Post Modernity, an oxymoron or what?

Well, that title is an oxymoron if I have ever seen one, or is it?

First of all, let’s take a look at what the proponents of this new way of looking at our times are saying. In essence, their argument is that the old categories of understanding “our times” are obsolete.

For example, the digital world has broken down the barriers of information accessibility. The average Joe can, and often does, access volumes formerly accessible only to scholars. This, of course, can and does have repercussions for the good as well as the bad. Those with good intent can become a better informed citizen; those with evil intent can find out how to make a bomb or disseminate poisonous propaganda and even cut someone’s head off for all to see over the internet, and thereby strike fear in the heart of the infidel.

Secondly, culture has shifted from an “us” to an all inclusive “we.”

Now, particularly, is the above true in the culture of economics. The aftershocks of this new adjustment is never more evident than in the recent financial meltdown resulting in the current recession. Whether, we like it or not, Keynesian economics is now global and the common working man and woman will continue to be manipulated to adjust to this new reality. To put it bluntly, Big Brother is not only looking after you, but will dictate his terms to you—including, your options on how you think and express yourself. For Big Brother money is always the catalysis—abortion is in, because it liberates women to maintain a preferred lifestyle; science is manipulated to build an economic platform to launch a global initiative to save our planet; religious convictions are compromised to establish an atmosphere of political correctness (after all, it is argued, sectarian strife hampers commerce).

Need I say more? I think not. It is pretty obvious, as far as I am concerned, that the love of money is the root cause of all this evil.

Thirdly, absolutes are obsolete. This is more than Fletcherism, too—because in the end, situation ethics did strive for moral conclusions. No, those that have bought into this new way of looking at things are simply saying, absolutes are not important. Religious absolutes only bred strife, and therefore thwart economic progress. Scientific absolutes are only important as long as they serve a political purpose. A fine line is drawn between men and animals, and then is quickly parlayed into a raison d'être for all kinds of dangerous biological experimentations—cloning, gender choice, DNA replacement therapy, surrogate motherhood, stem cell research (after all it is only the by product of a non-viable fetus),  and so-forth. In short, man is willing to play God to advance his agenda.

May, I also point out that theology is not immune, either. Modern seminaries and Bible colleges have abandoned the old paradigms for ministerial training and substituted the systematics with courses in leadership, and growing a user-friendly church, among other non-essentials. Greek and Hebrew for the most part are reserved for the nerds, and a class is formed only when there are enough nerds around to fill it. Otherwise, a fancy course in persuasion will do just fine. Why? Because the bottom-line in post modernity is quantitative results that can be graphed in numbers and economic charts. Resulting, of course, in just more of the same—but, in this case, the same is bigger.

I fail to see how mega churches, or mega anything, can result in a mega Christians. That is not to say that something good cannot come out of something big; it is only to say that, that something good was not produced by that something big. Converts are made and discipled in one to one encounters—that is in I-Thou relationships, not I-other events. Yet, the post modern thinks in those terms, politically, religiously, economically, and otherwise. The masses are not always right; as a matter of fact, seldom right. (Yes, you read me right. Masses are seldom right. Think about it, and I am sure you will agree.) So, unless our mega friends find out a way to personalize discipleship we are destined for a spiritually anemic Christian—a placid automaton, mass produced for a sign of ministry success.

Check the statistics, and I am sure the stats will confirm that. Percentile averages weigh heavily on the side of smallness, rather than bigness.

Yet, in the spirit of the world, we insist on relevance at the expense of reality. The truth is, narrow is the way. Small is the gate. Few there are that will enter in. Does that mean that I am championing smallness? No, on the contrary. I long for the masses; however, on the other hand, we can not—indeed, we should not—widen the user friendly gate so wide that the gospel becomes little more than a friendly pep talk to get you through the week.

Now, I realize that smallness in clumps of numbers can be mass produced under a big tent, but let us be careful not to compromise sound principles just for the sake of the status of success.

Shall, I give you the bottom-line? The bottom-line is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why? Because God does not change. Therefore, we Christians should not be blown about by every strange wind that whips across the stage of life whether modern, post modern, or not.