The Post-modern
from the post-in-the-whatnow
dept.
What
can the post-modern, emergent "conversation" teach us? Well, they claim very
little in the way of actual authoritative teachings. That's what's so slippery
about them. Truth is taught as relative. What's true for one, isn't true for
another. It's frustrating to try and follow this
logic.
But there's one side effect I've learned from some of these post-modern beliefs, and that is: What Jesus said is important.
Ok, track with me for a moment. I hold the bible as ultimate authority. The whole bible sheds blinding light on all life. The tendency for some post-modernism is, among other things, to discount the teachings of Paul. I think that's wrong. But, on the other hand, I can understand the albeit simplistic argument to place Jesus teachings above Paul's.
The deal is, if Jesus said one thing, and Paul said another, some post-modernists tends to side with Jesus only, using the opportunity to point out the all truth is relative, including truths spoken by Jesus and Paul. And who are we to refute? Well, Christians should pay attention. This is where the slippery aspect of post-modernism resides. Fact is, Jesus and Paul are on the exact same page. If a case could be made that Jesus refutes a teaching of Paul, one should not assume Paul is in error. If we were to assume that, in fact what we are saying is that Jesus refutes a teaching of the Holy Spirit (the actual author of what Paul wrote). I can't accept that either.
In reality, there's a balance to what Jesus and Paul say. Paul teaches a different perspective of the same doctrines. Paul could do two things Jesus could never do. 1) Paul could sin. 2) Paul could repent from that sin. In that way, he can teach us things Jesus could not. If we just discount what Paul taught, we lose an important, practical perspective.
But there's one side effect I've learned from some of these post-modern beliefs, and that is: What Jesus said is important.
Ok, track with me for a moment. I hold the bible as ultimate authority. The whole bible sheds blinding light on all life. The tendency for some post-modernism is, among other things, to discount the teachings of Paul. I think that's wrong. But, on the other hand, I can understand the albeit simplistic argument to place Jesus teachings above Paul's.
The deal is, if Jesus said one thing, and Paul said another, some post-modernists tends to side with Jesus only, using the opportunity to point out the all truth is relative, including truths spoken by Jesus and Paul. And who are we to refute? Well, Christians should pay attention. This is where the slippery aspect of post-modernism resides. Fact is, Jesus and Paul are on the exact same page. If a case could be made that Jesus refutes a teaching of Paul, one should not assume Paul is in error. If we were to assume that, in fact what we are saying is that Jesus refutes a teaching of the Holy Spirit (the actual author of what Paul wrote). I can't accept that either.
In reality, there's a balance to what Jesus and Paul say. Paul teaches a different perspective of the same doctrines. Paul could do two things Jesus could never do. 1) Paul could sin. 2) Paul could repent from that sin. In that way, he can teach us things Jesus could not. If we just discount what Paul taught, we lose an important, practical perspective.
Posted: Wednesday - March 29, 2006 at 08:23 AM |
Distractions