In 2004 Paul Feyerabend, a former philosophy professor at the University of California (Berkeley) boldly declared the following:
To those who look at the rich material provided by history, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please their lower instincts—their craving for intellectual security in the form of clarity, precision, ‘objectivity,’ [or ‘truth’]—it will become clear that there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes. [Science Rules: A Historical Introduction to Scientific Methods, p. 376.]
Here, Feyerabend presents the basic concept of the postmodernist when it comes to the unfolding history of all epistemology. According to the postmodernist, there have been many theories promoted as “truth” in the realm of science that were later discarded. Postmodernism believes that no scientific theory is ever neutral, that scientists will always have an agenda, especially a political agenda. They believe that old theories tend to die along with their proponents, while the new theories attract the attention of younger scientists who in turn promote their theories over the older ones. Therefore, they conclude that all scientific theories should be only considered a current theory until replaced by a new current theory.
With this subjective presupposition the postmodernists do not believe that anything, including so-called science, can tell us what is real; what is real is only what scientists believe to be real at that particular time in history. Because even scientific concepts are not immune to subjective currents in language and culture, no one can claim any scientific objectivity about the world. Reality remains only what is real to the subjective perspective of each individual—as a result, Feyerabend declares, “anything goes.”
The belief that “anything goes” has become not only the philosophy of contemporary secularism but also of contemporary Christianity, yea, even within the remains of Fundamentalism. This article seeks to give an overall view of Postmodernism and its pervasiveness in Christianity and in Fundamentalism.
The Postmodern Pope
As the largest identification in Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church has well entered into postmodernism. The Malachy prophecies refer to the current pope as the last pope, the one who will bring destruction to the Roman Church, the Antichrist pope. Many believed when this present pope took office this prophecy did not apply to him. Nevertheless, the unfolding of the papal rule of Francis has revealed the surprise and wonder of a postmodern Rome.
For many years the priestly order known as the Society of Jesus or the Jesuits has acted as the subtle power behind the papacy; they are sometimes called “the Black Pope,” the authoritative one standing in the shadows of the papacy. In a previous Straightway article (March-April 2015, “The Changing Face of Roman Catholicism,” Part 2), we presented the growing tension between the previous two popes and the Jesuits, the latter becoming Marxist in philosophy. This growing controversy boldly brought to the forefront one of the Jesuit’s own to openly rule from Peter’s throne. The papal throne has received a man who is the first of the Jesuits to rule. Almost from the outset of his administration, Pope Francis has been breaking down the “absolute” traditions of Romanism. He truly has become the postmodern pope for this present generation.
In 2013 Pope Francis had two interviews: (1) with the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro, director of the journal La Civilta Cattolicà (Catholic Civilization), and (2) with the atheist professor Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the leading Italian secular newspaper la República. In both these interviews Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis I) declared his principles of belief and expressed how he sees the current state of the Roman Church. It is interesting to note that there are conservative men in the Vatican who try to “handle” this pope and his bold statements by coming behind him and interpreting what he “really meant” when he gives his various speeches that seem to be contrary to the Roman Catholic tradition.
In his interview with Scalfari, Pope Francis stated, “Each of us has a vision of good and evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good.” This is a classic postmodern statement that has become viewed by many as the mantra (a Hindu prayer or invocation) for the postmodern age. The pope declared in this statement that each person must choose to follow the good and fight the evil as he conceives them. He also went on to state that everyone follows their own conscience, and it is “enough to make the world a better place.” One of the statements of the pope that caused repercussions around the world was, “If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him?” Some of his men declared that it was a remark that “slipped out on the spur of the moment.” But this was not the case. In the subsequent interviews with La Civilta Cattolicà, the pope not only repeated but amplified it by saying, “Spiritual interference in personal life is not possible.” This interview was published simultaneously on September 19, 2013, in sixteen magazines of the Society of Jesus, in eleven languages. Some considered it the first true “encyclical” of Pope Francis.
From his recent trip to America and the appointed places of his visit, words poured forth revealing that he truly is an eclectic pope who has the capability of blending the contemporary philosophies, religions, and worldviews into the subjectivism and progressivism to promote his postmodernism. His “pious” sympathy for all the religions of the world, his permissibility of sodomy (“Who am I to judge”), and the systematic, behind-the-scenes methodical dismantling of many of the traditions of Romanism have all given indication that he knows that to survive in the future Rome must change! The world will be seeing and hearing more surprising, shocking actions and declarations from this pope as his papal reign continues to unfold. He may be the one to dismantle the old and bring forth a new Romanism that will help assimilate the world religions in the future.
Postmodernism in Christianity
As has been already observed, postmodernism is without structure, without definitions, without language, and without established roots of history. It is very clear that postmodernism was born from the seed of existentialism, which does not believe in past or future, but simply lives for the moment, the present, and what is to be gained for the present.
The pervading influence of postmodernism into the institutional church became initially evident in the mid-part of the twentieth century; it came to a prominence in the 1990s, amidst a growing intense hatred for doctrine or anything that was established and grounded in absolutes and standards of living. When these changes took place, there was a strong movement for the churches to enter the “warm,” the “casual,” the “feel-good” services with less emphasis on the distinctive lines of life and living. More and more, the belief was in a “subjective” Jesus and what He was to the individual. It was all about “experience” and less of doctrine, subjectivity over objectivity—a religion not with words but subjective images.
The language used to describe this new Christianity seemed to give glory to God. Dan Kimball in The Emerging Church (2003) boldly states the following:
We should be returning to a no-holds-barred approach to worship and teaching so that when we gather, there is no doubt we are in the presence of a Holy God. I believe that both believers and unbelievers in this emerging culture are hungry for this. It isn’t about clever apologetics or careful exegetical and expository preaching or great worship bands . . . emerging generations are hungering to experience God in worship (p. 116).
Robb Redman, author of The Great Worship Awakening (2002), has made the observation that there is now a move to eclectically bring the liturgical vintage form of worship with the postmodern generation, using words, somewhat doctrinal, in the wrapping of contemporary music. Redman states, “A common approach to the worship awakening among Protestant churches is to create a blended service combining older and newer liturgical elements and musical styles” (p. 197).
Julie B. Sevig, managing editor of The Lutheran magazine, wrote an article entitled “Ancient New” (September, 2001); she made it clear that the postmodernists look for a sensual, experiential worship:
Post-moderns prefer to encounter Christ by using all their senses. That’s part of the appeal of classical liturgical or contemplative worship: the incense and candles, making the sign of the cross, the taste and smell of the bread and wine, touching icons and being anointed with oil.
Sevig, citing Leonard Sweet in his book Soul Tsunami, states the following: “Post-moderns want a God they can feel, taste, touch, hear and smell—a full sensory immersion in the divine.” Sevig also quotes from Karen Ward, an Emerging Church leader, observing the following:
Evangelicals are using traditions from all liturgical churches from Orthodox to Lutheran to Catholic . . . Though they have limited experience using their new-found symbols, rituals and traditions, they’re infusing them with vitality and spirit and life, which is reaching people.
An article written by Worship Leader magazine editor Chuck Fromm states:
We are now living in a post Passion of the Christ world. The extraordinary success of Mel Gibson’s landmark film, and the controversy that surrounded it, underscores in no uncertain terms how imagery shapes our cultural consciousness. The implications for the church and its service of worship, have been both profound and ambiguous.
Youth today are being brought up in a diversified age where everyone is accepted and all kinds of lifestyles are becoming the norm of living. More and more, the Church is accepting a variety of religious paths and permitting more and more of the lifestyles to be part of the “Christian” faith. With pastors like Joel Osteen and many others, postmodern Christianity typically views spirituality as a journey intimately linked with the pursuit of personal growth or development. A bettering of self becomes the definition of spirituality, not a relationship with God. Some have gone so far as to include a dash of Zen Buddhism and a dash of Native American religion to one’s nominal Christian beliefs. The postmodernist’s view of subjective religion encourages the blending of many lifestyles of religions, and we are witnessing Christianity becoming a part of this noted subjective change. All of the liberal denominations have for years drawn from other religions for their expansive introductions for their parishioners to explore.
Present-day Fundamentalism
A few years ago a son-in-law of a Fundamentalist leader wrote me believing that I had been too strong in an attack against a present distress in Fundamentalism. When I brought up historic Fundamentalism, he smugly and curtly replied that he knew nothing about historic Fundamentalism. When I responded that I would be glad for the opportunity to present its historical legacy, both in biblical doctrine and biblical separation, he sent back another e-mail and boldly declared that it did not matter what the beliefs were in earlier days; the important need of Fundamentalism was to become acclimated to the changes of the present need in Christianity. This was the response of a rising self-professing minister some forty years younger than I. It was clearly evident that though he resided in the buckle of the so-called Bible Belt, the circle of influence of this young man was that of Neo-Evangelicalism, yet with a new view of Fundamentalism, namely of a postmodernist persuasion.
It will be very difficult to find the “language” of historic Fundamentalism within the present-day concept of Fundamentalism. As we observed in the days of the birth of Neo-Evangelicalism, certain terminology may be used within present-day Fundamentalism, but the outworking of the practical methodology and standards are quite different and more identifiable with Neo-Evangelicalism.
The line of demarcation between Fundamentalist music and the sounds of contemporary music has now become blurred. The world’s sound is clearly present in Fundamentalism’s music, while the work of the cross in crucifying the flesh is not part of their evangelical message. The casual look has been part of the Fundamentalist “look” for several years now. The “crossover” is becoming the trend in every area of public display.
In fact, Fundamentalism no longer has a clear definition of the “world”; therefore, how is a Christian to be delivered “from this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4)? The world knows its own sound, even when it is in the context of professing Christianity, and the world will be naturally drawn to its own sound. The present musicians of Fundamentalism know this and hope that these will be the sounds that will make Fundamentalism in a new wrapping more attractive. It is still the old adage of using the Philistine ox cart to transport the ark of God.
Throughout history the world’s religions have all had their unique distinctives. Postmodernism believes these distinctives must be dismantled, all of the divisions of religion must be discarded, and all religions must become one in the promotion of humanity. Religion, in their mindset, must simply be a persuasion subjectively and not to be promoted outside the individual’s own mind. We are now at a time in history when such pressing demands have come to the Fundamentalist’s door. And only those who submit to this global demand of dismantling the distinctives, and even the approach to the Fundamentals, will survive the public arena of imminent religious martyrdom.
In the light of this global acclimatization of religion, one may ask the question: Is the Christian Faith in America growing or is it dying? Have we become like the Europeans who are moving toward the full abandonment of Christianity, or are we in America submitting to the adoption of a convenient and more comfortable form of Christianity? Perhaps, ultimately, we will come to be a nation of the abandonment of historic Christianity; however, it is evident at this time in our history that Christianity in America (including Fundamentalism) has adopted a more comfortable form and concept of its present interpretation of Christianity. Yet, in the end, both the abandonment of Christianity and the changing of it will simply prove the powerful impact of modernity on the Church worldwide, and then postmodernism will enter into the heart of the institutional church.
We must acknowledge that we have already moved into a redefining of Christianity and of Fundamentalism, and both are breeding a new form of Christianity which is not that of Scripture. The public Christianity has abandoned biblical truths and is in the transition of experimenting with other forms, including a variety of secularist perspectives, with the hope that a “neo” reformation (one accepted by all) will spring forth. We have yet to see the final new shapes that Christianity will take in the postmodern world to come. It must also be said that all of the religions of the world (including Islam) are in the throes of a postmodernist rebirth. Because of the fluid, elastic powers of postmodernism one cannot predict its final product. Not even the leaders of such a movement can predict where this contemporary ship is headed or what sandbars it will hit; but the thrill and excitement of this new venture are simply to be known in the uncharted, non-absolute waters into which the Church is headed.
Fundamentalism is now openly making friends with Neo-Evangelicalism, as we have witnessed in the recent visit of the president of Bob Jones University to Wheaton College, the old bastion of Neo-Evangelicalism.
And recently, Liberty University announced several revisions to its student handbook. This university was founded by Jerry Falwell, a Neo-Fundamentalist/Neo-Evangelicalist. Since his death, his sons have come to the forefront taking the ministry well into an open Neo-Evangelical context. The University continues to cast aside whatever standards there have been as it enters into the pressures of the postmodern times. Alexandra Markovich recently noted for the Washington Post that Liberty’s student handbook “The Liberty Way” is in continued revision:
Change is in the air at Liberty University: couples can now do more than hold hands in public without fear of fine, men can wear ponytails, and students can watch R-rated movies (with ‘caution’). . . . Liberty, the largest Christian university in the world, has relaxed its rules this semester to give its students more freedom.
She went on to also note that even the fine of $500 for practicing witchcraft has been removed from the handbook. These changes at Liberty are only a few examples of the many so-called “faith-based” colleges and universities that are radically changing and leaving their conservative roots. Kevin Roose, the news director for the Fusion Network, recently observed, “Liberty, like many other evangelical colleges and universities, is (very) gradually starting to resemble its secular counterparts.” While a number of professing Fundamentalist schools have closed down in the past two years due to finances, others continue. Will the pressure to acclimate to the contemporary bring greater changes to their already-growing secular appearance and manner? Will this be true of Bob Jones University in the next three years?
Postmodern Symptoms in Fundamentalism’s Music
The breakdown of music in Fundamentalism began with men like Frank Garlock and Ron Hamilton. Although lectures were being given against the world’s music by these men, the sympathetic spirit and sound of the contemporary were subtly creeping into their music. Tim Fisher, another Fundamentalist teacher and singer, in his book Battle for Christian Music, failed to strongly stand against contemporary music (as noted in a number of observations made in his chapter “Guilt by Association”). We alluded to this fact in our book Confronting Contemporary Christian Music. He drew from Romans 14 to declare that we must not be too hard on musicians using contemporary music. Romans 14 has nothing to do with music; music is not a “doubtful disputation” nor in the same category as food. Certain styles of music have a clear identification in our generation with the contemporary, “the world’s sound.” Fisher presented his Christian logic in a neutral position that added to the confusion which came into Fundamentalism.
Frank Garlock heralded the principle of how the church follows the world in its journey in “worldly music,” taking the place where the world was before it entered into a deepening of the worldliness. But my dear earthly father often observed that Mr. Garlock was helping to bring this about. Many of the eclectic styles of the world’s music were introduced to the Fundamentalist children through Ron Hamilton’s Patch the Pirate music. From this grey area entered years ago, Fundamentalism has now shifted further into the world.
In The Rise and Fall of Historic Fundamentalism, we made the following statement:
This grey area consists of a weakened message, a contemporary-shaped melody, a constant usage of suave dissonances, men singing pretty like women, women singing soft and sensual, dreamy surrealistic orchestrations, and the adopting of syncopated accompaniments.
This can never happen in Christian music unless the world has become a part “in heart” of the musician’s perspective of Christianity.
The list of influences on Fundamentalism’s music continues. Cary Schmidt, the Associate Pastor at Lancaster Baptist Church, the home church of West Coast Bible College, clearly identifies the crossroads that Fundamentalism has come to and the need of not looking back to the historical perspective of Fundamentalism but to the new perspectives that must be seen for this generation. In his book Music Matters, Schmidt implies that the Bible is not up-to-date for the contemporary since Paul was not preaching to kids with iPods. Like Victoria Osteen’s calling for the music in their service to bring God down among the people, Schmidt believes that the music will bring the transformation to the human being and even conform us to Christ’s image. He is a man that has led both the church and school into the CCM acceptance, even to the point of taking the hard, upbeat songs of the postmodernist, charismatic church of Australia, “Hillsong,” and introducing them to the present waiting (with anticipation) Fundamentalist movement, but mellowing the “hard, upbeat” to a more subtle acceptance for Fundamentalism. It is interesting to note that more and more, the world’s “look” in dress, hair, and thinking are all an integral part of the music being promoted today. More and more, “anything goes” is becoming a novelty to the young Fundamentalist crowd.
When I was growing up in the Pentecostal churches, musicians like Ralph Carmichael, Bill Gaither, Dottie Rambo (Jesus Only), and the quartets of Southern Gospel music were the norm. My dear father was in a constant battle against such music that eventually helped birth the Charismatic movement. But now the redirected Fundamentalist movement draws from not only these individuals (voices of the contemporary Christian music of the past) but also a new breed of contemporary composers such as Keith and Kristyn Getty, Stuart Townend, Bob Kauflin, Steve and Vikki Cook, and even Melody Green (wife of the late contemporary singer Keith Green). We must remember that these individuals are ecumenists, non-separatists from the world.
For several years now Fundamentalism has been enamored by the Celtic and Irish New Age sound. Even the newly-appointed president of Bob Jones University and his former evangelistic team strongly promoted Celtic and Irish music which is now brought into the broadening base of BJU music. The contemporary song of the Gettys and Stuart Townend, entitled “In Christ I Stand,” has now become accepted by all of the Fundamentalist schools and many churches. The Gettys’ website gives sad reality of the eclecticism of doctrine and the contemporary, both in their music and attire. They are viewed even by Amazon.com as being “at the forefront of the modern hymn movement over the past decade demonstrating the ability to successfully bridge the gap between the traditional and contemporary.” Bob Jones University is now using these contemporary composers, becoming the motivator and innovator for rapid changes in neo-Fundamentalism.
As the leadership in America has led us into postmodernism, so this school that once stood in the forefront of the battle against all this chaos of New-Evangelicalism has led Fundamentalism into a postmodern persuasion. Perhaps the leadership believes that this is their only way of survival in this new era of change. The rising young leaders in Fundamentalism speak of Christianity as being a “prism” with the many facets of color that must be accepted as the Gospel comes from different perspectives. Yet this analogy becomes a key to open the door of acceptability of contemporary Christianity.
Conclusion
Postmodernist thinking is rapidly making inroads into Fundamentalism. Such thinking for “anything goes” is also found in the casual dress that aggressively dominates the churches. American missionaries are introducing the “dress-down” look around the world in the native churches as they “dumb down” the souls of the people with shallow preaching, limiting accountability to God. Fundamentalism is more and more blending itself in with the world; they want to have no difference in their appearance. The formal attire of respect for God and His house has now become a thing of the past in Fundamentalism. How sad to see pastors in the pulpit with their “jeans” and polo shirt attire endeavoring to make worship more compatible with the world’s philosophy of the casual. The “casual” that entered Western civilization by the influence of John Lennon and the Beatles has now witnessed Christianity following suit. And now Fundamentalism is following in the footsteps of such thinking.
Another sad commentary of postmodernism in Fundamentalism is the seminaries presenting a variety of interpretations of Scripture, which has opened the door for the acceptance of many “subjective interpretations” of Bible passages. “Thus saith the Lord” of past Fundamentalism has now been given over to simply let the student decide which subjective interpretation he wants for his life. One interpretation is as good as another. This has been the normal approach of Sunday school teaching for many years as the teacher opens up the class for everyone to give their “opinion” and interpretation, with no resolve of absoluteness by the end of the class. This is raw postmodernism on the laity level of teaching.
Owning, reading, and carrying a Bible are biblical concepts being denied existence while today the Bible has lost its identity as “the Book” and is placed alongside of the many “apps” on laptops and iPads. Sad to witness even pastors use laptops and iPads as the pulpit Bible. The personal Bible held in the hand as a “book” is now viewed as antiquated and is mocked as being not up with the times. The Bible has become one of the many eBooks that is scrolled down for worship or identified with the teleprompters at the front of the church. Yes, the Bible has become nothing more than another part of the electronic age.
We blend Christianity in with our living, rather than change our living to be conformed to the Christian Faith. Is this “American” Christianity? Is this becoming the trendy Western religion around the world? Postmodern Christianity cares not to ask if Jesus rose from the dead, or if He is the everlasting Son of God. The questions that seem to matter to the churches today include (1) why does not the Christian tolerate all lifestyles of living? (2) why do Christians support warfare? (3) why is Christianity against sodomy? or, (4) why is Christianity against pro-choice or abortion? More and more, the Christianity of today is about questions of the contemporary rather than declarations of truth. The suits are gone, the ties are gone, the jeans and polo shirts are in for the preaching to the Sunday crowd along with the pulpits of wood exchanged for the acrylic, see-through lecterns. Yes, this is the “new” look of Christianity, the “new” Church, the postmodern church that is compatible with the innovative postmodernism of the times.
Even drinking wine and attending movie theaters have become accepted in many of the Fundamental circles. We have subjectively permitted all of these changes to be a part of Christian acceptance. At one time the intercollegiate sports were not allowed, but recent years have declared such intermixing with the world as “trendy” for the Christian colleges. It makes us more acceptable by the world. Such professing Christian schools cry aloud on the court and field, “We are witnessing for Jesus,” and the crowd goes wild with enthusiasm.
The Fundamentalist conferences of former days took their stand against the apostasy and warned the people of the apostate trends knocking on the door of Fundamentalism. Some may have viewed them as too militant years ago. But it must be acknowledged that there is no militancy in Fundamentalism today; such a stand is conspicuously absent in the meetings. Whatever distinction of life and message that may have existed in Fundamentalism’s past, today that distinction is gone. It has no distinction; it has syncretically blended with Neo-Evangelicalism, and has taken delight in doing so.
We are at the worst hour in human history for the sight of a true biblical Christianity. The Lord gave the question in Luke 18:8, “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Here, He was referring to true Biblical Faith. Christianity today has come truly to the time of the Judges, when there is no king and every man does that which is right in his own eyes. The Lord Jesus has been cast out of the End-time Church, and only the individual that loves the absoluteness of His Word “will hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
May there be such a remnant to come out from among this apostate Church Age, and be separate, touching not the unclean thing. To this group the Lord declares, “I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.” “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 6:17–18; 7:1).