Introduction to Modernism
In the 19th century all across Europe a new philosophy crept into the halls of learning which has beforehand been dominated by Bible trained scholars. This new philosophy was unabashed in its challenge to the Bible. Indeed, the Bible seemed to be its principal target. Critics became the new intellectual elite. And as industrialization combined with the age of steel and the age of the locomotive and steam, scholars across Europe and even America adopted a new optimism that science and man could solve all the problems of man.
The war that swept across Europe in the first decades of the 20th century seemingly killed this optimism and even the philosophy resulting in a new take on mankind and its potential. This new philosophy would become known in part as post-modernism. The shift was perceptible in more areas than the classrooms of the university. Professors could no longer say with a straight face that mankind can solve all its own problems by rejecting the old out-dated and out-moded fears created in religion and nurtured by superstition and instead embracing pure logic and science. The horrors of the world war were memorialized in film and could not as easily be forgotten as wars past. Further, the atrocities of war were only amplified by science and logic and the rejection of religion.
Science had contributed to the unheard of death toll by the development of mustard gas, the tank, death from above in airplanes, phosphorus rounds and encased munitions capable of lobbying rounds 30 or 40 miles away. Logic had contributed by the use of Ford’s assembly line to mass produce munitions and the machines of war. Rejecting religion had produced a war that had no regard for the unique reflection of God in man - human life was completely disregarded. War always produced mass casualties, but without religion war took on an even more beastly tone. There was no refuge in the church, no honor among combatants, no regard for historic monuments and ancient buildings. There was no solace in defeating evil for evil was only a perspective.
Enter Post Modernism
Post modernism was at least honest in its recognition that modernism had failed to produce a solution to the problem of man. But post-modernism, like modernism failed to produce a better solution because it failed in a singular point. Once you reject Scripture, you have to redefine the problem of man. Scripture defined the problem as sin. Modernism defined the problem as oppression by religion and ignorance. Post-modernism would redefine the problem as well. Unlike modernism there was less clarity in the definition. It would include inequality, racism sexism, nationalism, and a few other -isms. But the core concept was that the problem was a lot of things other than sin.
Post-moderism produced another world war, nuclear war, a cold war, and more economic disparity than had ever existed anywhere. There were no solutions because all the efforts and energies were being focused to the wrong problem.
Enter a Billion Hungry People and the Solution
Today I received an email from a friend with the following statement:
Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. Jesus sent the answer ... Us!
It occurs to me that this is a return to modernism. The problem in the statement above is hunger, thirst and clothing. The solution is people. This is an extraordinary statement. Consider if we just change a couple words:
Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. We have the answer ... Us!
It would not surprise me if the vast majority of atheists in the world would agree with the second statement. And nothing has changed in the presentment of the problem or the answer. The only thing that changed was an innocuous statement placed in the middle which is almost unnecessary.
I changed the two words “Jesus sent” to “We have” to illustrate what the statement above states. The solution in both cases is human effort. The problem in both cases is human experience.
Consider this message as opposed to Scripture:
Genesis 2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”Here we note that the problem is not defined in Scripture as homelessness, hunger, thirst or economic disparity. You could easily make the argument that hunger, thirst and economic disparity are results of the problem - but they are not the problem. Human depravity in heart and mind and psyche is the problem.
Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness,wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 1: 32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
So the statement forwarded to me by my friend is deficient in stating the problem. How well does the statement present the solution? Again, as someone who believes in the authority of Scripture, let’s go to Scripture for the solution:
1 John 2:1 (My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. 2 ) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.
From the Scripture above, the solution to sin is not us. The solution is Jesus.
Let’s revisit the seemingly “Christian” statement my friend forwarded me:
Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. Jesus sent the answer ... Us!
After consulting Scripture we can see that not only is this statement not “Christian” but it is not even true. The problem is misstated and the solution is directed from the savior to us. It brings to mind Romans 1:25 “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Who is the solution to the “Christian” statement? US! The creation! The creation is being worshipped for it’s power. Who sends the solution in the statement? Jesus! But who sends the solution in Scripture? John 3:16 reveals that God the Father sends the Son. So, let’s revise completely the statement to make it comport with truth - with Scripture:
Today Billions of people are given over in the desires of their hearts to impurity. They dishonor their bodies among themselves. They continually exchange the truth of God for a modernist and/or post-modernist lie! Remarkably, they worship and serve the creation - man and his power through government and program and charitable organizations rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! These billions are given over to dishonorable passions which they don't even know are dishonorable! Billions and billions are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. God has sent the solution - Jesus! For more information on how Jesus is the solution, see Scripture!
Compare again to the original statement the contrast is apparent:
Today 1 Billion people are hungry. 1.1 Billion don't have clean drinking water. 300 million don't have shoes. Jesus sent the answer ... Us!
Consider this, the shorter statement may easily be made by the following people:
- Atheist
- Hindu
- Secularist
How can that be you ask? The first person doesn’t believe Christ is deity, but believes in the power of mankind to solve problems. However, hunger, thirst, etc.. are problems. If Jesus teaches that mankind can overcome his own problems - and hunger and thirst are the extent of those problems, then Jesus has taught the solution and thus given/sent the answer.
The second person doesn't believe Christ is deity either, but like the atheist, the Hindu believes in the power of positive thinking and good karma. If Jesus teaches positive teaching - which according to Gandhi is the sum of Jesus’ message - then Jesus sent us the answer - US!
The third person doesn't care whether Christ is deity or not, but as a secularist, they believe that the ultimate solution for man’s problems is man. If Jesus teaches us to do good things, if Jesus is limited to a good teacher teaching positive things, then that person will agree with the statement as well.
Conclusion
The conclusion is that the statement is a modernist view of the world crouched in a poor attempt to be a Christian statement. It fails as a Christian statement because it presents neither the problem nor the solution. This indeed is using the name of Christ in a vain attempt. It’s a modernist statement in that the problem ignores any spiritual element and denies the solution originating from any source other than mankind.
No comments:
Post a Comment