A Review of Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman

         

In the last fifteen years the New Testament documents have come under great criticism.  Much of this has been portrayed as a search for the historical Jesus.  For example, the late nineties saw the Jesus Seminar gain great prominence in the mainstream media.  This group of scholars became famous for putting forth a multicolored bible with the different colors representing the confidence with which certain verses could be trusted as accurate.  Much of what conservative or orthodox Christians have trusted for years was tossed out as probably not true about Jesus.  More recently, in The Da Vinci Code[1] by Dan Brown popular culture was introduced to the idea that the New Testament we read was put together to hide a secret about Jesus.  It supposed that this secret was uncovered by looking at art work and other ancient gospel stories excluded form the Bible.  This book was then made into a movie which saw wide distribution.  Also, the Discovery Channel showed a documentary on the Gospel of Judas, a late second century text which portrays Jesus in a different manner then the canonical Gospels.  Many involved with the documentary hinted at the question, “Why should this and other gospels be excluded from consideration in the story of Jesus?”  This documentary undermined the orthodox view of Jesus.  All of these works assert that the divinity of Jesus was a fabrication of the early church, and therefore the doctrine of inspiration is also denied as a result.

Into this environment comes a book by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus.[2]  In this book Ehrman makes a case against the idea of inspiration of the New Testament.  His general premise is based on the fact that the manuscripts of the New Testament contain such a vast amount of variations that it would be impossible (1) to know what the original documents contain, (2) for Christians to speak of these documents as inerrant or inspired by God, or (3) for us to have any confidence in doctrines or beliefs derived from these documents.  In this paper I will explore the good, the bad, and the ugly of what Dr. Ehrman argues to see if his case is logical and plausible.

Ehrman starts his book by speaking of his early days as a conservative Christian.  At that time, he believed that the Bible was God’s inspired word and inerrant.  It is interesting to see how he describes his learning of inerrancy. “Some, I suppose, would call this brainwashing.”[3]  What does Ehrman mean by “brainwashing?” Does he mean that any for a Christian to hold to the doctrine of inerrancy they must be brainwashed?  Are there no good arguments for a belief inerrancy?  This would appear to be an inflammatory comment to hint that there are no such valid arguments.  This is not the only time in his life Ehrman appears to have a low opinion of those who hold orthodox views.  On page 15 he hints that there is wide spread ignorance in the church about the variations in the text through this statement:  “…most readers…know almost nothing about textual criticism….there is scarcely a single book written about it for the lay audience-that is, for those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for in-depth study of it, who do not even realize there is a “problem” with the text, but who would be intrigued to learn what the problems are and how scholars have set about dealing with them” [4]  How does he know that most readers know almost nothing?  By saying that there are no books written for the lay audience he is able to avoid several books which deal with criticism and the biblical texts, yet do not hold Ehrman’s view.  Two of these being Jesus Under Fire[5] and The Case For Christ.[6]  Both of these books deal with textual criticism and its misuses by some in the critical community.  By not addressing these and other texts Ehrman makes his own case appear stronger.

The Beginnings of Christian Scripture

In the chapter titled “The Beginnings of Christian Scripture,” Ehrman does a good job of presenting the lack of literacy in the early church.  This is not a concept understood by most people in our highly literate culture.  Yet, it is insightful to see how “Judaism was unique…”[7]  in its recording of laws and its veneration of these writings called Scriptures.  While a large number of believers were illiterate, the same appreciation of the written scriptures is applied to early Christians.  Ehrman is very good at bring all of these cultural situations in to context. 

Yet, there are a few glaring problems in this chapter.  In describing the circulation of letters, Ehrman shows his bias in the dating of some of the New Testament documents.  He states, in an apparently off handed way, that the first gospels were written after 70 AD.  While there are a large number of scholars who would agree, there are some who would argue that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all written before the destruction of Jerusalem.  Would Matthew, a Jewish Christian, who quoted the Old Testament more than any other NT writer, have failed to mention the destruction of the temple?  In Acts 11:28 the writer states, “One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world and this took place in the reign of Claudius.”[8] A prophecy was made and confirmed in the same passage to give credence to the prophecy.  Yet, this same writer in Luke 21: 5,6 writes,  “And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down."[9] No mention is made of this prophecy of Jesus being fulfilled. Why would the writer mention Agabus fulfilled prophecy, but not Jesus’?  It would make sense if the event had not yet happened. 

On page 23 he mentions that, “Scholars have long suspected that some of the letters found in the New Testament under Paul’s name were in fact written by his latter followers, pseudonymously.”[10]  How many scholars have this suspicion?  Are there any scholars who challenge this notion?  While I understand that Ehrman is trying to make a point about apostolic authority, yet by making a suspicion seem to be unanimous he undermines the very idea of the canon.  In saying this Ehrman commits the Genetic Fallacy because he makes the scholars and not the scholarship his justification.  This same selective summary shows up in his discussion of the many other gospels on page 24.  He does not speak at all about the criteria used in canonization.  He also fails to mention the fact that most of these gospels were written over one hundred years after the canonical Gospels.  This gives the impression that the New Testament was put together willy-nilly. 

Ehrman also shows a distain for Christians who hold to views of inerrancy.  On page 36 he writes, “Many Christians today may think that the canon of the New Testament simply appeared on the scene one day soon after the death of Jesus, but nothing could be further from the truth.”[11]  He gives no justification for this statement.    Which Christians is he referring to?  What percentages of Christians believe this?  He makes no effort in this book to deal with the arguments of scholars who disagree with him, but he will attack the views of anonymous Christians whom he caricatures without citation.

The Copyists of Early Christian Writings

Secondly, in his chapter titled “The Copyists of Early Christian Writings,” Ehrman does a great job of spelling out how errors have worked their way into ancient texts.  He makes some very good points about the copyists in the early church not being professionals.  However, there is a major weakness in one of his arguments.  If the copyists were non-professionals (some of whom could barely be called literate), then it would make sense that most of their errors would in fact be transcriptional in nature, which Ehrman states on page 51.  Yet, on page 53 he writes that the early church scribes changed words to make better orthodox translation.  He fails to state the proportions of either.  To make an honest case Ehrman should list how many passages contain errors in transcription verses errors in editing. 

If we can tell that a text was changed, it would seem to be possible to reconstruct the original, otherwise how could Ehrman state confidently that we know a passage was indeed altered.  Ehrman addresses this idea on page 58, saying, “…a number of textual critics have started to claim that we may as well suspend any discussion of the ‘original’ text, because it is inaccessible to us.  This maybe going to far….”[12]   If he thinks that statement is going to far then why write that statement?  How many critical scholars actually hold this view?   How would those who disagree address these arguments?  Ehrman doesn’t address these issues.

The chapter is finished by two flawed arguments.  He first mentions two passages which most scholars believe are additions to the texts: John 7: 53 - 8:12 (the woman at the well) and the last twelve verses of Mark, Mark 16: 9-20 (the resurrected appearance of Jesus).  Most translations clearly state that these are possible additions.  Therefore, Ehrman’s argument comes to be much ado about nothing in these passages.  If we consider the stories traditional, but remove them from the Scriptures, then there is no issue because our understanding of Christ is not changed by their omission.  Yet, he adds a hypothetical argument which is, at best, misleading.  On page 68 Ehrman writes, “Maybe, in fact, they [the disciples] never did come to understand [Jesus’ resurrection].”[13]  To bases this idea off the missing ending of Mark is misleading.  We have mountains of evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, that the disciples did “get it.”  The other three Gospels mention Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Paul (in a critically approved passage) states an early creed which testifies to this fact.  Ehrman’s statement is more akin to propaganda than scholarship at this point.   He would also have to explain the origin of the resurrection narrative if the disciples never “got it”.

Texts of the New Testament

I found the majority Ehrman’s chapter on the history of the different editions of the New Testament to be excellent.  I especially appreciate the context he provides to the process of reconstructing text which starts in the fourth century and finishes in the modern age.  However, on page 89 Ehrman makes an alarming statement.  “…some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more … There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” [14] This is a grossly misleading statement.  He fails to mention how variations are counted.  He also fails to mention how many of these variations are recognized as typos or misspellings.  Most importantly he never discusses how many of these variations threaten doctrines or cause major interpretive difficulties.

He makes another weak assertion on page 95.  “In other cases scribes changed a text not because they thought that it contained a mistake but because they wanted to circumvent a misunderstanding of it.” [15] If we cannot know what was written in the originals, then how is Ehrman able to talk about the motives of these scribes?  What is greatly lacking from this discussion is how much of the New Testament we can be confident about.  How much is truly in dispute?  While there is little doubt that changes and additions have been made, Ehrman would do well to be clear on what is actually in question.

The Quest for Originals

Ehrman’s chapter titled “The Quest for Originals” gives good background on the history of textual criticism.  He does a great job of bringing to life some of the people who engaged in this quest. There is one question I wish he had addressed, though.  How does the Bible and its manuscript evidence match up to other documents from antiquity?  How does the Bible stack up to Plato, The Iliad, Tacitus, Euclid, or any other writer or document?  While addressing these questions would add great context to the book, I fear it would undermine the point of view Ehrman is putting forth.

Originals That Matter

Ehrman shows himself to be a very good teacher in his explanation of the techniques of textual criticism.  He explains external and internal evidence very clearly.  On page 127 he gives a good analogy as to why the volume of a particular family of manuscripts does not make them more accurate.  Several questions must be raised.  What is the geographic range of the family?  How much agreement do different family groups have?  What is the likely reading of a passage?  What is a person of that time period likely to write, and what might a scribe likely write?  

In the midst of this discussion Ehrman makes a startling admission.  “…different scholars come to different conclusions-not only about minor matters that have no bearing on the meaning of a passage, but also about matters of major importance, matters that affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”[16]  In contrast to this statement, though, Ehrman has not once mentioned a scholar whose opinion differed with his.  No where has he shown how his argument matches against the argument of other scholars.  On page 133 Ehrman points out an alternate translation for Mark 1:41.  How many scholars disagree with him?  Who has the stronger arguments?  We cannot know from reading this text.  Another question which needs to be asked is: Would changing this passage change any major theological ideas held by orthodox churches today? 

The same questions could be asked about his concerns about Luke 22: 39-46.  Ehrman concludes that, in this passage, Jesus extremely emotional for the first time in this gospel.  “Only here does Jesus agonize over his coming fate; only here does he appear out of control, unable to bear the burden of his destiny.”[17]  While Ehrman may have a point, it could also be possible that this was the place where Jesus would be most aware of the coming crucifixion.  This would be the place a person, even one as strong as Jesus, would most likely become distraught over the coming event. 

Ehrman points out the differences between the gospels of Mark and Luke in their portrayal of Jesus.  He concludes that Luke took Mark’s gospel and made dramatic changes.  Yet, these could changes have been the result of Luke’s investigation of the story verses Mark’s portrayal of Peter’s narrative.  The fact that they were writing to different audiences have might brought about differences.  These possibilities, though taught in many classes on hermeneutics, are never mentioned.  In the end, even if each of these passages should be interpreted in the way Ehrman suggests, they might condemn a caricature of Christianity, but not orthodox Christianity.

Conclusions

Upon completion of reading this book, several conclusions can be drawn.  Ehrman has done a very good job at providing a history behind the texts of the New Testament.  He also does an admirable job teaching some of the techniques behind textual criticism.  He also asks some fair questions about some questionable passages.  Yet, throughout this book it is easy to see that Ehrman uses a one sided approach to make his case.  While he often writes of the many variations in the manuscripts, he never mentions which fraction of these variations are typographical verses editorial.  He never discusses how much of the New Testament is actually in question because of these errors, except to say that the Bible we have is not trustworthy.  In the midst of this discussion he never discusses the views of his opponents.  Not once does he quote a scholar who disagrees with him on any point.  Nor does Ehrman ever place his point of view alongside others to allow his audience to judge these juxtaposed ideas.

Not only does the book lack any diversity in opinions, but Ehrman portrays Christians in a disingenuous light.  For example, “It’s no wonder that some Bible-believing Christians prefer to pretend there’s never been a problem, since God inspired the King James Bible instead of the original Greek!”[18]  This is Ehrman’s caricature of Christianity.  This idea, while present in the church, is not mainstream or a part of conservative scholarship.  Dr. Ehrman seems to be writing this book to the misrepresentation of the church.  He and his audience would be much better served if he gave more space to debate and less to ad hominine.  While I learned much about textual criticism and history through Misquoting Jesus, I am not at all persuaded by Dr. Ehrman’s arguments in it.

In his book “The Jesus Dynasty” James Tabor lays out as case for a Jesus who is much different from the Jesus you may have heard about in Church.  This man was born of a human father and mother.  He was moved, and chose to team up with his cousin John who started the whole Messianic Movement in ancient Palestine.  He was killed on a Roman cross, but he stayed dead.  He was succeeded by his brother James, whom Tabor says was an actual disciple, and not the skeptic the church has claimed.  He would later be followed by other brothers in a Dynastic succession from whence Tabor gets the name of his book.

            I found this book to be a great read.  Tabor is very clear in how he writes.  He supplies good visuals to bring alive some of the details (if you have never seen an ossuary this can be a nice treat).  He supplies ample historical backing to his work.  In all the man has done his homework on the details. 

There is on quote that stands out.  It speaks volumes about where Tabor is coming from and possibly why he gets where he is going.  On page 233 he states that, “Historians are bound by their discipline to work within the parameters of a scientific view of reality.”  This one quote speaks legion to his world view.  From the start he dismisses the idea of the resurrection.  It could never have happened.  His Naturalistic view of the world begs the question with regards to the resurrection.  If you assume Naturalism you will find Naturalism. 

He ignores the claims that Jesus made to being divine such as “… so that you will know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins….” Only God had that right in the eyes of second temple Jews.  He throws out any part of the Gospels which makes a case for Jesus Divinity.  He also assumes a later dating of the Gospels then I believe to be accurate.  For example he gives a dating of Acts to be around 90 AD.  Yet that narrative ends with events that take place in 62AD.  Luke mentions a prophecy of the destruction of the temple.  This occurs in AD 70.  Why is this not mentioned in the Gospel?  Luke mentions of other fulfilled prophecy in Acts regarding a famine. Yet, he doesn’t mention a prophecy out of the mouth of Jesus?

            Tabor takes issue with the endings of the Gospels.  For example, he says that Mary Magdalene is said to be alone without others in John, yet in Mark she is one of many.  Yet, there is nothing contradictory.  John never says she went alone. He doesn’t mention anyone else, but that is not the same as saying she went alone.  In both cases she was there.  This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is not fair to put words in the writer’s mouths. 

Lastly, Tabor brushes past a creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15.  It is highly regarded by most critical biblical scholars (many if not most are not Christians).  This creed has its origins back to around AD 37 at the latest.  Most scholars will date it earlier.  It mentions Jesus Death, Burial, and resurrection.  This creed, due to its Semitic origins was most likely not conceived of by Paul.  It is the early beliefs of the Church.  It should not be so lightly brushed aside, especially when it does not reconcile well with Tabor’s thesis. 

In all, I thought the book was very readable.  It is accessible, but challenging.  I would simply ask the reader to ask some tough questions of any author who writes in such controversial areas.

John Hicks A Pluralistic View

            In this contribution to Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, John Hicks lays out the case for a pluralistic view of religion, and what salvation would look like in that view.  He speaks of his conservative roots in Christianity, yet as his education moved on, he came to ask “awkward questions” of his fellow believers.  Not being satisfied with others’ “reluctance” to field these questions, he moved on to explore Christianity more deeply.  His departure from “conservative” Christianity was as a result of reflection and philosophical training.  It is important in Hicks’s view that one sorts out what is intellectually acceptable and unacceptable, and “eventually discard the latter.”

            Hicks sees the biblical story as “heavily edited and slanted history” and the gospels of Jesus infused with “faith-created pictures of his religious significance.”  Fundamentalist Christianity paints a high Christology from the pages of the New Testament, but Hicks states that these documents are corrupted because the gospels were written forty or more years after the fact.  Therefore, in his view, plenty of time would have elapsed for legend and magnification of who Jesus was to evolve.  His opinion is we should not trust such distorted views.

            Hicks’s experience in academia led him to see that “from a religious point of view basically the same thing is going on in all [religions].”   Many religions include humans coming together and opening their hearts and minds to God. He sees no great moral difference in the major world religions in that they all see to produce moral people in similar numbers.  Hicks makes a case that for any religion (such as Christianity) to be superior it must produce, on average, more moral people and he doesn’t see this as being the case.

            Finally, Hicks says that salvation has to be understood from a more universal perspective.  Understanding salvation as a gift from the cross is incompatible with our knowledge of the world and God.  Salvation should be seen as transformation “from self-centeredness to Reality [God] – centeredness.” In Hicks’s view this transformation will be attained by all “perhaps after many lives in many worlds.”

            I find several major flaws in Dr. Hicks’s argument.  First his view on the historicity of the New Testament is very stereotypical and not well formed.  He asserts that there is a great consensus on his point of view, but this is just not the case.  Dr. Gary Habermas makes a strong case for the historicity of the resurrection in The Risen Jesus and the Future Hope.  Dr. N. T. Wright lays out the case for a high Christology in The Resurrection of the Son of God.  In the latter book Wright makes a case not only for the close followers of Jesus believing in his resurrection and divinity, but that Jesus himself makes this case.  Justification is needed for the exclusion of such scholars’ work.

            Second, in making his moral argument for pluralism, Hicks fails at several points.  He judges all religions on the basis of making morally equal people while not defining a moral rubric.  In this, he also fails to deal with many of the underlying philosophical differences within these moral world views.  For example, the value a religion places on an individual will greatly affect the morality of the religion.  How would a Muslim view the individual?  How would a Buddhist?  These differences in ideas matter greatly when comparing religions. 

            Dr. Hicks spells out clearly what pluralism is, but he is not logically convincing in his case for following pluralistic views.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, a celebrated Evolutionist and Atheist has recently written a book titled The God Delusion.  I saw it last night while shopping for my wife at B&N.  The jacket makes the claim that Dawkins lays out a case for why theism is not only illogical, but that it is dangerous to society.  IT says he makes his case from the crusades through the Inquisition.  Atheism is a much better way to live in society and to look at the universe.  I plan to read the book very soon, but I still have some comments.

I wonder if Dr. Dawkins has heard of the noted atheists Chairman Moa, Stalin, and Pol Pot?  All of these men were atheist, and responsible for nearly 100,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone.  All of the religious wars throughout history don't even come close. 

In fact, a case can be made that it is in the context of a dying Christian West that Dr. Dawkins is safe to be an atheist.  Without the religious foundation neither his science or his safety as an atheist would be in as strong a position as it is today.

Jimbo 

This paper was written for my ethics class.  Hope it is informative.  I learned bundles in the process.

Jimbo

The Emerging Church:

Ethical Concerns in the Postmodern/Linguistic Turn

I am a lover of reading. My preferred genres are science fiction and fantasy fiction. To the chagrin of my older sister, who was a senior at the time, I read Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings[1] and Frank Herbert’s Dune [2]before the end of my eighth grade year. It must have been hard for her to trade notes with her youngest brother on her senior paper.

Needles to say, most of the time I read was for the joy and pleasure of visiting new and strange places and people. The reactions I most often have while reading are tension, suspense, and happiness. I have even had a tear jerked out on occasion. Never have I read a fiction novel and been moved to anger or frustration…that is until I read Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian.[3]

Rarely has a book simultaneously caused a desire to yell and cry at the same time. I felt a great amount of empathy for the main character, Dan, who was a disillusioned pastor and a great amount of anger at what his friend, Neo, was teaching him. Neo was telling Dan that there was a great shift in the world called Postmodernism. Dan, in Neo’s opinion, was experiencing the dissonance of living in a world which was turning Postmodern, while he himself was living and pastoring with a Modern mind set. Neo wanted to help Dan to cross over, that is, to change into “a new kind of Christian.” When I read this book along with another of McLaren’s books, A Generous Orthodoxy[4] I realized that there is a crises facing the church. It is not that we are Moderns facing a Postmodern world; it is Christians and the church face an ethical and religious crisis. However, it is not the crisis which Dan and Neo think it is.

In this paper I will explore the ethical issues that several leaders in the emerging church are facing, and in some cases contributing to. I will look at the consequences of theses views and explore how the views affect the church. I will then answer the question, “Can we know truth about the world?” Lastly, I will look at what we as a church should do. Should we challenge the Postmodern/ Linguistic turn, or should we trust that, “this too will pass.”

What is the Crisis?

The current ethical issue in the church has its origin back in the Enlightenment period of the late 16^th early 17^th centuries. One aspect of the Enlightenment, or Modern period, is Cartesian Foundationalism. In this the view of Rene Descartes (1596-1650), all knowledge is built upon a foundation of beliefs which are considered indubitable. The foundation is constructed with those things about which we have absolute certainty. This view goes hand in hand with philosophical Rationalism. Reason is all that is needed to understand the world as it is, therefore, we no longer need revelation from God to know the world.[5]

It was during this time that skepticism began to creep in to the world of philosophy under the guise of Empiricism. Empiricism holds to the view that all we can know is what we are able to experience with our five senses. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) proposed a separation of what we can sense and know (the Phenomenal) and the actual world as it is (the Noumenal). According to Kant, we cannot know the Noumenal because our senses can be deceived. We, therefore, find ourselves on a road where knowledge and truth are not anchored in the world as it is. It is this view that would lead to the Linguistic Turn and the end of the 19^th century.[6]

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) are credited with taking linguistics and separating it from reality. Their view is that knowing the real world is impossible because our perceptions of reality take place within our language. [7] This was further enhanced by Jacques Derrida. “…Derrida says that all meanings depend for the existence upon individual acts of language. These acts are constantly changing and thus so are our meanings.”[8] “There are no two meanings that are exactly the same, even words, so meanings are always differing from one use of language to another.”[9] Brad Kallenberg goes even further, “Language does not represent reality, it constitutes reality.”[10]

We now find ourselves in the postmodern world in which the Linguistic turn has had a major shaping effect on the culture. Scott Smith sums up this effect by giving several core principles to which many postmodern philosophers and theologians hold. First, all we can know about the world is what we know by talking about it. Second, we are stuck “inside” our language and cannot get “outside” to know the world directly. Third, there are no universal truths which apply to all people at all times, there is only what our group or community affirms as true. Fourth, there is no nature to language, there are just many languages. For example, there is no “Greek” language. There is only “greek” as it was spoken by Euclid in the fourth century BC. Fifth, we cannot know what an author meant in a text. There is no inherent meaning in that text, only how we interpret that text. Sixth, since the world is unknowable, a language community constructs their social world by their use of language.[11] This is the crisis. There is no knowable world. There is no knowable universal truth. There are only the social truths and moirés which are constructed by a particular community at a particular time.

Who is at the Heart of the Crisis?

The reader, especially the Christian reader, may not agree that these Linguistic views are held very universally. The Postmodern view may not be held for most people in the older generations, but for generations X and Y (those who are under 40), this is the dominant worldview. Former youth pastor and the current leader of Emergent US, Tony Jones, writes,

“The students with whom we work were born into a culture in transition, and children born today are entering a thoroughly postmodern world. This is not to say that all students will adopt postmodern traits, but postmodernism will be the reigning school of thought, and postmodernism will be the reigning culture when our students arrive at college.”[12]

So it is no surprise that many of the church leaders are seeking ways to relate to and minister to this “emerging” generation of Postmodern people. However, this is more than just a change in methodologies.

For many in the Emerging Church this constitutes a complete paradigm shift into a very skeptical world, as demonstrated through the literature produced by Emergent leaders. Brian McLaren’s character Neo claims, “History began with our ability to write it.”[13] Later the same character says, “Dan, everything is contextual. No meanings can exist without context.” While this is a fictional novel, there is no challenge to these ideas. McLaren seems to hold to this radical skepticism and implies we cannot know the world as it is because the context of our lives always colors our perceptions.

Tony Jones adds to this line of thinking, “…no one, weather an author or a reader, objectively approaches a text. Each of us is full of presuppositions that color the way we read and what we write.”[14] Jones also speaks very negatively about the idea that we can know “objective truth” about the world in stating, “So, we must stop looking for some objective truth that is available when we delve into the text of the Bible….”[15] Like McLaren, Jones is skeptical of our ability to know the world and of us truly realizing universal objective truth. “ ‘Objective Truth’ simply does not exist in postmodernism.”[16] He also asserts that the idea of a historian reporting the “true, factual, neutral, and objective account of an event or a person” is a lie from the Enlightenment. All writers tell the story as they see it and are bound in their use of the language. Their cultural and linguistic baggage prevents them from attaining any “neutral ground” from which they can view the world. [17]

Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis MI, is similar to Jones in his thinking, as shown as he states, “…a spirituality of the knowledge of God where the Bible is not reduced to a book from which we extract truth, but the Bible is a full, living, and active member of our community that is listened to on all topics about which it speaks.”[18] If the Bible is living, can it speak truth universally to all people? Ethics of the Bible may be true for a particular community at a particular time, but that doesn’t necessarily imply it is true for all people at all times. Elsewhere Pagitt adds, “In every communication process there are at least two authors, the one generating or expressing the idea and the one rebirthing the idea in her or his own mind.”[19] The context of this statement is Pagitt’s desire to have all people participate in the teaching process. Yet, his intent reveals that the idea does not derive its meaning from the originator, but is “reborn” in the minds of those listening. This statement agrees with Derrida in that the meaning is not inherent to the statement. There is only our interpretation of that meaning. Hence, if we cannot communicate a universal truth, then we can only tell things from our point of view; we can only tell our story. For the Christian, Pagitt sums the idea up well, “We are people entering into the story of God’s work in the world and seeking our place in the story.”[20]

What are the consequences with this view?

While I agree with the afore mentioned authors that Postmodernism strongly prevails in today’s culture, I disagree that Christians are obliged to subscribe to it’s implications on truth. Leaders like McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt have fallen prey to the naturalistic fallacy. Just because culture is that way, doesn’t mean that it ought to be that way. These and other leaders in the Emerging Church movement need to consider the consequences that a postmodern stance entails.

The first problem postmodernists will find is they are limited in their abilities to know the world by their language communities. Consequently, truths only apply as they are understood by those communities. This view of postmodernism is limited to postmodernists’ language community and does not necessarily apply to other language communities. It is not universal or else it would be a statement about the world as it is. In that case, my response might be, “So what? That is nice for you and your community, but as for me and my community, we believe you can know the world.” They could then write their books and have them printed at the UPS store in small quantities for their community. Yet, they have their books printed by major publishers such as Baker or Zondervan. It would seem they mean their ideas to be applicable to a much wider audience. If postmodernists believe their views hold universally, then their statements would be true about the world as it is. If their intent is to apply their views to the world, as it appears, postmodernists would be assuming that which they just denied. Either way, the rest of us are freed to seek knowledge about the world and hold our own views.

The second issue facing Postmodernism is in the equivalent to Relativism. While many postmodern philosophers will disagree that this is a gross reduction of the postmodern view, in the end it is unavoidable. “All truth is relative” is equivalent to saying, “There is no universal, objective truth. There is only how your language community speaks.” The outcome is the same. Truth about the world is not universal or knowable in both cultural Relativism and Postmodernism.

In Postmodernism and Relativism, there is no way to judge between different cultures. While I agree that one must be cautious in assuming the superiority of our own culture, should we not be able to make moral statements about other cultures? In the postmodern view there is no vehicle for doing so. There is no neutral place from where to judge other culture groups. Nazi Germany is no better or worse than FDR’s America. Pol Pot is no better or worse than Mother Teresa. The Crusades are no better or worse than the Great Awakening. We might be able to say that we like or dislike something that was done, but unless we are a part of that particular community at that particular time we can speak no truth regarding that community. People, however, are able to make such judgments and in many cases postmodernists don’t discourage them. For example, it would be safe to say that all Christian postmodernists would agree that Nazis committed universally evil crimes when they slaughtered millions of Jews, gypsies, and others at their own discretion.

For the Christian, the crisis goes right to the heart of the Gospel message. Two sections of scripture demonstrate the problem. Matthew 28:18-20 says:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ ” [21]

How can Christians go in to the all nations and teach others to obey all that Jesus has commanded? Everyone is not in the same community as Christians. However, Christ’s commands don’t apply to them, even though Jesus and His followers act and teach that they do.

In Acts 17:22-23 readers see Paul speaking in Athens.

“Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: ‘Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.’”[22]

How can Paul proclaim anything to them as if it was true, since the Athenians are of a different community than Paul? For the postmodernist it is impossible to speak as Paul does. As demonstrated above, they think understanding Scripture as a source of objective truths is misguided. A postmodern witness depicts people seeing the story that Christians live out, and if that story appeals to them, they might choose to adopt that story also. Therefore, Paul would have been clearly wrong to teach as if he knew any truth about the world, and for thinking his truths applied to the Athenians.

Lastly, it is hard to see how anyone would be able to truly follow Jesus. If there is no meaning in the Gospel texts, there is only our own interpretation of those texts, then how does anyone claim that they are following Jesus? Yet, this very claim is made by Tony Jones. “We do claim an exclusive faith, we do lay claim to the one true God, the one true Savior, and the one true story into which every human being fits.”[23] Given his other statements about what can be known this seems to be a difficult, perhaps untenable, position. It would seem to be more consistent for Jones to say that exclusive faith in God applies to him, but not every other human. If the postmodernist is consistent they could not claim that Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins. They could not claim that Jesus resurrected Himself. They could only claim that they believed these things happened, not that they actually happened. It would seem, according to Paul, that we are still dead in our sins.[24]

Where should we go from here?

There are a many people leadership throughout the US and other countries who are struggling with this cultural turn. Many are proposing major methodological changes in how church services are executed. Dan Kimball of Vintage Faith in Santa Cruz, CA is among these. “But we have to resist clinging to modern methodologies despite their past – and even current – successes. We must completely rethink what it means to engage and dialogue with teens.”[25] Kimball holds to a methodological change without the need to discount objective truth. Yet, there are many others in the Christian community who state that the church cannot reach the emerging generation with just a change in methods. By abandoning truth in the midst of adapting methods, these leaders may be abandoning knowledge of God. It is high time for Christian leaders to challenge both Modern and Postmodern paradigms; many of which are inconsistent, untenable, and set themselves against God. Once again Paul sums up how we should react to such views:

“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”[26]

     Just to let everyone know, I plan on making this Blog a center for depositing my papers.  I am currently working on my masters in Christian Apologetics.  There will be approximately 5 to 6 papers each semester.  I have five semesters left (Yes, I just started.)  Please tell me what you think.  Some of these will be normal grad papers.  Some will be sermons.  Some will probably be weird.  The topics for this semester will most likely be as follows:
1. Emerging Churches: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
2. A defense of the resurrection
3. Discipleship in the Post-Modern world
4. Irreducible complexity: Why a look at ID is a good thing
5. Post-Modern Epistemology and the Death of Christ
6. Something is better than nothing: The danger to the west in the Post- Christian age

    Thankyou for your time

Jimbo