Swinging like Monkeys

I was recently at a Bible study which had quite a culturally-progressive flavor. This culturally-progressive flavor allows for many ideas to circulate, often unchallenged, and this sometime results in heresy espoused. At this study, there were many important questions, opinions and truths thrown around, but little heresy suggested. This was surprising because of the increasingly popular tendency that not only fails to point out or condemn heresy but almost encourages its expression. As I see it, an ideal study according to our culture allows everyone to state their opinion and feel appreciated without condemning or putting one’s opinion over another. Not distinguishing between truth and error forgoes the uncomfortable necessity to claim absolute truth that would follow, and helps to avoid offense. Bible studies are finding it easier to meet these requirements, but this was ideal because it surpassed the minimum, and that is quite a rare thing in light of rising Biblical illiteracy. The convenience of this method allows people to take what they want or can, in a way conveniently non-condemning. They seem to be a perfect balance for those who have been Christians for 40 years, and those who aren’t even considering Christianity. No one is right or wrong, and everyone has a say. Therefore the non-Christian can be heard and the Christian also, and no one is the worse off for it. The problem apparent me is that not only is “no one worse off,” no one is the better off either. In the name of cultural relevance, everyone coming, choosing a passage and then discussing seems to be an improvement over the more distant sunday-school teacher trends. This ideally seems great- people will be able to distinguish between truth and error in their minds, and everyone will walk away owning their ideas. The reason it seems dangerously but inconspicuously unhealthy, is that it is a fairly new method and the weaknesses are almost imperceptible as of yet. But these trends are direct descendants of the modernist philosophy that grandfathered them, and are inherently flawed by the same cultural bias. Modernism would like to believe that everything can be established by foundation and method, and therefore the label of correct theological opinion goes to the most rational and intelligent among us. Those who have mastered enough Greek and Hebrew to be closest to the original Scripture, and those who know the correct exegetical method. So then if postmodernism has removed the method, which is exegesis, and the objectivity of knowledge, which in itself contains the need for knowing Scripture, and it removes the (modernist) solid foundation, which is the closeness to the Hebrew and Greek, than what is left? Opinions that gather around to discuss the Scriptures and go away personally inspired but not united in Faith, Lord or Baptism(Let alone other essential doctrines of the faith). This lack of unity and abandonment of useful doctrine and preparation is a handicapping weakness of the postmodern method. There are many Scriptures that contradict the self-glorifying, falsely seeming objectivity of the modernist, but there are many that would declare a foundation and method to be essential, and a plurality of perspectives(not interpretations) helpful and necessary, according to the New Testament. We must return to the cleansing affect of Scripture on our minds and hearts, so we can see in full view our biases and cultural weaknesses. It will not suffice to continue swinging blindly from one set of weaknesses to another, and all the while miss the blessing God has for us firmly rooted in the unifying effect of His truth. There are many truths to be overlooked without a proper study and method of exegesis, and on the other hand, there are many important truths and questions ignored if only one person has the ability to comment on the text. I would then postulate that though we might be gaining some ground in cultural sensitivity, we are losing more ground in what really matters, the uniting of God’s people around His truth.