Christ: Still the Answer in a Post-Modern Era

We live in a post-modern world today. What that means is that for most people truth is something that is not as easily found. It is not that post-moderns deny the existence of truth, but rather the certainty of knowing what that truth is. Post-moderns have, of course, been around for a long time. The classic example is seen in Pilate, the Roman governor who reluctantly gave the order for Jesus to be crucified, when he asked, “What is truth?” The post-modern world has been asking that question ever since. Our recent world, however, has been largely modern since the dawn of the Enlightenment Period, or the Age of Reason. During this time, men said that everything in this world could be understood by sheer reason and logic. In fact, God was not needed, because reason became their God. This modern worldview has continued throughout most of the 20th century, and I would also suggest that many people living in rural areas as well as most aged forty and up still hold to this type of thinking. This period has had tremendous impact on the church and, therefore, the church has seen everything through the lens of black and white. In subjecting the world to reason, we have sought to explain everything and have pushed out any concept of mystery.

Postmodern thinking, on the contrary, began to emerge in the 1960’s but most predominately in the 1980’s. It began with the “hippy” counter-culture of anti-establishment and anti-authority. The post-moderns have questioned everything, searching for truth, but rejecting the certainty of their own perspectives of truth.
Examples of Postmodern thinking include: (this information is taken from an article entitled “Connecting Churches with Today’s Modern and Postmodern Cultures”)

• The possibility of multiple gods. There is more to the universe than we can perceive. Religion, science, and philosophy are abstracts that are difficult (if not impossible) to grasp.
• Scientific knowledge can be used for good or evil. Scientific advances often can be used to improve or destroy life- consider atomic energy, genetics, or information technology, for example.
• Morality is relative. There are many standards for morality, and my moral base is personal, therefore is not yours to judge.
• Humanity has failed to solve social and political problems. Optimism has been replaced by pessimism for the future of mankind.

One response to this way of thinking is to consider the words of Christ from the gospel of John, chapter ten. From this passage, we are able to learn elements in dealing with a post-modern culture: (1) Christ is still the answer for today’s culture, and (2) Our method of sharing Christ must consider the reality of post-moderns.

Jesus is Still the Source of Truth
In verse one of this chapter, Jesus says: “I tell you the truth…” Jesus begins this part of his talk with the religious leaders by asserting that what he will say is the truth. This assertion assumes two things: (1) Truth exists and (2) Truth can be known.

Jesus Connects the Truth with His Culture
Jesus did this by using images and illustrations that people could relate to (such as sheep jargon to his agricultural audience). Jesus often spoke in object lessons and stories. Why? Because it is an effective teaching method that relates with people. The good news is that the Bible is God’s story of redeeming His people. Our approach to sharing the gospel must include the reality of our own experiences. Today, the post-modern person relates to real life stories, because although they may deny our absolute presentation of truth; they cannot deny our experiences. We must present our faith as a journey, not a final destination. In other words, we must not arrogantly maintain that we have all the answers, but that through Christ we can hope to put some of the other puzzle pieces together.

Jesus also used the language of the day. Although they did not understand the meaning behind what he was saying; they did understand the language itself. If I drove to work this morning and a flock of sheep was crossing the road here in Grant Park, and there were shepherds walking with them, along with clods of “stuff” they had left in their path (not the shepherds, but the sheep), I might think, “wow, Grant Park is really moving in the right direction.” The point is that it wouldn’t happen, because grazing sheep is not part of our culture today, but it was common to the culture in which Jesus spoke. We must, therefore, use the language of our post-modern culture, and try not to maintain the traditionalism of our Christian vernacular, for the sake of comfort or convenience.

Jesus Presents Himself as the Only Entrance to a Relationship with God
Not only do we live in a post-modern age, but we also live in a pluralistic age, where many believe that there are a lot of ways to God. Jesus clearly states that he is the gate to becoming part of his people. Although, we want to seek continually a way to communicate this truth as less offensive as possible, this truth will undoubtedly always offend some, because the gospel is unapologetically exclusive. We must never use this as an excuse, however, to be offensive in and of ourselves, or to be mentally lazy in our methods to communicate the gospel.


Jesus’ Life now is the Key to Communicating with the Post-Modern
Jesus uses the word “saved” here, which means “deliverance, salvation, or rescue.” It is no surprise that the Jews often looked at this in terms of political salvation, because they were under the rule of the Roman Empire. Our modern era has seen this in terms of heaven and hell, and has trumpeted the gospel in cold, catch phrases like, “If you were to die today, where would you go?” Certainly, salvation does include ultimate rescue from a real place called hell, but I also believe that those who live outside of Jesus Christ live in a spiritual hell on earth right now, and need to be rescued from their miserable existence.

When Jesus speaks of salvation here, he is speaking not only of a final deliverance from hell (the penalty of sin and the presence of sin), but also of a present deliverance from the power of sin, i.e. new life right now. This means that Jesus is the answer to the post-modern’s present questions of fulfillment, joy, and existence, and he offers this life today.

Preaching to Lepers

This is an excerpt copied from a book I am reading called The Revolutionary Communicator. I found the story fascinating and especially relevant, since I just talked about "How to Approach Sinners" and even made a reference to lepers. I am sure that there are dangers in putting a story like this out there without any commentary, but I am going to trust the reader to make the appropriate applications. Enjoy:

"Molokai. The island's name was pronounced bitterly, with loathing and fear. Between 1866 and 1873, nearly eight hundred lepers were quarantined there on an isolated peninsula. Towering volcanic cliffs hemmed them in on three sides, and crashing surf on the fourth. It was a prison, a netherworld made all the more surreal by its pacific beauty.

Abandoned without law or hope, the lepers gave themselves alternately to despair and to what pleasures they could grasp. Robbery and drunkenness, sexual orgies and anarchy marked their lives. When finally, after a tortuous descent, the lepers finally succumbed to their disease, their already-decayed bodies often became food for pigs and wild dogs.

Father Damien first came to Hawaii in 1864. He had been born in Europe, the sturdily built son of a well-to-do Belgian farmer. When his brother fell ill and could not travel to his post at Hawaii's Sacred Heart Mission, Damien asked to take his place.

For a decade, Damien served at the mission. During that time, many of his parishioners were forced away to Molokai. Their memory remained wedged in his mind, slowly building into a fearsome emotion. He yearned to go to the lepers and to convey love to them where they lived. In April of 1873, Father Damien wrote to his superiors, asking for permission. A month later, he stood on the beaches of the dreaded isle. Damien steeled himself for the worst, but the sights and smells of Molokai left him gasping. One of his first encounters was with a young girl, her body already half eaten by worms. One by one, Damien set out to meet them all. Carefully avoiding physical contact, he confronted their rotting bodies, putrid breath, and the ever-present rasped coughing.

Damien's first desire was to remind the lepers of their inherent dignity to God. To demonstrate the value of their lives, he honored their deaths-constructing coffins, digging graves, protecting the cemetery from scavenging animals, and ensuring a ceremony for every passing.

As the days went by, however, Damien began to feel that he could not fully convey all that he wished to share without drawing ever nearer. He began timidly to touch lepers. He ate with them, and hugged them. Over time, he even began to clean and wrap their oozing sores. Everything Damien did, he did with the lepers. Together, they built coffins and chapels, cottages and roads. He taught them how to farm, raise animals, and even sing despite their mangled vocal chords. One report described him teaching two lepers to play the organ with the ten fingers they still had between them.

Damien sought to draw near to the lepers in his words as well, even speaking of "we lepers." Writing to his brother in Europe, he explained, "I make myself a leper with the lepers to gain all to Jesus Christ. That is why, in preaching, I say 'we lepers'; not 'my brethren...'"

It was eleven years after Damien's arrival on Molokai that he spilled boiling water on his leg. He watched with horror as his feet blistered- yet felt no pain. His efforts to draw near to the lepers was complete. Now he would meet them in their disease as well.

The final five years of his life, Damien served the lepers of Molokai as a leper priest. The days passed with both joy and suffering. Outpourings of international support arrived at the island, and also several helpers. Alongside the blessings, however, came physical pain, and times of loneliness and even depression. Finally, on April 15, 1889, Damien breathed his last. He was laid to rest among the thousands of lepers he had helped to bury in what he called his "garden of the dead."

In 1936, at the request of the Belgian government, Father Damien's body was returned to his birthplace. Years later, the people of Molokai pleaded that at least part of their beloved Father be returned to them. What they finally received, with joy, was Damien's right hand- the hand that had touched and soothed and embraced them, even when everyone else had done all they could to keep the lepers far away."

How To Approach Sinners

It is an amazing thing to me that I should ever have to do a blog of this nature, but it seems that in recent years it has become more and more popular among Christians to become politically motivated against certain sins. We have anti-gay rallies and march in the street for what we might consider “gross” sins, but then we fail to be as angry towards our own political party’s rampant adultery. What am I suggesting? I am suggesting fairness towards all. That means if we are really going to get upset about sin, let’s begin with ours initially, and let’s don’t pick and choose which ones we are going to protest. I mean, can you imagine an anti-lying rally in downtown Atlanta this morning, or maybe an anti-lust rally, or perhaps we should have an anti-hatred rally. The truth is that the reason we don’t is that we have all been guilty of those things, and we would feel hypocritical if we took part in a rally of that sort. But, it is much more feasible to protest that which we have not taken part in, and so we do. In order to shed some light on what our perspective should be towards sinners, I would like to refer you to the story of the woman caught in adultery in John chapter eight.

This story, to me, is one of the most revealing stories in the Bible about the reality of sin in our lives, and the power of Jesus’ love and grace overcoming it. The classic phrase in the King James, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (or as so often is the way that it is quoted, “let him cast the first stone”), is one of the most famous statements in the entire English language. Those who know nothing of Jesus and his love, know about the depth of that one phrase spoken so long ago. This story is a story about sinners, their sin, and their blindness to their own sin, and their need of Christ to deliver them from their sin. I hope that through this story we can learn some truths about the reality of sin and our approach to sinners. There are several principles here that to me are monumental in learning how to deal with sinners.

All of Us Have Sin and Should, Therefore, Treat Every Other Sinner Graciously.
The fact is we are usually harder on other people than we are ourselves. We look at others with an eye of frustration, because they are not like we are, or because they struggle with different sins than we do. We often condemn people, if not by our actions or words, by our thoughts. These men were so focused on this other’s sin that they failed to see the sin in their own life. Isn’t that the way we feel? We get so upset about other people’s sins, and there are all sins that make us angrier than others. You can sit and listen to people who get upset over other people’s certain sins, and they rant and throw a tirade over it, because they are angry at another’s sin.

Don’t misunderstand me. I think there are times when anger is expected, like when 9/11 happened, or when someone tries to attack our family. But, most of the time our anger and frustration with people is nothing more than hypocritical judgment. We should not be blinded to our own sin, but should look inwardly, so we can see clearly to love and help others. The men who took the woman caught in the act of adultery were showing their hypocrisy in several ways:

1. Their Judgment was Only One-Sided. The last time I checked there has to be two people involved in adultery. Where was the man? Was he not at least AS guilty as the woman? Could it be, because of their chauvinistic culture where women were little more than door stops, that they were angrier with the woman just because she was a woman?

2. Their Judgment was Humiliating to the One Involved. It says two things here that are revealing: (1) They caught her in the act. My friend Sam, pastor of the River, astutely pointed out that she was probably naked during this act (it should be apparent now why commentaries are of little value to me). Not to be crude, but it would be very difficult to commit adultery with your clothes on. Therefore, they may have brought her either naked, or half-dressed (at bare minimum) with just a blanket or something thrown over. Either way, she was totally exposed.

(2) They also made her stand before the group. There was a large crowd in the temple courts waiting to hear Jesus teach when this happened. As if being half-dressed or naked was not bad enough, then she had to stand there before the group, with some men undoubtedly lusting after her. This could explain, by the way, Jesus’ looking down and writing on the ground. We are unfortunately, often harsh in our judgments to people, and we often are blinded by our own arrogance.

The Longer We Live the More Sin We Have.
This is a very simple point, but (in vs. 7-9) it is not insignificant that the older ones went away first. They started to go away when Jesus mentions he who does not have sin can cast the first stone. Their going away means that they apparently felt guilty because of what Jesus said, because they knew that they were not without sin. The reason the old ones went away first, I believe, is because they had lived longer, and therefore, had more sins to be convicted over. This isn’t picking on anyone, but the truth is the longer we live, the more we are going to sin, and therefore, the more repentant and broken we should be before God. Sadly, though, we do not normally with time become more broken, but we become more hardened by the effects of sin in our life. And this hardness creates in us a judgmental spirit that treats the sinners of today like the lepers of yesterday. This is not the way to approach sinners. We should remember Jesus condemning the hypocrisy and condemnation of the religious leaders and extending grace and forgiveness and love to the broken sinner.

A Creator or An Eternal Mass of Nothing

The topic of evolution vs. the concept of a creator is one that is much too complicated for me to take up here. The emphasis in that sentence is not on the here but on the me- i.e. I am not smart enough to debate the fine points of intelligent design, nor am I detailed enough to be able to pick apart the problems that are supposedly apparent in evolution. This is not to say that I have not had discussions about evolution, nor does it mean that I am totally uninformed of this debate. My expertise, undoubtedly, is very scant, as I have probably read about five books about the subject of evolution in my life time. I have also taken a class about the subject of creationism (albeit not a very good one), and I have attended a debate in the Atlanta area between William Dembski (Intelligent Design proponent) and Michael Ruse (Evolutionary Agnostic who is a professor at Florida State).I have grown up in this culture, of course, and have been educated through our public school systems (which is why I write so poorly). As you can see, I am not qualified to give a dissertation on the details of science, but I have been given by God (or natural selection, if you don’t want to blame God for my stupidity) a brain to discern some logical conclusions about science and the bible, and that is basically what I would like to write about.

Premiere to this discussion, I would like to say that my belief is that God created everything. My belief in this, once all of the debates of the books have cleared, comes down to just a few things that I would like to share:
(1) I believe that God created everything, because I believe in the truth of Scripture.
This statement is very subjective in that my belief is based on my personal faith in the bible. This is not the only thing, but it certainly is the main reason why I believe in God’s creation. The bible has never been disproved or shown to be inconsistent in what it has declared. It could also be argued by those who disagree that it has never been proved to be indisputably correct, either, and this is a truth I concede. However, the possibility of its veracity must, at least, be considered.

(2) I believe that God created everything, because I am able to observe intelligent design in his creation.
I look at the sky and I see a painter; I look at the mountains and I see an architect; I look at the ocean and I see a chemist; I look at the animals and I see an engineer; and I look at humanity and I see God. This is what I observe when I look at the world in which we live. It tells a story about the one who created it. This is why the Psalmist says “the heavens declare your glory and the skies the work of your hands; day unto day they utter speech and night unto night, they give knowledge.” The great Apostle Paul accentuates this fact when he declares to the Roman Christians that the creation is enough to tell humanity that there is a God, and that because of this, they “are without excuse.”

(3) I believe that God created everything, because I see no conflict between Scripture and science.
Does this mean that evolution and a creating God can coexist, so that God started things, but used the process of evolution to bring this about? I personally do not believe that this is what happened, but I do believe that it is possible for the two to co-exist. There have been many Theistic Evolutionists who believed both in God and the theory of evolution. While I do not agree with their conclusions, I am able to see how they might have come to those conclusions. Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called No Final Conflict, in which he talked about some puzzling questions regarding the creation of the universe. His point was that there can be disagreement between Christians who value both the truthfulness of Scripture, as well as the discoveries of science. An excerpt from that book, I think, will aid in this discussion, as it is a list of things of which there is room for disagreement concerning the reconciliation of science and scripture:

1. There is a possibility that God created a “grown-up” universe.
2. There is a possibility of a break between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or between 1:2 and 1:3.
3. There is a possibility of a long day in Genesis 1.
4. There is a possibility that the flood affected the geological data.
5. The use of the word “kinds” in Genesis 1 may be quite broad.
6. There is a possibility of the death of animals before the fall.
7. Where the Hebrew word “bara” is not used there is the possibility of sequence from previously existing things.

Schaeffer does not necessarily agree with any of these conclusions, but he says that they are theoretically possible and should be allowed in the area of Christian liberty. I am thankful for Schaeffer’s clarity about this, because this issue, to me, is not “a hill worth dying on.” As I seek to reach the culture, I will continue to hold out God as Creator, but I will not get bogged down in the quagmire of literary debates about the literalness of the Genesis details, and I will attempt not to become a distraction by infecting them with my narrow-mindedness. If I seek to build these bridges, while holding to the integrity of Scripture, I have hopefully pointed them to God, and not to a mass of argumentative nothingness.