In an article on Christianity Today, Charles Colson writes
[Some Christians] think we should join the postmodern bandwagon’s emphasis on experience. One pastor told me that 10 years ago he could discuss moral truth with unbelievers, while “today I connect only on grounds of pain and compassion.” But connecting only at the level of feelings is a weak reed for evangelism.
Someone might “feel” right about Christianity?until those feelings change. And even a person who is drawn to Christ existentially has no context in which to understand those beliefs or the church’s moral teachings. Significantly, a recent Barna poll revealed that the most common basis for moral decision-making among Christians is “doing whatever feels right” in a given situation. This is why, sadly, Christians and non-Christians divorce at the same rate
I’m not going to get to his points in order. He says, “This is why, sadly, Christians and non-Christians divorce at the same rate” - which group of Christians is he talking here?
Postmodernism is a recent phenomenon. The oft-mentioned Generation X exemplifies the thought patterns, but postmodern believers are drawn from many age groups. I think it’s true to say modernists tend to be older and postmodernist younger. I contend that the divorce statistics that Colson quotes draw more from the modernist camp than postmodern. I think it’s far too early to start making generalizations about how long marriages last. Postmodernism is not a convenient hook to hang the ills of the church on!
He says, “connecting only at the level of feelings is a weak reed for evangelism” and I agree. Evangelism needs to impact (at least) 4 levels for it to make a deep effect: the intellect, the emotions, the spirit and the will. Individuals will differ as to what proportion of the first three are needed, but at some point they exercise their will in making a commitment to Christ. A debate at the level of pure intellect will be enough - just the facts - to convince some. Others connect emotionally with the message of the gospel. Others, like myself, will experience something of the Holy Spirit and this will ignite a deep hunger for the Lord resulting in conversion.
As much as it’s weak to connect merely at the emotional level, I also think it’s weak to connect purely at the level of the intellect. Modernist thinking says, “present me a logical, intellectual argument and change my mind”. Postmodern thought wants concrete proof that the intellectual argument is real, it’s not enough to think you can argue me into the Kingdom. I dont want to follow a dead god or a hollow (if self-consistent) philosophy.
He says, “a person who is drawn to Christ existentially has no context in which to understand those beliefs or the church’s moral teachings”. Perhaps if you look at this like a Deist or Humanist it might be true, certainly. Chuck is missing the fact that the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity, dwells within individual believers. It takes faith, but I believe that the Spirit of the living God will make the bible come alive to people. He will draw them closer to Jesus and bring glory to God. We’re told that the Spirit convicts the world of sin, thereby instilling the moral virtues that Colson suggests would be lacking. Furthermore, if a person arrives at a place of conviction / understanding on their own, it’s likely to be deeper rooted than if it was hammered in from the outside; if the Spirit of God instills biblical, moral virtue it ought to be lasting.
My basis for faith is that of the reformers: Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Sola Scriptura, soli Deo gloria. [Justification by faith only, by grace only, by Christ only, through Scripture only, to the glory of God only]. I believe in a living, powerful and altogether sovereign God who wants us body, mind and spirit. I believe that He will communicate biblical truth by any means necessary to draw us to a point of salvation and onwards into an ever increasing likeness of His son, Jesus.
