Is Truth Really Plural? Postmodernism in Full Flower – Albert Mohler (A Review of John R. Franke’s new book, Manifold Witness)
UPDATE (11/05/2009): [I do want to make clear that I have not read the book yet and so I am not authoritative as a source at all of anything that is contained within the book, nor would I presume to be anyway. My interest has definitely been peaked though and I will be reading it shortly. Looks like a great read and will give quite a bit of insight into this perspective I believe. I agree with and trust Mohler's analysis on a host of other things (including that of the emerging/emergent church, since I as well believe it to be a repeat of the same errors from 100 to 200 years ago) and I wholeheartedly agree with his contentions with the ideas presented in this book, since I agree with his analysis of postmodernism in this review and elsewhere.]
Once again, as the case has been time and again, I agree with many of the critiques and assessments of the emerging/emergent movement concerning where modern American, Western Christianity has fallen short. The Reformed faith shares many of the those same concerns. But, once again, as the case has been time and again, I disagree with the conclusions and solutions to those problems offered by emergents. Albert Mohler’s review of John R. Franke’s new book, Manifold Witness, captures those concerns quite eloquently.
Mohler agrees with Franke where there is agreement, but offers differing points of view on many of Franke’s key arguments asserted in his book. The theological arguments put forward by Franke are concisely and forcefully written, which presents an even greater challenge to those of us who hold to historic evangelicalism: more people will read this and be convinced of the “plurality of truth” assumed to be inherent within Christianty, which will open the floodgates for a dead, theological, postmodern liberalism to creep into more evangelical churches. (To be clear, theological liberalism is not equal to modern political liberalism, they are two separate categories.)
It is one thing when theologically illiterate pastors offer up their thoughts in the church’s discourse on these matters (thought certainly some have been quite influential despite that). Yet it is quite another when very learned, smart and knowledgeable theologians offer their ideas up. But it is an even greater challenge then especially when they do so in a way that lay people can understand. John R. Franke is exactly one of those people and Manifold Witness is precisely one of those works that offers such a challenge. Eventually those ideas trickle down from theologians to pastors and then to lay people. And it is for these reasons that Mohler confronts this head-on. It really does present a challenge to historic Protestant evangelicalism now and in the future.
Keep in mind, this is about debating ideas, not going after people, per se. I’m sure John Franke is a great guy. Arguments and words have consequences though. To sit idly by while ideas inherently hostile to Christianity slip in amongst us without a word of critique or disagreement is to (frankly, no pun intended) be unfaithful to Christ and His church and to go against conscience.
(It is sad I even have to say that. Maybe this has to do with the fact that most, having assumed and accepted postmodern views on tolerance, are now unable to distinguish between debating ideas (called public discourse) and attacking people? This was certainly the case with comments made on my reviews of The Shack. Good grief. It seems most believe these to be one in the same category and therefore we’re being “judgmental” in disagreeing with ideas argued so as to be accepted by the majority. For such people, this is true “for them, “at least in our postmodern context with an idea of tolerance that is really no tolerance at all, since the idea of tolerance assumes disagreement and a belief that others are entitled to disagree. But I digress.)
This is a great review of the book by Albert Mohler. Highly recommend it.
Hmm. You say very clearly that you have not read the book yet you dismiss it out of hand based upon the review of someone you trust. In the post you say that you already know that Franke is wrong based on this information which would lead one to believe that the only reason that you would bother to read the book was to more firmly establish the presumed strength of Mohler’s arguments. I cannot imagine how you could possibly give this work a charitible, let alone a fair reading, given what you state in this post. Additionally, you seem to have decided that those who may be sympathetic to the arguments Franke makes are not simply not part of your reformed theological tradition but not evangelical as well. Having read the book as well as Mohler’s review it is by no means an open and shut case that Mohler is correct in his assesment and in fact it may be the case that Mohler attacks a number of straw men and assumes the worst possible reading of Franke with scant evidence for such a reading. Words and ideas do have consequences and for that reason I think that you should read the book before dismissing it as so much postmodern pablum. You may still draw the same conclusions but at this point it is difficult to take your evaluation seriously and in fact you make it difficult to take any future review difficult as well since you have indicated there is little possibility that you would seriously engage the book on its merits. It is not sufficient to write clearly and succinctly if what you write about is wide of the mark. You obviously write well but form is no subsititute for substance.
Tim,
Thanks for commenting.
I want to be clear that yes, I have still at this point even
not read the book. However, I trust Albert Mohler’s analysis on everything else and agree with him as it pertains to postmodernity and the encroaching of New Liberalism in evangelicalism, the same errors being made from a hundred years ago within the postmodern context.
So yes, despite having not read the book, Mohler concisely summarizes ideas, and yes, I disagree with Franke on those points as articulated by Mohler. If he’s wrong on something please show me. I don’t know how much clearer I can make that. I’m not going to completely dismiss everything Franke has to say and will likely agree at points in the book. But I believe the overarching concern Mohler addresses of embracing a postmodern construct is hostile to the pillars of truth inherent within the proclamation of the Gospel (actual historical facts, truth claims that are either true or false).
Albert Mohler also has a great quote from the T4G conference that I think is key:
“One of the things we need to notice as we’re trying to understand the cause of theological disaster, and please listen carefully and consider this: it is almost always done at the hands of those who would claim to save Christianity rather than to bury it.”
I read back over my post and it sounds nastier than I meant it to. Sorry. Anyway, I really don’t necessarily want or need you to agree with Franke I guess it just struck me that you place such unqualified trust in Mohler’s analysis (I do think Mohler ignores or misses some significant qualifications that Franke makes that makes Mohler’s critique weak and directed at an issue that Mohler imposes on the work even though it may not necessarily be entailed by the work) My concern with your post is that if you decide up front that this is a postmodern construct and therefore by definition is flawed/wrongheaded you will read not simply critically, which we all should, but you will read defensively and look primarily for anything that confirms the original contention that the work is flawed on its foundation and its intention. Clearly you have a strong reformed commitment that will shape how you read and understand a work as will my theological commitments shape how I read and understand a work but we should work to keep those commitments from predetermining an outcome. So, again my guess it that you will not find Franke convincing and that is fine just don’t let Mohler decide for you.
Tim,
No offense taken my friend! I think you have an opinion on the matter and were simply expressing it. I don’t think it was nasty, you were just telling your thoughts.
My point with the post was mostly to refer to Mohler in the first place since I just simply agree with him. I gave my points of view as it pertains to the philosophy of postmodernism itself and the church’s response within this context, finding the emerging response to be well-intentioned (so were the initial liberals 100-200 years ago) but wanting.
I do want to read Franke’s work itself and come to my own conclusions. I always want to test whatever it is I believe by bouncing it off of other ideas and not merely relying upon the thoughts of others. I just frankly (sorry couldn’t help myself
) haven’t had time yet.
You do say something that I want to challenge though (an idea, not YOU per se
) … and the thought came out here:
“Clearly you have a strong reformed commitment that will shape how you read and understand a work as will my theological commitments shape how I read and understand a work but we should work to keep those commitments from predetermining an outcome.”
Yes you are right to say that I have strong Reformational presuppositions, if you will, that do shape how I view a host of things worldview-wise. And you do as well. As much as I know how, I have tested these convictions and believe them to be true, on the grounds of Scripture, reason, logic, and faith (Scripture and faith being primary, the rest in no particular order).
When you say, “but we should work to keep those commitments from predetermining an outcome,” that itself is the very essence of the modern relativistic assumption, that it’s even possible to come to a place where you have no presuppositions, or “presuppositionally neutral.” But that itself is a presupposition, one that is self-defeating. See Greg Koukl in this video speak on moral relativism. He addresses these key underpinnings of the entire system of relativism using the aspect of moral relativism in particular: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9219638402717265149#
This idea here is precisely what I mean when I say postmodernism, at it’s core, is fundamentally flawed on the grounds that it destroys the notion that solid truth can be known and thus creates doubt and uncertainty which is the antithesis of faith and belief, which themselves are presuppositions as well as a direct commands in Scripture. And inviting this thought into the context of the church, even with good intentions, is the same act in principle that those in the mainline denominations did 100-200 years ago (in the modernist context) when they merely started out by stating “well we believe these orthodox doctrines and thoughts but you don’t have to in our church or denomination.” That began a slippery slope that has gutted Christianity from Europe. Next before you knew it, it was, “we don’t believe these things.” And now with the advent of postmodernism possessing a faulty foundation once again, we are on par to repeat the same errors, not having learned from history while still even seeing its effects in the present day. That is what is at stake.
Sorry to bombard you with stuff, but John Piper does an excellent job addressing the issues at hand in many evangelical churches these days and where compromise on core historic points is fatal. http://www.davidwesterfield.net/2007/01/sad-irony/
Thank you Dave for your graciousness about my first post.
).
I don’t want to belabor the issue so let me just say that I never said you have to get to a place where you have no presuppositions or are neutral on issues. I agree that there is no such place and you might be surprised that Franke does not believe you can be neutral or have no presuppositions. I merely asserted that you should not, and I stand by this, approach a work with a predetermined conclusion in mind. That is a diservice to both the work and the reader. Of course we will filter the work through the grid of our worldview or theological system and I have no issue with that. However, you again drew a conclusion based on an assumption for which you have no evidence,(and this is the issue I have with you) that my position is the epitome of postmodern/liberal thought because I advocate for a neutral reading. I don’t advocate for that and I have not said I do if you read carefully. What you read as advocating for complete, relativism or neutrality was simply a warning to hold our views lightly/humbly enough to realize that we might be mistaken. In fact I said we must read critically and you cannot read critically without bringing to bear your previous understandings. You seem to want to find postmodern/liberal thinking everywhere you look and that is precisely the point I am making. Not everyone who disagrees with Mohler is a liberal and if it is the case that you believe that in fact everyone who disagrees with Mohler is a postmodern/liberal, a well intentioned destroyer of the true faith then you dismiss a wide swath of believers as enemies of the church and God. A heavy charge indeed and one you will find very difficult to defend in the end. I have been intentionally vague about my theological commitments not because I am ashamed but because they are beside the point I want to make which is about process not content at this point. Part of the reformed tradition is \Reformed and always reforming\ which means we realize we are never in full possesion of complete knowledge of God and so are always engaged in pursuit of God and deeper understanding. We cannot be always reforming if we believe we are already in possession of all that can be known about God. As far as what I believe goes, I afffirm the creeds, among which is, I believe in God the Father Almighty…(an all that follows not just the opening phrase
Blessings