When nonbelievers look and scoff at Christians as foolish, silly and dumb, we know that the joke’s on them. But perhaps their criticism of Christianity as anti-reason is somewhat valid, at least in the way the Christian faith manifests itself in the contemporary church?

Amid the present-day milieu of  decaying modernity (and the subsequent increase of religious pluralism), I believe that there is a rapidly growing need for intelligent Christianity in America, a nation which appears to be earnestly pursuing the status of a “liberated” post-Christian society. It seems now that we are casting off the shackles of foolish superstition, we are free to experience true life—or so we think. The fist of dogmatism finds any fragment of legitimacy it once grasped now slipping right through its tired, arthritic fingers. 

Thus, in order to appeal and witness to this ever-changing culture, it is, in my mind, imperative that Christians are educated and equipped to effectively relate to and participate in even the most sophisticated societal discourse. This doesn’t mean just watching secular movies to “keep up” with what’s going on in the world. It requires significant learning in areas of philosophy, logic, and rhetoric which will enable us to truly engage those around us in an intelligent and level-headed manner, for the sake of the Gospel. I suspect that this is a bit controversial, and I am willing to dialogue, but let me at first list a few short reasons why I hold this opinion.

1. We have a responsibility to preach the Gospel to people, not just into a vacuum. 
I understand that “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12 ESV). I recognize that God can (and in many situations does) use the proclamation of Scripture alone to convict and convert people. However, we cannot misapply the fact that God’s word is powerful to excuse a lack of responsibility on our part. We are instructed to make disciples (Matthew 28:19), and doing so requires some tact. Being able to understand a person’s worldview in order to carefully and shrewdly critique and subvert it allows us to communicate the Gospel more effectively. Furthermore, knowing what we’re talking about adds legitimacy  to our faith claims, especially in a society which no longer privileges Christianity nor takes it for granted.

2. Anti-intellectualism is not helpful to the Body of Christ.
If you know me, you know that I don’t completely buy into our society’s extreme glorification of a college education, and that I very strongly believe that salvation is by grace alone—not knowledge. However, the developing worldwide religious landscape consists of rapidly developing Pentecostalism, which is particularly flourishing in Third-World countries (albeit not absent in the U.S). While I rejoice that people are coming to know the name of Jesus, I am concerned over the potential for a dangerous misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit and a general disdain for rational decision-making. In 1 Corinthians 14:14-23, Paul encourages believers to use their minds in (rather than detach them from) corporate worship. God gave us a rational mind so that we might bring glory to him and edify other believers by using it appropriately.

3. Most people—even in the church—don’t have a Christian worldview.
Perhaps this is more indicative of a theological problem or a flaw in our discipleship methods, but Christians should be able to comprehend how the Gospel of Jesus should determine the way they view the world. Of course, we’re not going to agree on everything, but the foundational understanding that Jesus’ death and resurrection is so significant that it actually defines who we are and how we think about things needs to somehow be built into our discipleship processes. I realize that not everyone has the same I.Q., but most people should be able to learn how to view things through the lens of the Cross, at least on some level. By having a better education—particularly one which emphasises the Gospel as their metanarrative, Christians are better-equipped to think critically about and interact with the world around them, enabling them to recognize, avoid, and work more effectively in tearing down the idols of 21st century society. 

Of course, the problem is that there are very few systems in place (at least that I am aware of) which achieve this type of Christ-centered, intellectual preparation. Based upon my personal experience (and that of many like me), Bible colleges across the nation generally leave graduates ill-equipped to make a difference in (or even think critically about) society. And while some programs at secular universities may offer a more rigorous academic environment, they most certainly fail to promote a Christian worldview, thus leaving the average Christian very few opportunities to receive an education which will significantly aid them in their life of faith and fulfillment of the Great Commission. 

I’m not sure what needs to happen, but it appears to be an issue which must be dealt with by the local church. I know I feel a need to read more and do what I can to sharpen my mind, yet I still long for some type of training or preparation in the church which would help guide me in this. Throughout the centuries, a solid education has proven quite helpful to so many believers—from Paul to Luther and Augustine to Schaeffer. And sure, the present day perhaps has its share of theologians and scholars. But wouldn’t it be haphazard to ignore the need for educated Christians in each and every local congregation?

I recently finished reading Mark as Story [link], a book which, despite its flaws, succesfully promotes a narrative approach to reading the Gospels. While the authors made some dangerous and unsupported theological statements, their overall treatment of the Gospel of Mark as a story was quite helpful and renewed my interest in the way humanity is shaped by narratives. Certainly, Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan [link] made significant progress in helping a modern audience read the Bible as one big, unfolding narrative. Lately, however, I’ve been reading through The Drama of Scripture by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen [link], a similar book which introduces the idea of a unified Biblical narrative as essential to evangelism in the postmodern world. Their work is founded upon the understanding that human beings are significantly shaped by stories—particularly over-arching, grand stories or metanarratives—and that the Biblical story is the only such metanarrative which is true, meaningful and liberating.

Dr. Goheen has an excellent grasp on the over-arching story which has shaped modern Western society; I heard him speak about a year ago, and by the end of the first day of his conference lectures, I felt like my mind was already operating over-capacity. Now that I’ve had some time to think through things, I am coming to see the extreme importance of understanding our cultural story—that is, our metanarrative—in respect to impacting our society with the Gospel.

Any given person can only have one metanarrative, though they may know a number of other stories. It is our metanarrative, in fact, which determines the way in which we view and interpret all other stories. Therefore, if we accept the metanarrative of modern society—a story rooted in the Enlightenment, where reason is the hero and scientific or technological progress makes for a “happy ending”—we will find that all other stories (including the Gospel of Christ) are subject to our greater, over-arching metanarrative. This very thing caused the rise of liberalism in respect to Biblical studies, where modernism very much shaped the way people read the Bible.

A person’s metanarrative is the lens through which he will view all other narratives; it is his gopspel. However, if the Biblical story is our metanarrative, it will effectively critique competing, false metanarratives (such as the modernistic gospel of rational optimism).

In this, we can see the goal of our evangelism is not to only preach the Gospel as a laundry list of truths, but to subvert the false gospels (or metanarratives) which deceive our culture. It is too easy to embrace certain Biblical truths as long as they “fit” our existing worldview; many people will accept Scriptural doctrines insofar as their metanarrative allows them to be accepted. Thus, we get Christians who go to Sunday church services but live self-centered lives devoid of fruit; Christianity has become a mere additive to their pre-existing metanarrative.

However, the Gospel of King Jesus is not merely a series of doctrines, but an altogether different foundational understanding of the word. It is a new metanarrative, and until people allow it to destroy their existing metanarratives, they will not experience its power. “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 2:22-24 ESV).

With that being said, the present-day difficulty is postmodernism—”an incredulity toward metanarratives,” as famously defined by Jean François Lyotard. Because our society so blindly submitted to the false gospel of modernism, rationalism and humanism, we are now reaping what we have sown; from wreaking environmental havoc to creating weapons of mass destruction, our modernistic metanarrative has led us to despair. Thus, postmodernism recognizes the betrayal of the modernistic gospel and is highly skeptical, therefore, of all such metanarratives; any over-arching story which serves as a source of meaning and hope is highly suspect.

Of course, postmodernism is really a metanarrative of its own, as it defines the way in which we view the world; however, in this story, the antagonists are metanarratives themselves. To reach resolution, all such metanarratives must be reduced in power—they must become “just another story” rather than an over-arching gospel—and only when this happens, postmoderns believe, can society be truly free from danger. This explains why phrases like “whatever works for you,” “who are you to judge?” and “all roads lead to God!”  have become so immensely popular as of late.

What this leaves us with is a sense of meaning which finds its root in tolerance, passivity, and ignorance. Ultimately, it will only bring further confusion and despair. Yet for now, as evangelists, we face the dilemma of promoting a metanarrative—a radical one at that—to a world whose existing metanarrative tells them that we’re fools. If we’re going to have success, we must embody the gospel in all that we do—to truly allow it to become our metanarrative—and to live life in such a way that the truth of the Biblical story is made evident in our actions. Preaching the Gospel must involve the systematic teaching of doctrines, to be sure, but the power of the Gospel itself must not be restrained nor hindered by our unwillingness to unleash its earth-shattering, life-changing, mind-blowing nature to the world.

Yes, I heard about this at work yesterday; Russia has legislation in the works that will discourage the so-called “emo” subculture by establishing public dress codes and internet restrictions which will prevent the dissemination of emo-oriented material. Just check out this article (or another one here). Or, you can simply Google the topic; it’s much-discussed on a number of blogs and forums.

Now, aside from this being completely hilarious, there may be reason to take this more seriously. The “emo ban” (which would also target Gothic styles of dress and even the celebration of certain Western holidays such as Halloween) is included among legislation to curb child alcoholism and pornography. In other words, it’s being promoted as an issue of morality and public safety. The Russian authorities are making emo out to be something quite serious indeed. Their argument is that it leads to violence, depression, and suicide. And, no doubt, Russia has seen its fair share of these things since the collapse of the Soviet Union. But among its contributors—emo?

Naturally, there have been many protests in Russia (and elsewhere) against this “emo ban” which, by my guess, must mean runny eyeliner for thousands of long-haired, gratuitously-pierced youth who can’t possibly stand such angst. I don’t know whether or not this legislation will be passed or not, and honestly, I don’t think it makes a difference. What Russia needs—what this whole world needs, for that matter—is not mere legislation. Politics will never reach the heart of the issues that plague our planet.

Of course, that’s not the way we see it. In America, we think that banning video games or certain genres of music will change people’s wicked hearts. Or we place so much hope in a certain politician who promises change, a messiah of sorts, to solve all of our problems. But the truth is that none of these things will truly change the world—at least in the way it needs to be changed.

(continue reading…)