and there is no proof that such classes ruin those who take them. This
approach is similar to Christian Science--"If I deny I am sick,
I will be well."
- Is it possible, and if so how, to have education without ever telling
students they are "deficient"? What would be the result of
this kind of classroom atmosphere?
- This approach could unintentionally teach children that they are
never wrong. It could definitely lead to difficulties when those students
later are directly confronted with their mistakes and are not used to
such honesty. It could weaken students' character. It also robs the
pleasure from being right, which could sap motivation.
- Is it necessary to be affirmed in order to learn? Why or why not?
- Students need a mixture of affirmation and correction depending
on their performance. Instruction without any affirmation does break
down because of loss of motivation.
Chapter 8
Facilitator's Manual for History
- Dixon says, "The facts of history are becoming more flexible
and can be bent to accommodate almost any argument." Have you seen
any examples of this? How about Oliver Stone's movies, JFK and
Nixon?
- Both JFK and Nixon have been heavily criticized for altering the
facts of history. Oliver Stone replies that "history is open."
- Lewis Farrakahn claimed that Napoleon blasted the nose off the Sphinx
in Egypt "because it reminded him of the majesty of the black man."
- Dixon thinks the historical events in the Bible are the lynch-pin
of Christianity? Is this overstated, in your opinion?
- How many times does God call himself "the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob" or "the God who brought you out of Egypt, out of
the house of bondage?"
- Read the first half of I Corinthians 15. How much importance does
Paul attach to historical fact?
- Marxism sees socioeconomic classes, such as the Bourgeoisie and the
Proletariat in a desperate class struggle that shapes and explains history.
What, if any, connection do you see between Marxist thought and postmodernism?
- Postmodernism sees a similar struggle going on between sexes, races,
cultures and those with different sexual preferences.
- As with Marxism, oppression of the weak by the strong is the key
to understanding history
- Black Studies, Women's Studies, Gay and Lesbian studies, Hispanic
Studies, etc. form a large part of any contemporary university bulletin.
How do you feel about these course offerings? Is there anything wrong
with offering such courses?
- Do you believe women have been oppressed more than others in history?
- A fair study of history demonstrates that they have been more oppressed
by a wide margin over men.
- Examples include
foot-binding in China
clitorectomies in Islamic countries
beatings "balks" and dunking in Europe for women who sassed
a man
the "rule of thumb" which refers to the rule in colonial America
that restricted men to beat their wives with canes no thicker than their
thumb.
- Dixon says, "Postmodern scholars point out that each person has
her own world-view, her own beliefs and convictions. Therefore, which
lines we draw between the facts of history and the resulting picture
we develop is ultimately dependent on individual judgment." How
would you answer this claim? How does Dixon answer it?
- Dixon explains, "At the very least, postmodernists are different
from earlier historians in how they view subjectivity in historical
interpretation. In earlier times, personal bias was known, but resisted,
as antithetical to good historical research. Now, postmodern cultural
historians consider bias unavoidable in whole or even in part."
- Are some events or "facts" of history more important than
others? If so, what makes something important?
- Frequency of mention by contemporaries or a clear cause and effect
link between an event and major changes that affect many people. For
instance, Alexander the Great's campaign into the middle East brought
down the Persian empire.
- Events or discoveries that are still considered important or influential
long afterward to many people can be assumed to be important.
- Would we consider some things important in the west that are considered
unimportant in other cultures? If so, what implications would you see
in such an observation?
- Events could be globally important (like the discovery of flight)
or locally important (like the founding of the Massachusetts bay colony).
Because some things are of local or regional importance should not be
taken to imply that the concept of "importance" is meaningless.
Chapter 9
Facilitator's Manual for Psychotherapy
- Dr. Fidelibus says that being of "many minds" is a way to
deal with diversity in our culture. Studies show that immigration and
other religions are on a rapid rise in the U.S. In your view, will being
of many minds bring us together, or keep us separate?
- As the right to maintain a different "mind" becomes an
inviolable right, this approach could well rob us of any common ground
from which to understand or to engage with each other.
- "Family therapists define the "family" as a culture."
Knowing what postmodernists think of the social construction of reality,
you can imagine that postmodern family therapists see everyone's actions
and attitudes as have been produced by their families. Are we products
of our families? To what extent? Can you think of any evidence that
people are not completely determined by their family of origin?
- How do we explain when brothers or sisters raised in the same family
turn out very differently?
- How do some people turn completely against the way they were raised,
or utterly depart from the culture in which they were raised?
- Dr. Fidelibus says, "Modernist counseling approaches in psychology
have long assumed, as postmodernists do, that the ways patients see
themselves aren't objectively true. . . However, they further assume,
unlike postmodernists, that the patient will become well by developing
a more objective--or truer--self-appraisal through the process of therapy."
In other words, modernist counselors may conclude that a client is not
seeing reality correctly, which suggests neurosis or worse. Postmodern
therapists, on the other hand, start with the assumption that the client's
reality is reality for that client. Have you seen this approach
in counseling you, or friends of yours, have undergone?
- Postmodern therapy "will involve no similar effort to confront
or correct the patient's narrative." What does this mean in the
context of radical victimology?
- In postmodern victimology, the victim's feelings and perceptions
are his or her reality. Therefore, we cannot question whether whose
who feel they were abused or harassed actually were mistreated in the
"real" world, or whether their abuse was a matter of their
own interpretation.
- According to Dr. Fidelibus, "The loss of self-identity has been
associated with some of the most unsettling findings in the entire psychology
research literature." Why is this a concern with postmodern-influenced
therapies?
- Postmodern therapies claim that people are purely the product of
their socially constructed reality. All that they are and think is not
their own, but was imparted to them by their culture. Therefore, there
is no concrete "self."
- "Studies have repeatedly found that we tend to attribute our
own successes to positive internal traits, such as ability and effort,
and our failures to external factors outside of our control. By contrast,
we tend to attribute the successes of others to "luck," and
their failures to inability, lack of perseverance, or some other personal
shortcoming." Based on this observation, Dr. Fidelibus concludes,
"Self-sacrifice isn't merely a pious euphemism or an exhortation
to 'be nice' or 'do good.' It's an epistemological necessity--a
pre- requisite to knowing what is true." Explain why he thinks
this. How would postmodernists view self-sacrifice?
- Unless we have a mind-set of self-sacrifice, we will constantly distort
reality in our favor. Spiritual growth is intended to decrease this
tendency, as Christians see life less self-centeredly and more through
God's perspective.
Chapter 10
Facilitator's Manual for Law
- Did the Rodney King trials ever make you wonder whether justice is
based on race?
- Why do you think the majority of people in jails are African American?
- Saalman points out that traditional legal theory argues for the "Rule
of Law." Postmodernists claim that there is no such thing as the
rule of law because all laws have to be interpreted and applied by people.
How would you respond to this point?
- Courts serve as checks and balances for each other to an extent,
through the appeals system.
- It is certainly possible that laws could be interpreted unfairly.
Many evangelicals believe this occurred in the case of Rowe vs. Wade.
However, even though laws can be abused, a system without laws would
be even worse.
- Recent study shows that crack cocaine users are far more likely to
be arrested than are users of regular cocaine. Many observers claim
that this proves the law operates under racism. After all, most crack
users are black and poor, while most users of regular cocaine are middle
class whites. How would you respond to these findings?
- Racism is certainly one good possible explanation
- - Racism is one very good possible explanation
- Because crack is a cheaper high, it is associated with poor people,
and poverty in turn has long been associated with crime. Since more
African Americans are poor, it is not surprising that they more often
are arrested in conjunction with other crimes, and are found to be in
possession of crack.
- Wealthier white cocaine users are better able to hide their activities
from police than the poor. Crack abuse remains a street crime, more
liable to discovery. Note: Even if these last two explanations are correct,
racism may be a factor in why proportionately more blacks are poor.
- Critical legal theorists claim that judges wear robes and use archaic
language in order to gain wrongful legitimation. Why do you think they
wear robes? Are such traditions sinister?
- Saalman quotes Stanley Fish as saying, "Does might make right?
In a sense the answer I might give is yes, since in the absence of a
perspective independent of interpretation some interpretive perspective
will always rule by virtue of having won out over its competitors."
If this is true, what can minorities expect in the future? What could
hold out hope for minorities?
- Majority culture can always "win out" against other viewpoints
if all is purely a matter of power, as Fish claims. Minorities should
resist this sort of thinking with all their might.
- Only objective universally binding ethical values will guarantee
fairness for minorities, and this is the very thing postmodernism denies.
Many authorities, like Gene Veith, have worried that postmodernism could
lead to fascism.
Chapter 11
Facilitator's Guide for Science
- When discussing Kuhn's and Feyerabend's work, Dr. Campbell refers
to "paradigms." Have you heard people using this word more
lately? When postmodernists use the term, a paradigm is a model within
which one set of truths hold. Other paradigms have their own sets of
truths. In other words, a paradigm is similar to the idea of a cultural
"reality" or, to use terminology from literary theory, a paradigm
is similar to a social "text" or "story." However,
postmodernists aren't the only ones who use the term paradigm. How might
people use the term paradigm without loading it with postmodern ideology?
- Before postmodernism, a paradigm was a model, or a way of approaching
an area of thought. For instance, people who believed the world was
flat, had a collection of reasons for that belief, and found it difficult
to accept evidence that the world was round. After all, the horizon
on the ocean was flat, water didn't run off the surface of the world,
etc. After the world was shown to be round, these people experienced
a paradigm shift--they had to change not only the way they viewed the
world from flat to round, but also all the associated factors they earlier
thought demonstrated the flatness of the world. Note that this does
not suggest that the world really was flat for them--in fact the real
world was always round. But to postmodernists, paradigms are reality.
We cannot speak of a "real" world out there.
- Dr. Campbell names several features used in scientific research intended
to reduce bias and enhance objectivity. He included replication, blind
testing, peer review and falsifiability. Do you think these aspects
of research promise that scientific research will be relatively objective?
How might each fail to do what it was intended to do?
- Replication could fail because the other research team produce the
same results, but accept the interpretation on those results suggested
by the first researcher. Later, it may be proven that while the results
were valid the interpretation was wrong.
- Blind testing could demonstrate a true correlation between one thing
and another, but still fail to reveal the true cause and effect relationship
between them. Just because we show that two things are statistically
correlated, does not mean we have demonstrated what is the cause and
what is the effect. Blind testing eliminates researcher bias, but cannot
fix an improperly structured experiment.
- Peer review can fail because other scientists may be locked into
a paradigm that causes them to exclude contradictory information. For
instance, stomach ulcers have only recently been shown to be the result
of bacterial infection. For decades scientists have missed this fact
in unison.
- Some correct findings cannot be falsified, and some false conclusions
cannot be demonstrated as false either. Particularly in more theoretical
fields of study, conclusions are arrived at inductively, and are only
accepted as the most probable conclusion.
- Dr. Campbell says, "This is a contradiction within modernism:
Their conclusions are supposed to be based on reason and observation,
not on faith. Yet, confidence in things like observation require faith.
They end up using faith, even as they argue against faith." Could
you articulate this point to a sharp, learned modernist? Write a list
of questions that would lead a modernist thinker to see this contradiction.
To the modernist:
1. How do you know the data of your senses corresponds to the "real"
world?
2. How do you know cause and effect and natural laws operate the same
way in all parts of the universe?
3. If cause and effect in a closed system accounts for everything,
what caused the big bang? If you don't know, isn't your belief that
cause and effect accounts for everything based on blind faith?
Think of some more if you can.
- Dr. Campbell quotes Renee Weber when she says, "Science as it
is used in this book stands for the attitude of Einstein rather than
of Bacon: an attitude of kinship with nature rather than of exploitive
power over her." Can you think of any movies or books that have
portrayed science as primarily an exploiter and destroyer of nature?
- Go to a video or book store and browse the most popular rentals or
books for examples here.
- In this chapter, Dr. Feyerabend suggests that science has no more
legitimacy or authority than other approached to reality, like magic.
How would you respond to such a claim?
- Magic explains disease as a symptom of spirit possession or cursing.
Medical science can heal many of the same diseases magic is helpless
to heal. Life expectancy has more than doubled in areas where magic
healing has been replaced by medical science.
- The same people who claim science has never done anything better
than magic fly planes, drive cars, and write their anti-scientific books
on computers while listening to their radios!
Think of more examples if you can.
Chapter 12
Facilitator's Guide to Religion Week 1
The Cardinal Sin of Intolerance
- Read the Dear Abby letter on page ___ and her reply.
- Do you agree with McCallum and Leffel's observation that the definition
of intolerance has changed in recent years?
- Possible response: They claim the definition has changed from the
old: "In earlier years, intolerance meant bigotry or prejudice--that
is, judging someone or excluding them socially because of who they are,
or because of a superficial understanding of what they believe. It also
usually implied the desire to use force. . ." But of the new definition
they say, "in postmodern usage, intolerance has come to mean that
simply disagreeing about beliefs"
- Do you feel free to object to another's religious view today, or to
suggest their beliefs are untrue? Why or why not?
- What would happen at your job today if you openly express your religious
convictions that another employee's behavior or views are wrong?
- Are postmodern-influenced people you know more tolerant? Are they
tolerant of racism? Are they tolerant of Christianity? Are they tolerant
of traditional western values? What are the rules of tolerance today?
- Isn't it true that tolerance is quite selective for postmodern culture?
We will see examples of highly restrictive speech codes propounded by
postmodern educators in recent years. Are such speech codes suggestive
of tolerance?]
- How do you feel about the relationship between knowing and declaring
truth and falsehood on one hand, and being arrogant on the other?
- In formulating your answer to this question, be sure to consider
Jesus, who knew a lot, who condemned falsehood, but who was extremely
humble. What other biblical heroes of faith denounced falsehood even
though being humble.
- Everyone agrees that we may project arrogance when disagreeing with
another. How can we avoid unnecessarily offending people in the postmodern
world? Name at least three ways to project humility and understanding:
1.
2.
3.
- What would you say if someone at work or in the neighborhood asked
you if you are a Christian fundamentalist? How would you explain your
answer?
Facilitator's Guide, Religion Week 2
The Cardinal Sin of Objectivity
- The authors claim, "Both evangelicals and modernists have historically
believed in the use of reason, beginning with the law of non-contradiction:
A is not non-A." Do you agree with this claim? Can you think of
any exceptions?
- For those who believe there are exceptions to the law of non-contradiction,
if rationality fails in one area, how do we know it is valid in any
area?
- Anyone who claims reason doesn't apply to some area of inconsistency
in his own argument but does apply everywhere else is guilty of the
logical fallacy called "special pleading." When we special
plead, we demand special rules for our own argument but we are not willing
to let the opposition have the same or similar special rules in their
argument. In other words, once we say there are exceptions to laws like
non-contradiction in one case, we must allow that other exceptions may
exist in other areas. Reason suddenly has no authority in defining reality.
- Remember, saying something is beyond our comprehension is different
than saying it is beyond the realm of the rational. See the example
of a Xerox copier--we may not understand how it works (it is beyond
our comprehension) but that doesn't mean it is irrational. That which
is beyond my comprehension is not necessarily beyond someone else's
comprehension. God, after all, comprehends everything
- Realize that some theological formulations have historically been
phrased as contradictory by theologians who placed no confidence in
reason. Before accepting such formulations, make certain they are biblical
and not merely traditional.
- The authors say, "Religion based only on personal experience
and 'what's true for me' is perfectly compatible with the postmodern
world view." Isn't experience important in Christianity? How would
you distinguish between Christianity and other experience-based religions?
- Experience is important in Christianity. Christianity is a personal
relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and a relationship, to be
personal, must be an experience. However, experience isn't what makes
Christianity true. God's truth is true regardless of what I experience.
Experience might help to verify the truth to me as one line of
evidence. It does not make something true for me.
- Experience plus rational evidence is completely different
than experience instead of rational evidence. Experience also
must be judged by truth, not vice versa. This means experience must
ultimately be judged by reason when biblical revelation bears on my
experience.
- For instance, I may feel that a Bible teacher blessed me so much
during a teaching, that he must be of God. Later, I discover that the
text he relied on actually means something else in context. At that
point, I should judge my experience as mistaken, no matter how pleasurable.
- The postmodern religionists says, "My experience is the basis
for my beliefs, and those beliefs exist to empower me." Formulate
a similar statement from the perspective of a biblical Christian:
- Possible answers: [God's word or ultimate reality]
is the basis for my beliefs, and those beliefs exist [because
they are true]
- The authors claim that the church has lost the loyalty of a huge number
of people during our lifetime. Is this true? If so, what do you think
are the reasons for such a shift? Who is to blame?
- Current polls continue to show rapid decline in overall church attendance
during each of the past several years. Since the 60's church attendance
has fallen nearly 50%. Evangelical church attendance has not fallen
significantly. However, even though millions have apparently transferred
from liberal denominations to evangelical churches, evangelical attendance
has failed to rise
- We suggest resisting answers that center on powerful minorities of
sinners who brought their evil agenda in and took over the country.
We should not look away from the fact that if the church was doing its
job, anti-Christian forces never would have gained the ground they have.
- What do you think of the assertion that some secular recovery groups
are postmodern? Should Christians participate in recovery groups? Should
the church start groups based on the twelve steps? If so, should the
steps be adapted to Christian doctrine in any way, or left as they are?
- We believe the secular recovery movement should not be brought into
the ministry of the church without a careful reconsideration and modification
of several key points in their agenda.
- Are you aware of any movements or fads within evangelical Christianity
that might tend to move self or experience to the center in terms of
authority?
- Discuss the proposition at the end of the chapter: "In a world
where everyone's position is true, nobody's position matters."
Have you ever felt the reality of this statement? Think of conversations
with relativist thinkers.
Chapter 13Facilitator's Guide, 5 Case Studies
Elaine Pagels
Pagels provides an excellent example of how postmodernists approach the
Bible. She uses many of the literary tools and concepts we studied in
chapter 7 to radically reshape the Christian message.
- How does the following passage illustrate the postmodern interest
in subverting the author's authority?
"When we examine its practical effect on the Christian movement,
we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of the bodily resurrection
also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority
of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches."
- How does the following quote from The Gnostic Gospels provide
an example of the postmodern spirituality that's so popular today?
"The resurrection, they (Gnostics) insisted, was not a unique
event in the past: instead, it symbolized how Christ's presence could
be experienced in the present. What mattered was not literal seeing,
but spiritual vision."
- What postmodern concepts are contained in this statement?
- Can you see why this kind of radical reconstruction of Christianity
is so popular?
- Discussion leader: It's popular because it leaves the individual
as the source of truth. No authority outside of the self is ever needed.
Joseph Campbell
Campbell teaches that the underlying structure of the unconscious mind
is based on "archetypes." These archetypes represent our connection
with our evolutionary past, and our connection to nature. Religious myth
is how we get in touch with this unconscious reality. Ultimate truths
about reality end up being truths about ourselves.
- How does the following quote from The Power of Myth explain the relationship
of myth to our true, unconscious self?
"All of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring
to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out
there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread
the image . . . Now you can personify God in many, many ways. Is there
one god? Are there many gods? Those are merely categories of thought."
- For Campbell, myth is metaphor. There can be no objective or rational
grasp of ultimate truths. That's what he means when he says,
"The person who thinks he has found the ultimate truth is wrong.
There is an often-quoted verse in Sanskrit, which appears in the Chinese
Tao-te Ching [Taoist Scripture] as well: 'He who thinks he knows,
doesn't know. He who knows that he doesn't know, knows. For in this
context, to know is not to know. And not to know is to know.'"
- What's wrong with this statement?
- This statement is a self contradiction. How does he know that "he
who knows doesn't know?" He's claiming a kind of knowledge that
he says we can't have.
- Campbell insists that the biblical authors were aware of the mythological
nature of their writings. They wrote, Campbell insists, "as if"
their stories were literally true. What passages of scripture directly
reject his view?
- Several passages are relevant. Perhaps none more than this:
"We did not follow cleverly invented stories [GK muthos =
myths] when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)
- see also I Corinthians 15:1-19. Go through the passage and identify
the statements that lay stress on the importance of the actual historicity
of Christ's death. Does this passage allow in any way for a metaphorical
or mythical understanding of the resurrection?
Feminist Spirituality
- Leffel makes a distinction between the legitimate concerns of women
in a rapidly changing culture and the ideological position taken by
feminists. Can you see how the legitimate concerns of women (or any
other definable social group) is different from a militant ideological
point of view? How is feminism different from the concerns of women?
- Clearly, feminism is a type of affirmative postmodernism. The ideological
approach to truth is clear in all of feminist literature, especially
among feminist theologians. They start from the perspective of what
they conceive to be "women's experience." Read the following
quotes from the chapter:
"By women's experience as a key to hermeneutics or theory of interpretation,
we mean precisely that experience which arises when women become critically
aware of these falsifying and alienating experiences imposed upon them
as women by a male-dominated culture."
"All women live with male violence . . ."
- Do you think that this is an appropriate place to begin forming an
approach to reading the Bible? Why, or Why not?
- Read the following quote carefully. What implications do you find
in the statement?
"Whatever contradicts those convictions [arising from women's
experience] cannot be accepted as having the authority of an authentic
revelation of truth. It is simply a matter of there being no turning
back. We can be dispossessed of our best insights, proven wrong in our
judgments. But as long as those insights continue to make sense to us,
and as long as our basic judgments seem to us incontrovertible, there
can be no turning back. So it is with feminist consciousness and the
interpretation of scripture."
- What do you think of the feminist discussion of Genesis 2:22-24 (the
creation of Eve out of Adam)? Does it justify male violence against
women, as feminist theologians argue?
John Bradshaw
- Bradshaw is the high priest of the inner child movement in popular
psychology. Do any members of the group feel they have benefited from
this school?
- What do you think of Bradshaw's loathing for so-called "patriarchy?"
Do you see evidence that people lose their ability to direct themselves
because they were raised under patriarchy?
- If my inner child is the true me, and I am "championing my inner
child," is this the same, or different than championing me?
- What do you think of entering the mindless state Bradshaw calls "the
silence?" Have you ever done this in connection with religion,
or have you seen others do so?
- The Bible teaches that meditation is good in passages like Psalms
1. What difference, if any, do you see between biblical meditation and
the sort of meditation Bradshaw advances?
- Biblical meditation is not contentless meditation, where we seek
to empty our minds, but contentful meditation on the Word of God, as
indicated in Psalms 1.
Frederick Turner
- Read the section on Turner first.
- McCallum claims, "Like some even in the evangelical camp today,
Turner discounts the importance of truth and theology in favor of ritualistic
experience." Have you seen this? Do you think contemporary churches
are more, or less ritualistic than the New Testament church?
- What do you think of Turner's suggestion that ritual does not need
to be linked to any particular truth? Are you aware of any similarity
in the ritual of different religions?
- Rituals differ in details, but are remarkably uniform in type among
religions the world over. Key areas of ritual are:
- Fertility-- rituals intended to encourage deities to grant fertility
to fields and human women through sympathetic magic
- Penance rituals that focus on self-punishment, self-sacrifice, or
animal sacrifice
- Possession phenomena-- rituals leading to spirit possession, either
for worshipers or for their shamanistic leader. Possession often is
sought in order to communicate with the spirit world for the sake of
divining the future, or determining when to do key things.
- Healing-- Shamanistic rituals intended to drive away evil spirits
that cause illness
- Rites of passage-- rituals which formalize and commemorate key transitions
in life such as from childhood to adulthood.
- Community belonging-- rituals that signify membership in the community
- Why are rituals so similar, and why do some Christian churches have
rituals that could be viewed as similar to those in other religions?
Consider different possibilities such as:
-the similarities are superficial and partial (sacrifice)
-the churches practicing similar rituals have borrowed them from other
religions rather than from the Bible
-man-made religion reflects features in human nature that are universal
only because the humans are at the center of each religious system.
This would argue that revealed authentic spirituality should be different
from other religions.
-Satan may counterfeit true religion with ritual practice that is similar
to that in Christianity but with key differences that keep people in
his power.
- Could you see people from different religions coming together based
on ritual?
Chapter 14
Facilitator's Guide for Evangelical Imperatives
- Again, this section is important for Christians, so we have more than
one week planned.
Week 1: Accommodation Temptation
- In the first two sections of this chapter, McCallum claims Christians
today are being tempted to down-play the absolute nature of truth because
it is unpopular. Have you seen any evidence of this?
For those who are readers, check out Christian Apologetics in the
Postmodern World, Philips and Okholm, Ed. (IVP 1996) and see which
of the contributors from this evangelical conference at Wheaton College
were influenced by postmodern ideas.
- Go over each of the following examples cited by McCallum, and say
whether you have seen evidence of postmodern tendencies among evangelical
Christians in that area. What are the similarities and what are the
differences? What does the Bible teach on each?
- ¨ Excessive reliance or hope placed in evangelical political power
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ Evangelicals, especially youth, believing that truth is relative
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ Experience-centeredness. Placing experience as the final goal or
authority instead of truth
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ Negative portrayals of "head-knowledge" in favor of "heart-knowledge"
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ Word-faith doctrines that stress believers faith bringing about
any outcome they desire
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ Postmodern victimology. People believing victims' stories must always
be believed without question
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ Claims that interpretation of Scripture always depends on tradition
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
- ¨ New demands for "respect" for others rather than love
of others
Yes, No
Similarity:
Difference:
Biblical teaching:
Week 2: Assessing Postmodernism
- McCallum covers several positive insights advanced by postmodern thinkers.
Look at the list below and discuss whether you see any practical use
for each insight.
- ¨ Without the infinite-personal creator God of the Bible, knowledge
and reason do indeed become uncertain
- ¨ People are more subjective than they like to admit
- ¨ Our culture can, and often does, blind our eyes to truth that
is obvious to other cultures, and which, in retrospect may also
be clear to us
- ¨ People are social beings, and our social or cultural setting
shapes and informs our values and thinking
- ¨ Blind faith in our legal status quo is unwarranted.
- In his critique of postmodernism, McCallum makes the following charges.
Discuss each--which do you feel are appropriate, and which are more,
or less important? Which ones speak to you? Which ones might be useful
in trying to persuade postmodern thinkers? Finally, can you articulate
the Christian rebuttal for each point? (If you can't remember, look
in the book)
- ¨ Their attempt to deny the validity of reason is itself based
on reason.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ They exaggerate when they claim people are prisoners of their cultures
and their languages.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ They exaggerate the difficulties involved in scientific objectivity
and neutrality.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ They exaggerate the difficulties in translation and interpretation
of texts.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ They try to deny the self, but this is always self-contradictory.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ Postmodernists exaggerate the differences in how people understand
words until all language is a prison house preventing us from understanding
other people's "realities.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ While supposedly giving us a new way of coming together in the world
(based on relativism and "respect") postmodernists actually
foster division.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ They falsely claim that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were violent because
they believed in absolutes or metanarratives.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ Postmodern substitution of power for truth contains a threat of
future oppression, especially for minorities.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ Minorities' only hope for fair treatment is that society becomes
convinced that there is such a thing as right and wrong in the objective
sense.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ Postmodern race and feminist theorists explain that racism is the
result of modernistic belief systems rather than selfishness born of
innate sin.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ They also project racism and sexism only as problems for whites
and men.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
- ¨ Postmodernists claim that people who think they know better than
someone else are arrogant, but the truly arrogant are those who create
their own unquestionable truth.
Appropriate
Important
Speaks to me
Useful for persuasion
Christian rebuttal:
Week 3 Evangelical Imperatives
Postmodern vs. Christian Views on Truth and Reason
- McCallum says, "When we let feelings and experience follow after
truth, they take their God-given place in our walks--blessings from
God for which we should be grateful." What does "follow after"
mean in this context? What would it mean to have experience "go
before?"
- This is primarily a matter of emphasis and interpretation. Emphasis
means, what occupies our minds? What do we talk about most? What do
we extol in our teachings?
- Interpretation means, what does it mean when I have not had much
spiritual experience lately? If lack of experience means I am away from
the Lord, then experience has become my definition of what true spirituality
is all about. This is especially true when experience has been lacking
for a relatively short time.
- Put differently, when experience is the goal of my walk with God,
I am no longer in line with biblical priorities.
- McCallum says, "When we deny reason, we automatically deny truth."
Is this necessarily so?
- It is, if by "truth" we mean objective truth--truth that
does not depend on my believing it to be true. Note that the notion
of objective truth is linked to the "correspondence theory of truth."
That is, my thought is true when it corresponds to external reality.
Note also that this is the Bible's own definition of truth.
- Have you ever heard an evangelical Christian question whether reason
applies to the things of God?
- What do you think of one who holds that reason applies part of the
time, but not all the time?
- Anyone who claims that reason does not apply to some part of his
own position is guilty of the logical fallacy called "special pleading."
He is pleading for a rule to apply to his argument that he will not
allow for other arguments. In other words, if we think reason doesn't
apply to some areas, we are forced to admit it may not apply to any
area. If so, we can no longer use reason to refute any argument.
- Have you ever felt personally embarrassed by the absolute truth claims
of Christianity? If so, what should you do?
- Discuss ways to soften the blow without compromising the truth. This
is called "tact" in communication, and many Christians could
use more of it.
- Do you think the church today is too "left-brained?" Or
do you agree with McCallum that most Christian people are insufficiently
sophisticated in their theological thinking?
- McCallum thinks, "Reason is reliable, but not sufficient.
As biblical Christians, we believe reason can tell us much about the
world, but not everything. We also need revelation." Can we hold
to knowledge that goes beyond reason without denying the validity of
reason?
- Yes, we can. Do you know how the copier in your office works? Perhaps
not. Do you know what the future holds? Definitely not. Yet neither
of these are incompatible with reason, or irrational. So, too, God may
be beyond our comprehension, but this does not mean he is irrational.
Postmodern vs. Christian Views on Culture
- Missions experts are concerned today about "contextualization"--adapting
Christianity to other cultures, and avoiding exporting western cultural
features to other non-western cultures. How would you differentiate
between postmodern views on culturally constructed reality and appropriate
biblical contextualization?
- Contextualization means we dress and speak in ways compatible with
another culture in order to bring them the universal truth of
the Gospel. Postmodernists deny there are universal truths.
- McCallum says, "Christians have no debate with the observation
that people usually adopt their culture's point of view. Our problem
is with the postmodern position that they have no choice in this,
because they are imprisoned in the reality constructed by their language
and culture. We must reject cultural determinism." Do you agree
with this? Why, or why not? What difference would it make if we adopted
one or the other view on this question? Can you think of any biblical
material on Christ and other cultures?
- The idea that people are conditioned by their culture flies directly
in the face of the notion of universal judgment. It also renders Christian
missions pointless. Consider how Paul, Abraham, Jesus and others defied
their cultures to set forward new understandings based on revelation.
- "The truth stands over culture, as its judge, not under
culture as its product." Give some examples of how this statement
might work in real life.
- This is a very important truth. How would we know that slavery was
wrong? Not by our slave owning culture, but by the principles in God's
word (I Corinthians 7:23 etc.)
Postmodern vs. Christian Views on Language
- In any literary text, interpretation is unavoidable. How, then, can
Christians claim texts have objective, fixed messages we must discover?
- Under reader-centered postmodern hermeneutics, readers are free to
generate new meaning in biblical texts. Therefore, McCallum claims,
"they are in the position formerly occupied by God--that of revealer
and source of truth." Is this statement too hard?
- Discuss the difference between interpretation and application
of Scripture. How does this distinction relate to the idea of reader-response
hermeneutics?
- Interpretation is a matter of what the author intended to communicate.
Application is a matter of how God wants to apply the word to my life.
The former is objective. The latter is subjective.
- McCallum says, "Postmodernists aren't wrong in everything they
say, but their fundamental thrust is completely wrong and incompatible
with biblical Christianity." Is this statement too strong? Why
or why not?
Chapter 15
Facilitator's Guide for Communication
- McCallum says, "The communication dilemma here isn't hopeless,
it's just more demanding than anything western Christians have needed
to deal with in our lifetimes." In the circle of people where you
get a chance to share, do you feel communicating the gospel is becoming
More difficult
About the same as ever
Easier
- Why do you think this is so? Compare your answers with the others
in your group.
- Ask if people are finding it difficult to actually engage others
in conversation about what is true because they simply acknowledge everything
is true.
- McCallum claims, "Missions experts are well aware of the need
for careful research, patient development of relationships within the
community, and fluency in local language, including the ability to deliver
the gospel in the local vernacular. This means, if we are to be successful
at witnessing to postmodern people, including our own kids and their
friends, we will have to learn the postmodern outlook." If this
claim is true, how would you rate your fluency in postmodern language
and thought?
Not too good--people who think this way seem weird to me
Barely adequate--I feel stretched, and have some trouble recognizing
some of the terms and ideas people refer to these days
Comfortable--I feel like I understand today's perspective as
well or better than my non Christian friends do.
- Compare answers in the group.
- He also claims we have some good causes for optimism. Are people in
your group optimistic about Christian witness today? Compare your rating
with others, and discuss what you may need to do to upgrade the morale
of the group.
Not really. People are depressed about how hard it is to reach
others in our social circles and we rarely actually share the gospel.
Only a little. We are hopeful, but I'm not sure how many of
us are experiencing any concrete success.
Pretty much. We may not be experiencing the kind of success
we have in earlier times, but we are being heard.
Very much. We are excited about the openness we are experiencing
and the many hungry hearts we see responding to Christ.
- McCallum suggests one model for engaging people in serious conversation
about their presuppositions. Do you think his approach sounds promising?
Why or why not?
- Ask other group members, "What did you answer to this one?"
- Do you agree with McCallum that more time is needed today in pre-evangelism?
Why would people need more time today than in earlier decades?
- Accepting the gospel has been compared to moving along a continuum,
rather than simply flipping a switch. The longer the continuum, or distance
between where people start in their thinking and where they end, the
longer it takes to travel that continuum.
- McCallum says, "We believe that in a postmodern culture, friendship
evangelism and the subjective evidence of a caring Christian community
are going to be more important than ever." Do you agree with this
statement? Why or why not? What could your group do to enhance these
features?
- Maybe plan some social events which include non Christian friends?
- He also says, "Even though the subjective witness of Christian
love is important, it should supplement the truth of the Gospel,
not replace it." Who do you think this comment is, or could
be, aimed at? Is it appropriate?
- "Our children haven't been protected from postmodern ideology
merely because they have never been exposed to it," says McCallum.
"They are only safe when they are familiar with postmodern arguments
and slogans and are prepared to answer them confidently." Do you
agree with this line of thought?
- He thinks small children are exceptions to the need to expose kids
to radical postmodern culture. At what age range do you think this transition
(between protection and hands-off adulthood) should occur? How could
your group do more to facilitate this transition?
Return to the Death of Truth page
Return to the Xenos home page
Send
a comment to Dennis
|
