Sacred Cynicism

Have you ever spent an evening watching the sunset? When you watch the sun gently dip below the horizon, it is easy to become accustomed to the fading light in the west, and then when you turn around to walk away from your viewing spot, there is a sudden surprise of how dark it has become. The viewer just does not notice the gathering gloom when their gaze has been on the fading light. In the past generation another gradual change has been taking place, and many people just have not noticed. Now, all of the sudden many have become aware that everything looks a little different than before, and we were not ready for the change.

Probably most of us have heard the term “post-modern,” but have not really understood what that means. Let me try to explain. Many of us were raised in a world that was “modern.” When we hear modern we think all the new and latest things and ideas, but in the philosophical world “modern” means something a little different. The “modern” world of our youth was a world in which the pursuit of the rational was considered primary. Can an idea be verified? Can we test it, experiment with it in an effort to see if the thing or idea is “true.” So the “truth” was that which is verifiable, tested, and something which is absolute. So “truth” was something that stood alone and was considered fact.

This is not the post-modern world. The post-modern world rightly taught us that not everything stands up under the weight of the “modern” world. Sometimes, what is accepted as “true” was shaped and accepted only by a community, region or race of people. To use a quick example, what “strength” means to the offensive line of a football team may not have the same meaning in the theater or drama class. Both groups are sure what “strength” means, yet two distinct meanings emerge. So the post-modern world launched a new era of subjective scrutiny. What is “true” for one may not be “true” for another. So years ago when someone said they were searching for the truth, it meant they were seeking an objective reality. Today that same sentiment probably means someone is out to look for something that only applies to them. So instead of broadly applying to all, it is only “their truth.” And since all personal truths are created equal, how dare anyone try to convince them out of their truth.

So here we are in 2010, our feet planted shakily in these two worlds, finding it even difficult to hold conversations with each other, since these same words can hold different meanings for different people. As I look around my limited experience (Post modern admission here) it seems to me that people have faith have reacted to the post-modern world by telling it how wrong it is, and to tell them to get a little more modern. The problem is this approach just will not help bridge the gap. If someone is not impressed by, or cares about, finding verifiable, objective truth (in our estimation) we will not convince anyone by arguing about proof or logic. So what do we do in this world that is at least in part post-modern?

First, there is no reason to live in fear of the post-modern world. Yes, there are parts of the post-modern view that is antithetical to faith, but there are also significant portions of the modern world, rational world that are also hostile to faith. One world is not better than the other. It also seems that the world of the early church was in many ways similar to the post-modern world, and that was a time of rapid growth for the church. It might be good for us to ask why.

In Acts 17 Paul is in Athens, and he decides to ascend Mars Hill and have a discussion with the philosophers who have gathered there. At the Aeropagus, where Paul speaks with these men, there were statues paying homage to the various gods that Greece had discovered in different places around the Earth. There was no god higher than another, or a particular god that was to be valued above all others. All were held in equal esteem, all were to be honored. In that collection of Gods was an empty pedestal dedicated to the unknown God, which Paul used as an introduction to tell them about Christ. In many ways Paul’s world is eerily similar to ours. In Acts 17 Paul talked in a room where all gods were treated equally, yet Paul told them about the one God, and invited those that listened to follow.

It seems that this is a model that we can follow. We live in a world where all beliefs, all faiths are to be held and valued equally, we are told. Someone tells us that “I am following my truth,” and we want to react with a rational, modernist argument. “No, you are wrong,”we are tempted to reply. The result of our new world is we either keep quiet out of fear of being branded intolerant, or we try to argue someone into submission. There is another way, and it is the example of Paul in Athens. All we can do is tell someone about our God, and ask them to follow, and we can be an example.

That solution has 2 potential problems with it. One, we are going to have to live in relationship to those around us. We may have to experience their hurt, and walk with them through some dark places. The second issue is that our lives must be able to bear up under the scrutiny of our witness. It seems the reason the early church made such an impact was their lives signaled to the world about the character of this Unknown God. I think we have a weakness there. I am not sure our lives bear the marks, the image of the Unknown God Paul spoke about in Athens. The good news with the post-modern crowd is that the ball is really in our court. If we will live what we say, then that will make all the difference.