Anabaptism as Worldview

[Mrs.Nisly]

James Sire argues in his book, The Universe Next Door, That naturalism taken to its ultimate conclusion is nihilism.

So since not everyone comes to that conclusion, it makes sense that post-modern relativism would be a reaction to it.

But something that makes me wonder about this comes from Sean McDowell, who was the keynote speaker teacher's convention we attended last fall in Wichita. He was talking about this very thing of relativism and how the culture today defines truth only by how one feels. If this proposition feels right to me, then it is true for me. If I can not validate it by how I feel, then it is not true for me.

One example of how pervasive this way of thinking is how much millennials preface states with "I feel...." This belief that truth is only valid if it resonates with how I feel, is at the heart of gender identity and all the other identities. Tolerance is only if you agree with my "truth".You may have your own truth but you must agree that my truth is equally valid.

So, my thought on this is that; relativism really a form of naturalism, because it comes from an assumption of a closed cosmos. In the way naturalism assumes that all that is real is physical, so relativism assumes all that is true begins with me (man).

[Josh]

Interestingly, nihilism is passé by now. If you stroll into a respected philosophy department trying to talk about Nietzsche, you're going to be pereceived as a first year student.

[Mrs.Nisly]

Well of course, who wants to think that their worldview is actually meaningless?

[Mrs.Nisly]

The third question of this world is: What is truly good?
The world's answer is that there is nothing good outside of ourselves.
Everything good is inside of ourselves.
"The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself."
Personal happiness is the highest goal.
This is called Individualism.

As DanZ mentioned, these three things are a tsunami against us and is extremely hard to not be swept with it, because as Steven said, "it is in the air."
But,"The best hope we have is to surround ourselves with other individuals...local people, as well as those who have come before, to stand against it."

Here he quotes...and I don't remember his name.

Unless our theologian has the inner fortitude of a desert saint, he has only one effective remedy against the threat of cognitive collapse in the face of these pressures: he must huddle together with other likeminded fellow deviants and huddle very closely indeed.

[Mrs.Nisly]

Now he defines an Anabaptist worldview is: a "Counter community of considerable strength and is therefore a means of God's grace for resisting the tsunami of moral pressure the worldview of this age exerts."

He defines Anabaptism simply as, "a heritage of faithfulness to God that can anchor our commitment to him."

Here is where he takes some time to discuss the the pairing of beliefs and values.
with examples"
Soverneighty of God/ Freedom of Man
Doing Good/Being good
Faith/Works
God's Kingdom and Righteousness/These things
Cart/horse

Then he discussed Idea Relationship models whuch I think might be hard to visualize without the power point graphics.
But I think they are familiar to us.
The Balanced Model; two ideas should be equal in value.
The Tension Model; two ideas are held in equal passion in tension.
The Knife-edge Model: two ideas converge with truth on the narrow edge of the apex.
the Ditch/Road Model;there is a road down the middle with two ditches on either side representing two ideas.
But where we have two ideas, one ought to be more foundational. So he presents the First things and Second things Idea Model.
First things is the core or foundational ideas.
The second things is the circle around the core ideas.

So in Matthew 6:31-33, the first things is God and his Kingdom and the second things is all these things.

We tend to make three mistakes.
Mistake One - Making the second things the first things.
Mistake two- equating the first and second things as the same things.
Mistake three- Separating the first things and second things. Second things are seen as evil.

So keep first things first. It may mean fasting from second things.
But,Keeping first things first also means we keep second things.

[Dan Z]

I'm wrestling with your idea that relativism is a form of naturalism...and am having trouble making the connection.

So, my thought on this is that; relativism really a form of naturalism, because it comes from an assumption of a closed cosmos. In the way naturalism assumes that all that is real is physical, so relativism assumes all that is true begins with me (man).

I think we agree with this: Relativism in the post-modern sense says that truth is relative to my point of view - i.e. that "truth" for me may not "truth" for you. It is a rejection of the meta-narrative - the story that is true for all of us. In a spiritual sense, it leads to a type of personal universalism that says that we all have our own path to God (or enlightenment or self-actualization or whatever).

We also agree here: Naturalism has been fairly adamant that 1) we live in a closed system with no creative/controlling force outside of nature, and 2) the truth can be discovered (if not proven) and tested via scientific method and reason.

However, in my understanding, these two viewpoints are in opposition in some important ways:

• 1) Post-modern relativism does not presuppose a closed system...but leaves the answer to that question open, while naturalism posits that nature is all there is. Practically speaking, I've found post-modern relativism open to all kinds of spiritual ideas and mysteries - a relativist will not deny you your transcendental experience - a naturalist will.
  
  2) Post-modern relativism rejects universal truth, a fixed morality, and the meta-narrative, while naturalism believes that universal truth can be known and observed via scientific inquiry, and that the laws of nature are fixed and immutable.

If I remember right, the relativity of the post-modern era came about as a rejection of the assertions of naturalism that the nature is all that exists, and that a fixed natural truth can be known. It was also a push-back to moral and religious certaintude.

I see both naturalism and relativism having at least one major thing in common - they place man at the center of what is known and what is knowable - as does individualism as well.

[Dan Z]

So, my thoughts here, if we reject the idea that the cosmos is a closed system, and believe that in fact, it is open and controlled by something or someone outside of the realm of human intelligence or reasoning, then that leaves open the possibility that this entity could well be governing even the very minutest detail.

I'm not sure I always function at this level of belief.

I'm not sure I function at that level either - and I'm not sure we should.

The existence of sin and entropy and dissonance and suffering within Creation tells me that God is, at a fairly significant level, allowing his created world to run its course. I think there is proof from scripture that he has programmed free will and autonomy into what he created, and that this autonomy creates a degree of chaos within the universe as the consequences of individual choice and sin ripple through creation.

The alternative possibility, "that God is governing even the very minutest detail" (including the existence of evil and suffering) is rather unthinkable, because it implicates God as a colossal mismanager at best, and sadistic at worst.

Now, if by "governing" you mean that God is overseeing things, keeping a watchful eye on his Creation, and intervening from time to time for the good of those he created and to advance his long-term goals, then I can go there.

I think I tripped up over your "very minutest detail" phrase.

[Josh]

I would argue post-modernism evolved from the contradictions intrinsic to naturalism. So the two are closely related, and our mainstream culture today consists of elements of both.

[Dan Z]

I would argue post-modernism evolved from the contradictions intrinsic to naturalism. So the two are closely related, and our mainstream culture today consists of elements of both.

Yes...I think that is what I was saying.

Naturalism and Relativism are definitely related in that one was birthed in reaction to the other. Both are strongly present in the dominant culture - and both are (in different ways) at odds with the Christ-centered worldview that Steven was promoting. As is the Individualism (Humanism may be a better term) that Steven pointed to as the third perspective that is dominant in contemporary culture - which posits that above all else "God wants me to be happy.".

In his first talk, Steven pointed to the "seismic shifts" in societal views like the acceptance of gay marriage (now a majority position - a shift of nearly 30% in 10 years!) as examples of the way the dominant worldview - particularly relativism and individualism in this case - acts as a tsunami in rapidly sweeping people along - including unprepared/ungrounded Christians.

[Wayne in Maine]

Consider this: Is Western Evangelical Protestantism fundamentally a product of a "worldly" worldview?