I've been thinking a bit over the past couple of weeks about Michael's talk from Large Group before Thanksgiving. The thing that's stuck with me is the idea that Freud, Marx, and Nietzche broke the back of modernity and that their critiques of modernity can be helpful to our growth in faith. Did I understand what he was saying correctly?
So much of our struggle with faith in modern culture comes as a result of unknowingly or unthinkingly accepting the assumptions of modernity. It's hard for us to fit the Truth of God into the box of modernity, which, because of it's smallness, doesn't have room to contain this Truth. How can you rely on science and observation if you have a unique act of creation at the dawn of time? How can you have an objective observer if our ability to see the world has been corrupted by sin? How can you create a society of good men when the best man history's ever seen was crucified for his goodness? How can you exalt reason when faith requires response before all answers have been given or understood?
As we engage the academy, it's good for us to remember that the box of modernity is too small to contain God's truth, that some of these assumptions are flawed, and that we don't have to defend modernity to defend God's truth. I wonder how our engagement of post-moderns would change if we joined them in their critique of the limits of modernity, loved the Lord our God with all our minds, and spoke up with a little bit of Michael's "irascibility."