Funda-gelicalism is Too Modern-Part Two

Last updated on: November 17, 2017 at 10:53 pm by Darrell Lackey

Funda-gelicalism is Too Modern-Part Two 2017-11-17T22:53:35-08:00 Darrell Lackey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In a previous post (here), I asserted that FG people are more modern than they realize. One reader responded:

“…As a Catholic working in an evangelical institution, I can see this very clearly, but I’d love to know more about what underpins it, aside from what looks like a need for certainty, being told what to do, and a real discomfort with complexity.”

There is much that underpins it, much more than I could put in even several posts, but I will tease out one area here where I think we can see this and it is in the area of apologetics. I will try to post more as to other areas in the future.

As we know, apologetics is that branch of theology/philosophy devoted to a defense of some belief, theology, philosophical framework, or reasoning.

What we note as “modernity” has many emphases and is not easily tied down to one source or time period. Like some, I think the harbingers of modernity probably lie in the 13th and 14th Centuries, with thinkers such as Duns Scotus. But as to FG people, we mostly think of the Reformation and the Enlightenment as providing the ethos of what we now think of as modernity or modernism.

Some of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment were that knowing whether something was true or not required certain “foundations” such as reason, empirical evidence, and scientific validation. And reason was seen to be something neutral, something unhindered by context or bias; it was something universal and available to anyone.

Any view seen to be operating outside these “foundations” was viewed as, at least suspect, if not certainly false. These foundations were the bar. One had to rise to this bar or their views were not allowed at the table of respected and accepted “truth.”

This was the field upon which one was expected to play the game, so to speak. And so, the FG people did. They tried (See Ken Ham: See here). They tried to show how their Christian beliefs were rational, scientific, and backed up by empirical evidence. This is especially true in the whole area of evolution and young earth creationism. It is probably the best example of FG people saying, no problem, we will beat you on your own field (So far, that hasn’t turned out so well…) The FG world wanted to make sure their views did not violate any of these “foundations.”

*James K.A. Smith put it this way:

“…too many Christians have bought into the modernist valorization of scientific facts and end up reducing Christianity to just another collection of propositions…knowledge is reduced to biblical information [just facts] that can be encapsulated and encoded…and so, in more ways than one, our construal of the Christian faith has capitulated to modernity…”

And, of course, this is why postmodernism is considered post-foundational. The postmodern ethos eschews so-called neutral, universal foundations, and emphasizes the contextual, narrative, perspectival nature of knowledge. Two reasonable, rational people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions as to their meaning because they each might inhabit differing narrative perspectives, even if both prize science, reason, and evidence. The presuppositions we bring to the evidence, the “facts” determine how we “see” and interpret those facts. And presuppositions, by their very nature, are faith-based, philosophical, core beliefs about ourselves and existence itself; thus, they cannot themselves be “founded” in some neutral, universal, empirical, scientific, objective manner.

For some reason however, the FG world and their apologists never received the memo. As *Andrew Davison notes:

“All thought begins somewhere, and there is more than one place to begin. There is more than one way to think, and no one way is conveniently marked out as better than all the others. Western philosophy came to see this over the course of the twentieth century. This was part of the collapse of the Enlightenment project, which had supposed there to be only one way to be rational, namely the enlightened way. This is a welcome collapse. It is a genuine advance to acknowledge more than one mode of rationality, as is the realization that all thought involves prior [philosophical/metaphysical] commitments.”

Unfortunately, the FG world seems unaware of this “collapse” and continues to try and make their case by a set of ground rules, foundations, that are particularly modern and hardly Biblical—and ironically, hardly accepted academically anymore—the very world wherein they wanted to find acceptance. Thus, they are, again, too modern and still mostly completely unaware of it.

For Smith see here
For Davison see here

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 10, 2017

Christian: Is Your Bible an Idol?

Next Post

November 28, 2017 Dining with the Devil

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2025 February 2025 December 2024 October 2024 September 2024 July 2024 May 2024 January 2024 November 2023 September 2023 July 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 December 2022 November 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which prophet called bears out of the woods to attack boys who mocked him?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaiah Elisha Elijah Samuel