Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World PDF

2 Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World Wave E. Nunnally, Jr. Introduction Historically, the responses of Pentecostalism to the challenges of liberalism, modernism, and postmodernism have been minimal and ineffective. Pentecostals have seldom taken the time to understand the origin...

2 Pentecostal Proclamation in a Liberal, Postmodern World Wave E. Nunnally, Jr. Introduction Historically, the responses of Pentecostalism to the challenges of liberalism, modernism, and postmodernism have been minimal and ineffective. Pentecostals have seldom taken the time to understand the origins and presuppositions of these movements. Their presuppositions, methodologies, and conclusions have usually been the objects of our derision and polemics, but we have yet to engage them where the battle can truly be won: the battlefield of ideas. In the past, we have reacted to liberalism in three ways. We have ignored it (“Rudolf who?”); we have made light of it (“And they want us to believe the whole Egyptian army drowned in six inches of water— right!”); and we have responded to their substantive challenges with simplistic sound bites (“God said it; I believe it; that settles it!”). The results of these approaches have been negligible. Because we have not won the war of ideas, the other side continues to set the agenda. They control the col- 53 54 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. leges and universities. They are the darlings of the print and visual media. They educate our sons and daughters. They write the majority of the textbooks, commentaries, and reference works. Recently, matters have only become worse. In previous generations, the liberal approach to Scripture “was in full display largely in their rarefied and theologically correct atmosphere of seminaries and elite universities.”1 Now, after decades of success in the absence of effective conservative rebuttal, liberals have become emboldened. John Dominic Crosson has noted: “[There was an] implicit deal—you scholars can go off to the universities and write in the journals and say anything you want. [But now] the scholars are coming out of the closet.”2 Richard Ostling has observed that liberal scholars are now in the midst of an all-out offensive, demanding that the general public pay attention to the way they think.3 This new offensive has taken many forms. A flurry of books such as Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (Crosson), The Lost Gospel, and The Five Gospels (both by Burton Mack) are popularizing a revised version of Jesus no orthodox reader of Scripture would recognize. When the major TV networks do “human interest” segments on Christianity (usually around Christmas and Easter), the reporters instinctively run to liberal scholars such as members of the Jesus Seminar (see below). On June 26, 2000, Peter Jennings (ABC) did a two-hour, prime-time “documentary” entitled “The Search for Jesus.” All but two of the scholars interviewed were of the liberal persuasion. Popular magazines such as Time and Newsweek regularly feature articles such as “A Lesser Child of God: The Radical Jesus Seminar Sees a Different Christ.”4 Even an average daily newspaper PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD may lead with an article headlined “A Controversial Work Rethinks the Gospels.” In this case, the subtitle was really no subtitle at all, for in bold, oversized print, the title continued, “Did Early Christians Put Words in Jesus’ Mouth?”5 Popular TV shows such as The View, Oprah, Seventh Heaven, and Touched by an Angel bombard the public daily with the worldviews of liberalism and postmodernism.6 On a recent episode of a primetime show a Christian Science couple was on trial for failure to seek medical help for their child, who died as a result. At one point in the investigation, one of the lead characters stated, “One guy’s faith is no more right than the next guy’s.”7 The point is this: A threshold has been crossed. Your deacons now have this on their coffee tables. Your Sunday School teachers read this in their newspapers. Your Junior Bible quizzers watch this on their TVs. It’s on the Internet, sitcoms, the radio. Worse yet, it has struck a nerve with the public. Not only does all this attention to “spiritual things” fit perfectly with the public’s heightened interest in spirituality; a nonauthoritative, non-exclusive gospel is considerably more comfortable to the nature of fallen humanity and the current “politically correct” cultural climate. As pastors, proclaimers, and parents, our work is cut out for us. The liberal worldview is dominant, entrenched, and strident. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Making light of it risks making us look like fools. And trite sermons with three points which all begin with the letter c no longer impress anyone because they often fail to effectively engage the issues. Our pews are now filled with parishioners who have adopted a postmodern mentality. Most are not even aware of it, but it is there. The average person on the 55 56 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. street, who may scoff at philosophy as irrelevant and vote Republican, is postmodern to the core with respect to how he or she understands the world and the nature of truth. Things have changed. We no longer have the luxury of a congregation that accepts what we say because we are who we are or because we have a Bible verse to hang it on. (Maybe this is a good thing!) Gone are the days when people in our community respond with an inherent sense of respect for us, our church, or the Bible. People inside and outside the church are a harder sell, and those of us who wish to communicate effectively to them will have to be better versed in what we offer. Admittedly, this was not our choice: The change was made without consulting us. How we respond, however, is our choice. How, then, should we respond? First, we must respond with sensitivity. We can no longer simply shrug off this movement with statements such as, “It’ll pass.” “That’s their problem, not mine.” “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” And “I never signed on for this—I’m just a simple pastor with a simple gospel.” Instead, we have to adopt the attitude that motivated Jesus and Paul (Luke 19:10; 1 Cor. 9:22): to pursue people where they are and to care enough to refine our method without changing our message. Looking at liberals and postmoderns as the enemy will be as selfdefeating as our previous indifference. They are not the enemy: They are the mission field! Second, we must respond with substance. In this new environment, clichés, sounds bites, and bumper-sticker theology will not suffice. No amount of stomping, spitting, and shouting will tip the balance back in our favor. Flights of hermeneutical fancy relabeled “revela- PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD tion knowledge” will not win the battle. We must begin to articulate a clear message backed by substance and the ring of biblical reality. We will also have to care enough about people to educate ourselves as to what they have come to believe and learn how to counter with life-giving truth. LIBERALISM The following is a sketch of the history and basic tenets of classical liberalism. (A more comprehensive treatment of these subjects may of course be found in libraries and on the Internet.) Some may question why as conservative Christians they should even waste their time. Graham Johnston answers: “Understanding the assumptions, beliefs, and values of your listeners will enable communicators to connect in areas of common ground and shared interest….[B]iblical communication to [this] culture should be approached in the same way that a missionary goes into a foreign culture. No missionary worth his salt would enter a field without first doing an exhaustive study of the culture he or she seeks to reach.”8 Therefore, we must educate ourselves about liberalism and postmodernism before we attempt to formulate responses to them. The liberalism we see today in science, politics, economics, morality, and religion has its roots in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.9 These movements awakened in man a renewed desire to understand his world. There were many positive results of these movements, such as modern science, democracy, and increased literacy. As with most movements, however, there was a downside. One downside was the tenden- 57 58 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. cy toward rationalism. The tendency was to “eliminate all irrational and disorderly aspects of life.”10 Human reason became the highest authority. Descartes taught that the primary aspects of human nature are autonomy and rationality. Sir Isaac Newton believed that the natural world functioned like a machine, governed by laws and perfect regularity; he believed it was possible to understand everything in the world through human reason. The next logical step was for man to see himself as the master of the world, able to improve both himself and his environment through technology.11 In this way man becomes the center of his world and his reality.12 These radical shifts in the way humanity, the natural world, and reality were viewed were inevitably applied to faith. David Hume and Immanuel Kant maintained that any part of Scripture which could not be upheld by human reason was invalid. Human reason eventually came to be seen as independent of and superior to divine revelation. The authority of Scripture soon began to suffer when human reason became the primary criterion for determining its legitimacy. After Scripture was demoted from its place of primary authority, its position was eventually given to “ongoing religious experience.”13 By 1799, Friedrich Schleiermacher was describing the essence of religion as “a certain sort of feeling or awareness.” He insisted that all legitimate doctrine ultimately rests on experience. Nancey Murphy notes that “[l]iberal theologians since Schleiermacher have followed him in taking human religious experience as a starting point for theology…[and thus] doctrine is to be evaluated in light of experience, never the reverse.”14 Existentialism is in large measure a reassertion of this PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD emphasis. Gene Edward Veith summarizes the three major developmental stages of classical liberalism in this way: “During the Age of Reason of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, many theologians jettisoned the supernatural teachings of Scripture in an effort to turn Christianity into a ‘rational’ religion. When the rationalistic vogue gave way to the emotional focus of the nineteenth century Romanticism, the liberal theologians changed their tune and taught that Christianity is a matter of religious feelings [and in this respect Schleiermacher was a pioneer]. After Darwin, Romanticism gave way to a trust in utopian social progress, and the liberal theologians said that’s what Christianity is all about.”15 In other words, liberalism is not entirely objective. Nor is it entirely static and detached from popular cultural shifts. Rather, it derived from, and has continued to morph in response to, trends that have come and gone in the culture at large. Protestantism in general and Pentecostalism in particular have seldom shown a discernable difference from classical liberalism in this respect. It should be noted that at this point, liberalism had made a radical departure from historic orthodoxy. The Christian church had always maintained that primacy of Scripture, and with the Reformation, Protestantism had asserted the cardinal doctrine of sola scriptura (matters of doctrine and practice are to be determined by Scripture alone). It should also be noted that throughout its history Pentecostalism has flirted with the tendency to determine matters of faith and practice on the basis of experience and personal revelation. This is clearly the trend in certain quarters today as well. The official position of the Assemblies of God, however, is articulated in the first of the Statement of Fundamental 59 60 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. Truths and reflects the position of historic orthodoxy and sola scriptura. The current trend should be cause for real alarm; history indicates that abandonment of belief in the primacy of Scripture was the first step toward theological liberalism.16 In this context, the historical-critical approach to Scripture was developed. Since human reason could not account for the supernatural, then divine revelation as the origin of Scripture could no longer be maintained. Soon Reuss, Graf, and Wellhausen were advocating a Pentateuch of purely human origin. Next, this approach was applied to the New Testament when Gotthold Lessing’s New Hypotheses Concerning the Evangelists Regarded as Merely Human Historians was published posthumously in 1784. His stated goal was to destroy “this hateful edifice of nonsense [Christianity]…on the pretense of furnishing new bases for it.”17 Once liberals made the claim of possessing the scientific, rational approach to Scripture, “Anyone who declined to play along with this game of hypothesis building, preferring instead to ground his thinking in the clear and reliable Word of God, was denounced as unscientific.”18 Eta Linnemann has noted, however, that the liberal approach to Scripture is more ideology (presuppositions) than scientific methodology. In Is There a Synoptic Problem? she catalogs the major figures involved in the beginning of the historical-critical movement and demonstrates that the vast majority consisted of philosophers and poets who were not trained in theology, biblical languages, and the like. Instead, they appear to have been motivated by a desire to avoid the obligation to adhere to the clear teachings of Scripture.19 PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD BULTMANNIANISM Perhaps the best-known form of liberalism is Bultmannianism. Rudolf Bultmann was most active in the middle of the last century. He insisted that the New Testament documents consist not of reliable reports of what actually happened or was said; rather, the New Testament reflects the message of the later church. Entire books, like the Gospel of John, were summarily dismissed as “unreliable.” The other Gospels were also suspect because they were all products of Hellenistic Christianity, which was chronologically, geographically, and linguistically far removed from the original events.20 For Bultmann, as for many liberals before him, the Jesus of the Scriptures “was mythologized from the very beginnings of earliest Christianity….[T]he early Christian community thus regarded him as a mythological figure….His person is viewed in the light of mythology when he is said to have been begotten of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, and this becomes clearer still in Hellenistic Christian communities where he is understood to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense, a great pre-existent heavenly being who became man for the sake of our redemption and took on himself suffering, even the suffering of the cross. It is evident that such conceptions are mythological, for they were widespread in the historical person of Jesus. [This] is part of the Gnostic doctrine of redemption and nobody hesitates to call this doctrine mythological.”21 Since the assertions of the New Testament about the person and work of Jesus cannot be taken seriously by rational, modern men, Bultmann raises this question: “What is the importance of the preaching of Jesus and 61 62 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. the preaching of the New Testament as a whole for modern man?” He answers his own question decisively: “For modern man the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer, and of redemption, are over and done with. Is it possible to expect that we shall make a…sacrificium intellectus [a sacrifice of the intellect, or reason] in order to accept what we cannot sincerely consider true—merely because such conceptions are suggested by the Bible? Or ought we to pass over those sayings of the New Testament which contain such mythological conceptions and to select other sayings which are not stumbling-blocks to modern man?…[T]he worldview of Scripture is mythological and is therefore unacceptable to modern man whose thinking is shaped by science and is therefore no longer mythological….Nobody reckons with direct intervention by transcendent powers….The science of today is no longer the same as it was in the nineteenth century, and to be sure, all the results of science are relative, and no worldview of yesterday or today or tomorrow is definitive….Therefore, modern man acknowledges as reality only such phenomena or events as are comprehensible within the framework of the rational order of the universe. He does not acknowledge miracles because they do not fit into this lawful order.”22 Therefore, Bultmann suggests that passages which attribute divinity and the supernatural to Christ be deemphasized in favor of Jesus’ high ethical and moral teachings. This process of sorting out that which is of eternal moral and ethical significance from religions and cultural overlays of a superstitious, pre-scientific world he calls “de-mythologizing.”23 Problems associated with this methodology are man- PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD ifold. One can easily note the connection to the exaltation of human reason (over divine revelation) and antisupernaturalism first observed in the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. Humanity and human intellectual ability become the center. The foundations of the faith are fluid, not fixed, and are subject to the “progress of man.” The methodology is subjective. Because there are no controls and all scholars are free to discard and keep what they wish, there is seldom universal agreement among them on any conclusion.24 The methodology is often arbitrary. For example, the presupposition is that the testimony of the New Testament is suspect. In addition, one of Bultmann’s primary criteria for rejecting a passage as “inauthentic” was the criterion of “dissimilarity.” If a passage is too similar to Judaism or too similar to practice or theology that emerged in the Early Church, it can’t be original and should be ignored. Darrell L. Bock has appropriately criticized this approach, noting, “Then Jesus becomes a decidedly odd figure, totally detached from his cultural heritage and ideologically estranged from the movement he is responsible for founding.”25 In this way, however, modern man had set up his own criteria to determine which parts of the testimony will be accepted and which will not. In the end, the version of the gospel that emerged bore a distinct resemblance to post-Enlightenment, liberal Christianity. Liberalism had refashioned Christianity in its own image. Conservative Pentecostalism, however, has often been guilty of the same transgressions. We have acculturated the gospel; we have used essentially the same hermeneutics; we have exercised a pick-and-choose approach to what we will emphasize. Worse yet, in many quarters, there has been a decided de-emphasis 63 64 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. on the person and work of Jesus in favor of His teaching. Moralistic, self-help, and how-to messages abound in our circles, while little time is devoted to the person and work of Jesus. One Assemblies of God scholar recently analyzed almost two hundred sermons preached from our pulpits. In 85 percent of these messages, there was absolutely nothing of substance about who Jesus was and what He did. It would seem that we have been as heavily affected by the culture at large as the liberals. They would have been happy with that status quo, and the drift toward greater and greater liberalization has continued. Are we willing to live with our status quo? If so, we will have to be willing to live with the fallout. THE JESUS SEMINAR Among the movements spawned by Bultmann’s approach is the Jesus Seminar (see “Introduction”). Scot McKnight has observed that the modern-day “Jesus Seminar is heavily indebted to the scholarship [that is, the presuppositions, methodology, and conclusions] of the post-Bultmannian[s].”26 These scholars are making many of the same claims originally heard from Bultmann himself. They see most of the material as deriving from the later gentile, Hellenistic church. Thus, they insist that the Gospels contain little eyewitness testimony, if any. The same anti-supernatural tendencies can also be found, such as the denial of true predictive prophecy.27 For Dominic Crosson, “Jesus’ deification was akin to the worship of Augustus Caesar—a mixture of myth, propaganda and social convention.” The virgin birth in Bethlehem and Jesus’ Davidic ancestry is “retrospective mythmaking.” PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD Luke’s birth narratives are “pure fiction, a creation of [his] own imagination.” For Crosson, the demon possession Jesus encountered was actually a metaphor for “Roman imperialism.” Crosson considers the Resurrection to be “latter-day wishful thinking.” In reality, he says, the body was probably consumed by dogs. Fellow Jesus Seminar member Burton Mack concurs. He states, “The narrative Gospels have no claim as historical accounts. The Gospels are imaginative creations.” For the Jesus Seminar, eighty-two percent of Jesus’ words are inauthentic,28 based on the application of criteria suspiciously similar to that employed by Bultmann. So what is it that the Jesus Seminar actually accepts? Teachings about “the holiness of the simple life.” They accept verses such as “Turn the other cheek,” “Love your enemies,” and “Rejoice when reproached.”29 In other words, the Jesus Seminar, much like their liberal predecessors, has latched exclusively onto the moral and ethical aspects of New Testament revelation. Before we dismiss the Jesus Seminar and their conclusions as too far out to be taken seriously, let’s remember the information discussed in the introduction. They have gone public, dominating most media outlets. Their message is now available for general consumption twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. They are not limited to 30 to 45 minutes each Sunday morning, and their audience numbers not in the hundreds or even thousands, but in the millions. Perhaps most importantly, their message “comports perfectly with the tendencies of what the apostle Paul describes as the old man.”30 The vigor with which members of the Jesus Seminar press their message requires that we take their challenges seriously. If we fail to engage them on 65 66 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. the issues, their opinions will win the day and, worse, the minds in the marketplace. POSTMODERNISM It cannot be claimed that postmodernism is the direct spiritual descendent of liberalism, Bultmannianism, and the Jesus Seminar. However, it can be said that these movements prepared the cultural soil in which postmodernism currently flourishes. Further, like its predecessors, postmodernism is not limited to elite intellectual and philosophical circles of our world. D. Lyon has noted that this worldview has affected “the earthy realities of everyday life…what people actually do at home, at work, at play.” It has touched every area of our lives: “the cultural, aesthetic and intellectual dimensions…[as well] as the social, political and economic ones.”31 How does postmodernism compare to its predecessors in terms of influence? Diogenes Allen states, “A massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is perhaps as great as that which marked off the modern world from the Middle Ages. The foundations of the modern world are collapsing, and we are entering a post-modern world. The principles forged during the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1780), which formed the foundations of the modern mentality, are crumbling.”32 David Buttrick describes the situation in similar terms, “[We are] in the midst of a cultural breakdown not dissimilar to the collapse of the Greco-Roman world or the fragmentation of the Medieval synthesis.”33 The changes underway are so drastic and the challenges are so great that Johnston notes that postmodern thought “is the main battleground for this century.”34 PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD Stanley J. Grenz explains the origins of postmodernism as “the quest to move beyond modernism. Specifically, it involves a rejection of the modern mindset, but launched [was birthed] under the conditions of modernity.”35 Craig A. Loscalzo has observed that the worldview of the Enlightenment was captured by Descarte’s famous dictum, “I think, therefore I am” (actually plagiarized from St. Augustine!). The worldview of postmodernism, however, could well be characterized by a slight but significant revision, “I doubt, therefore I am.”36 Further, Loscalzo notes that, reflecting the spirit of the times, postmodern thought is dominated by skepticism, pessimism, and suspicion.37 Postmodernism is skeptical of the faith which modernity and liberalism have placed in the fundamental goodness, reason, rationality, and objectivity of humanity. Having observed the continued wars and pollution of the earth, it is not convinced of the inevitability of human progress. Postmodernism is skeptical about the powers of empirical observation and the promise of unlimited technological progress.38 On the positive side, postmodernism enthusiastically embraces the subjective, the spiritual, and the supernatural—which modernism and liberalism summarily dismissed as “irrational” and “unscientific.”39 D. Howell has identified some of the primary characteristics of the postmodern movement: the value of self, importance of relationships, desire for community, concern for the world, tolerance, and commitment to spiritual pursuits.40 Thus far, it would appear that postmodernism is the perfect antidote to the excesses of modernism and liberalism. A closer look, however, reveals the problemat- 67 68 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. ic philosophical presuppositions which underlie the movement. Howell states that the emphasis on the value of self has led to poor choices in the area of morals and ethics in general and sexuality in particular. Concerning the importance of relationships, emphasis on image and greater peer pressure have also been a negative factor. While concern for the world can lead and has led to positive expressions such as advocacy for equality, fairness, and human rights, it has also fueled extremist animal rights and environmental movements. “Tolerance” is not merely allowing competing views to exist and be heard; it is insistence that no view is any better than another. To the postmodern mind, all positions must be accepted as equally valid. This is nowhere more evident than in spiritual matters, where it is just as legitimate to seek answers in astrology, native religions, shamanism, or Wicca as in western religious expressions.41 What would cause such an overthrow of the philosophical underpinnings of western civilization? The basic premise of postmodernism is that “relativism rules.”42 The concept of absolute truth is completely rejected.43 Truth is relative. Instead of truth being an objective, external reality, it is merely a belief in the mind of its holder. Therefore, one person’s opinion is as valid as another’s,44 and each person becomes his or her own authority.45 This is not only the case with respect to the details; it is also true with respect to the big picture, the “metanarrative” (that is, the story that “makes sense out of it all”).46 To postmoderns, the metanarrative is merely the view of those in power used to keep those out of power in check.47 All these characteristics and beliefs directly influence how our culture has come to understand the church, PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD the Scriptures, and the faith. With respect to the influence on the church, pollster George Barna recently reported that sixty-two percent of “born-again Christians” no longer believe in objective truth.48 Lyon has observed that “modern outlooks and lifestyles are now taken so much for granted that many religious people do not even realize that they are influenced by or colluding with a system that may in some important ways be inimical to their faith commitments.”49 Similarly, Loscalzo has noted, “[I]t’s obvious that church people have not escaped the effects of relativism….Our current context is permeated by the postmodern worldview.”50 According to the Barna poll cited above, the percentages of those who accept postmodern views show little difference between those who claim to be “born again” and those who don’t.51 Confronted by these realities we are forced to agree with D.A. Carson that most Christians have been so heavily influenced by postmodern culture that no thoughtful preacher can afford to ignore the problem.52 Johnston sounds the same note: “[T]he postmodern mindset is not exclusive to the unchurched. It’s shared by those folks who fill church sanctuaries each Sunday….[M]any pastors would be surprised at how postmodern some longstanding members seem. Postmodern thinking creeps into our lives not necessarily through conscious choices but through a steady bombardment via movies, magazines, song, and television. Our congregations gather each Sunday and nod at the appropriate spots in the sermon, but in their hearts many parishioners hold deep-seated beliefs and values more in keeping with a postmodern worldview than with a biblical one.”53 69 70 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. As for the Scriptures, postmodernism has been less kind than modernism and liberalism. Previous movements were simply selective; postmodern thought questions the legitimacy of the whole. Further, this has nothing to do with liberal objections on historical or text-critical grounds. Rather, postmodern rejection of Scriptures’ authority rests on dismissing the very concept of absolute truth itself.54 To the postmodern, the message of Scripture is no more eternal than a fleeting e-mail message. Further, it must compete with a plethora of other messages, having no more right to be heard than the next.55 The Bible is often placed on equal footing with other sacred books such as the Koran and the Hindu Vedas. Even those who tentatively accept biblical authority quickly fall back on “That’s your interpretation, not mine,” when the message of Scripture runs contrary to the postmodern worldview.56 This can be seen in Christian and non-Christian circles, among laity and clergy alike. Loscalzo has observed that “people subjectively interpret Jesus according to their immediate personal needs and presuppositions. If your bent is psychology, then Jesus looks like the great therapist. If you lean toward social action, Jesus becomes the divine social activist. If you are a feminist, Jesus sounds like the keynote speaker for the National Organization for Women. If you are an evangelical, Jesus becomes the local director of Promise Keepers.”57 In other words, postmodern thought has so affected proclamation in the church that some pulpits are actually promoting, rather than confronting, the movement in its rejection of absolutes. We fear sounding “judgmental,” “doctrinaire,” “divisive,” “fundamentalist,” and “irrelevant,” so in the words of Loscalzo, “our ser- PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD mons become mundane chatter about raising self-actualized children or coping with the latest midlife crisis or providing five easy steps for managing anxiety.”58 Thomas C. Oden notes that evangelicals are looking more and more like the old liberals. Less and less is being heard from our pulpits about the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the sinful human nature, and the need for redemption. We hear more about the goodness of God than we hear about God’s willingness to judge mankind in its rebellion against Him. He observes, “We have peeled the onion almost down to nothing. We have cheated our young people out of the hard but necessary Christian word about human sin and divine redemption.”59 Loscalzo reports a conversation with the pastor of a “fairly successful seeker-based congregation” who explained: “We never mention the crucifixion of Christ. It’s too gruesome for a lot of our folk. If we talked about that, many would stop coming, so we focus on the resurrection instead. The resurrection of Jesus is a positive hopeful message.”60 Loscalzo’s commentary on this conversation hits the nail squarely on the head: “[W]hen we allow the subjectivism of our hearers to undermine the objective realities of Christian faith, haven’t we violated the integrity of the gospel? We’d be better off staying quiet and letting the rocks preach than to offer a version of Christianity so diluted that it becomes unrecognizable.”61 In this general trend toward the subjective, Johnston has detected a particularly large shift in the way sin and self are discussed. He states, “[The] shift from sin to self-image reflects a move not just in society but in the church. We have replaced a fundamentally theological perspective with a psychological approach to life 71 72 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. and the world. Sadly, much of what passes as biblical preaching is nothing more than pop psychology wrapped in poor exegesis.”62 He concludes that the church desperately needs to help its people develop a truly biblical view of self and a truly biblical worldview.63 Further, Johnston rightly observes that this subjectivist approach to the Scriptures has generated a slip in the morality of the church. He cites the example of former President Bill Clinton, who was asked in an interview how he reconciles his acceptance of the authority of Scripture with his acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. His response was predictable: It’s all a matter of personal interpretation!64 Another example of this same mentality is seen in a recent front-page story of a newspaper in the Midwest (some would say the Bible Belt). The story begins, “Louie Keen says it’s possible to be a good Christian and operate a porn store and a strip club.” Despite owning and operating “an exotic dance club, adult novelty shop, tattoo salon, and packageliquor store,” the owner declares, “I’m saved! I’m washed in the blood of Jesus Christ.” How does he reconcile this disparity between his belief system and his behavior? In perfect postmodern form: “[M]y personal relationship with Jesus has nothing to do with this here [referring to his multi-acre complex].”65 Unfortunately, he is another victim of a worldview which facilitates “cognitive dissonance” (simultaneously holding two contradictory positions), dichotomizing thought and action, belief and behavior. Johnston predicts continued problems in the areas of morality and justice should these trends continue unchecked. He appropriately warns that any sense of community, indeed, society, cannot survive without some commonly held sense of PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD decency and right and wrong. Lyon concurs, stating that the lack of universals causes even the most basic and time-tested virtues (such as heterosexual monogamous marriage) to suffer.67 Because the Scriptures have been abandoned as either the source or a source of authority, postmoderns look for that authority elsewhere. A. H. Anderson has observed, “[Postmodernity has] rejected both modernity’s scientific objectivity and premodernity’s traditions [including the authority of the Bible] and have emphasized the validity of subjective religious experience.”68 Grenz agrees, noting that truth is not certain, objectivity is not possible. There are paths to knowledge better than reason, namely, “the emotions and the intuition….[R]eality is relative.”69 The situation described above indeed appears bleak; unfortunately, a further element renders it dire. At the very time when society at large has abandoned objective, absolute truth and is in need of the prophetic voice of the church to call it back to its senses, the church has run headlong into the same error. Time and again we hear preachers make their own subjective spiritual experiences normative. Our home Bible studies often devolve into “this is what the Bible means to me” sessions. A colleague once asked me, “How can I deny my own experience?” I told him, “Do what Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell should have done—hold up your experience to the scrutiny of Scripture.” A few years back at the height of Rodney Howard-Browne’s popularity, a pastor told me, “On the basis of my experience, I will never read Acts 2:4 and Ephesians 5:18 the same.” The statement of Jack Deere, former Dallas Theological Seminary professor-turned-Charismaticpreacher—”God is bypassing the mind to get to the 66 73 74 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. heart”—has been embraced in many Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Just a few years ago, speakers in national forums were saying that there were certain teachings and experiences that were not to be judged according to Scripture. These few examples are classic cases of putting the cart before the horse. If the checkered histories of the Gnostics, the Montanists, the medieval mystics, and some other groups tell us anything, it is that experience is to be understood in light of Scripture and not vice versa. They also suggest the degree to which believers can be shaped by the very culture they should be shaping. A healthy emphasis on experience becomes unhealthy when it comes to function as an unquestioned source of authority, equal, and sometimes superior, to the authority of the Bible. In this is it possible for a Spirit-baptized believer to commit the same error made by the liberal and postmodernist? RESPONSES In light of the state of the culture and the church, how will we as Pentecostal proclaimers respond to these challenges? Indeed, will we respond, or will our response be to continue with business as usual? C. Trueman has observed that “the future of the various movements which constitute Protestantism will be determined by their response to the issues raised by postmodernity.”70 Chuck Colson calls for action: “We cannot content ourselves with business as usual, preaching soothing sermons to a shrinking number of true believers.”71 Loscalzo states the matter even more emphatically: “For Christians to assume they can do business as usual and remain a player in the world of multiple religious options bor- PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD ders on the ridiculous.” Johnston therefore offers this challenge: “The church can choose to bury its head in the sand or, equally disastrous, attempt to turn back the clock to the good old days. Neither option works. The former is unadvisable and the latter impossible….The way forward for the Christian faith will be for evangelical Christians to stop shrugging or twitching at the mention of postmodernism, and get on with engaging the culture with God’s timeless message in a critical and thoughtful manner.”73 If we are to accept Johnston’s challenge and if we are serious about influencing our world, it will require a number of adjustments and a considerable amount of hard work. The following list of changes that will have to take place provides only a starting point. If these foundational (and therefore more difficult) changes are made, then the other related issues that surface will be more easily dealt with. 72 Reestablish the Primacy of Scripture Johnston has noted that a primary responsibility of the proclaimer today is simply to compel people to take the Bible seriously again.74 According to author Michael J. Hostettler, the modern preacher can no longer presume that his hearers accept the Bible as relevant; rather, now they must be able to demonstrate it.75 Once the minds of hearers are convinced that the Bible is important and relevant, Loscalzo states that the next step is to convince the hearers that the Bible is the basis for faith.76 In order to make these claims, we ourselves must first be convinced of the reliability, sufficiency, and primacy of Scriptures.77 We must recall that Pentecost began as a back-to-the-Bible movement that took biblical revelation seriously enough to believe that it 75 76 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. describes what God still does. As recent, numerous resolutions and Spiritual Life Committee reports have called for, we must do more than give mental assent to the first of our Statement of Fundamental Truths. We must actively place the Word of God at the center of who we are, what we say, and what we do. The Scriptures as our eternal, objective authority is the antidote to the subjectivism, relativism, and existentialism of this age. As stated above, it will require that we return to our original Pentecostal roots and reject the idea that experience trumps Scripture in matters of faith and practice. In the official publication of the Azusa Street revival, William J. Seymour stated, “We are measuring everything by the Word, every experience must measure up with the Bible. Some say that is going too far, but if we have lived too close to the Word, we will settle that with the Lord when we meet him in the air.”78 Besides emulating Seymour, we will have to shift emphasis away from ourselves as authority figures and back onto Scripture, where it belongs.79 When we show ourselves as human, fallible, and transparent, we become role models of total dependence on the Word of God, and people quickly get the picture. To do otherwise will continue to alienate a postmodern culture, which “despises the arrogance of [pastoral] infallibility.”80 Further, we will have to renounce our faith in “the Gospel of Pragmatism.” Loscalzo states that many preachers have toned down their messages to suit the new sensitivities of their hearers, hoping to avoid running them off to mega churches.81 Another side of the tendency toward pragmatism is discussed by Johnston: “When you know the right switches to flip, you may be tempted to preach in order to garner a response. But PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD just because something works doesn’t make it right or biblical. A preacher may completely mishandle a text, close with a heart-wrenching story of a boy and his dog, and have people repenting up and down the aisles. [However,] effectiveness must be understood in terms of bringing the listeners to a clear appreciation of the biblical message.”82 Therefore, the issue is not what works or what gets results; rather, our first priority must be what pleases God and what honors His Word.83 I attended a national conference in the mid-90s. One seminar was begun by a nationally known authority on youth ministry with this question, “Do you want to know what really works in youth ministry?” This is exactly the right question for corporate America, but runs exactly in the opposite direction of biblical Christianity. For the Christian minister, when evaluating a priority, a plan, or an emphasis, the question to be asked is, “What will please God, reflect His character, honor His Word, respect His people?” Too often we have taken on the modus operandi of the business world, reflected in statements such as, “If it works, use it,” and “With these results, God’s blessing must be on it.” If this attitude is correct, then it must also apply to slavery, herding Native Americans off their lands and onto reservations, and to Nazism. All of these approaches to dealing with people succeeded…for a while. All, however, dishonored the character and will of God as expressed in His Word. While each seemed to work, they all violated eternal principles, and eventually fell under their own weight, leaving only destruction. We must recommit ourselves to do God’s will God’s way, and this can happen only when God’s Word is the center of who we are, what we 77 78 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. do, and how we do it. Another sacrifice that will have to be made to reestablish the Scriptures as the center of who we are is our emphasis on entertainment. Howell has observed that in an attempt to address the problem of declining attendance, many churches have resorted to an entertainment-oriented format to attract more people. With this approach, however, comes “the risk…of following the culture, elevating style over content, and providing yet another ‘experience.’”84 Trueman has noticed the same trend: “The shift away from pulpit-centered worship, with its emphasis on words…to more corporate and experiential emphases can itself be seen as a part of the more general shift away from verbal-literary to a visual orientation in contemporary western culture….Th[is] change in emphasis upon the word in Protestantism has also affected the position of the Bible.”85 Throughout the course of the last quarter of a century in which I have been involved in Pentecost, there has been an overall decrease in the amount of time devoted to the preaching of the Word in church services. In the 1970s, it was not unusual to hear 45- to 60-minute sermons. In critique of mainline denominations, Pentecostal preachers would often say, “Sermonettes produce Christianettes,” and the like. Interestingly, such statements are no longer heard in our circles. The primary reason for this is that our sermons are often as short as those we used to critique, if not shorter. We have opted for a plethora of other emphases, including extended and often repetitious song services, drama, skits, human videos, and interpretive dance. Not content with a special at offertory, churches often feature an array of vocal and/or instrumental solos that PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD rival many variety shows. In such contexts we as leaders are often the most to blame for promoting a performance or entertainment mentality. To be sure, this is unintentional, but when we encourage clapping in response to ministry instead of a verbal, biblical response such as “Amen” or “Praise the Name of the Lord,” hearers naturally connect this to the typical response to live entertainment. Likewise, use of terminology such as “stage” (versus “platform”) and “audience” (versus “congregation”) sends messages to our hearers that frame us as “actors,” them as “spectators,” and church as “entertainment.” All these expressions of worship are fine in and of themselves. In the current environment, however, the proclamation of the Word of God has suffered as a result, and this has in turn resulted in a weakened church and a diminished view of Scripture. Johnston alerts us to an unfortunate development: People in the postmodern world “tend to confuse truth and entertainment.”86 Therefore, we should not construct our services in such a way that they exacerbate that confusion. And why further abbreviate the already limited time we have to influence our hearers with the Word of God? Our culture gets the other 167 hours of each week to influence them. It is incumbent upon us to make the very most of this one hour that is allotted to us. In determining what we will prioritize in our services, we should keep in mind the concerns of Doug Webster that “while marketers seek popularity…[w]e are becoming secularized by the culture we are trying to reach with the gospel….Loss of…popularity should not concern a church that ought to be more worried about losing its soul than about gaining the whole world.”87 To reach our culture with the liberating mes- 79 80 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. sage of God’s Word, it is imperative that we reemphasize the ministry of proclamation. Don’t Compromise the Message According to Ravi Zacharias, “Every generation will try to get [preachers] to change the message.…We are called to be faithful to our calling in the Word.”88 Johnston reminds us that we can ill afford to become so pragmatic that we accommodate our message to modern sensitivities.89 Lesslie Newbigin warns against “allowing the world to dictate the issues and the terms….[When] the world is not challenged at its depth [it] absorbs and domesticates the gospel and uses it to sacralize its own purposes.”90 Given liberalism’s questions and postmodernism’s lack of absolutes, our culture is crying out for a clear, confident testimony based on the facts, which has always been the strength of Christian witness (1 John 1:1-3).91 More specifically, in light of the pluralism of today’s religious environment, it is absolutely essential that we press the exclusive claim of Christianity to be the truth. We must argue effectively and persuasively for the uniqueness of Jesus as the only means of atonement and the only way to the Father. Loscalzo states that “our effectiveness…will stand or fall on our ability to defend this claim.”92 Recommit Ourselves to Christocentric Preaching Practically every evangelical author writing on the subject of how to affect modernism and postmodernism shares this common thread: We must return to Christ–centered preaching. On this point, Loscalzo is insistent: “Jesus Christ should be the subject and object of Christian preaching. He should certainly be the central figure of our…sermons. Apologetic preaching PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD should be Christocentric. The complete and full measure of Jesus Christ remains crucial if our apologetic endeavors are to be faithful [to the Word]. I have heard of some seeker-targeted churches—some, not all—that have removed all vestiges of the cross, both physical and verbal, from their gatherings. No mention of Jesus’ suffering or death is ever made. They say they don’t want to offend seekers with a concept as gruesome and offensive as crucifying someone….[T]his kind of practice…could be called deception.”93 To be sure, the cross of Christ is as much a “stumbling block” and “foolishness” today as it was two thousand years ago, but it is still the greatest expression of the power and wisdom of God that the world will ever know (see 1 Cor. 1:23–24). It was this message, so antithetical to the world of that time, that the first-century church preached with unflinching fidelity. God honored it, and it was this message that “turned the world upside down.” Return to Substantive, Reality-based Proclamation Thoughtful messages—messages with real substance—are what our liberal, postmodern world cries out for. Johnston has observed that people have become accustomed to being lied to and manipulated and calls on ministers of the gospel to do the opposite, helping our listeners know that we have nothing to gain by deceiving them.94 In addition, modern listeners want reality. Gen-X author Dieter Zander adds, “Don’t give me six easy steps to keep joy in my life. I know life is not easy.”95 Loscalzo elaborates: “Timid sermons that dismiss sticky issues of Christian faith, sermons that water down the demands of the gospel, pabulum preaching pleasing to people’s ears but unable to offer 81 82 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. transformed lives will be transparent to the skeptical lenses of postmodernity….More than anything, the postmodern world expects authenticity. If our preaching offers anything less, for God’s sake let us shut up and let the stones themselves cry out.”96 Time has long past for us to shed our clichés, theatrics, emphasis on style over content, over-emphasis on the messenger, and get back to the basics of the message. In the last analysis, it is not our performance but the eternal message of the gospel that truly transforms lives. Rediscover the Importance of Apologetics Today, true apologetics (defending the tenets of orthodox faith) has fallen on hard times. Theology and doctrine are de-emphasized. It is not polite to be confrontational, and it is “politically correct” to show proper respect to those who think or believe differently. No one wants to appear “judgmental” or be labeled a “heresy-hunter.” While this may be true today, it has most assuredly not been the case throughout the course of Christian history. From Jesus (Matt. 23) to Paul (Acts 17 and 22; Phil. 1:7) to John (Rev. 2:14,15,20) to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, and Francis Shaeffer, Christian leaders throughout the ages have humbly yet powerfully confronted other religious systems and argued for a hearing for Christianity’s unique beliefs. Authors who write on the subjects of liberalism and postmodernism are calling for a revival of the apologetic ministry in Christian pulpits today. They see this as a necessity for successfully meeting the challenge of communicating the gospel to today’s culture. For example, Loscalzo states: “[I]n the current cultural climate of pluralism and relativism—what one might call a neo-pagan culture—the ground for evangelism will have PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD to be properly furrowed and prepared by effective apologetics….For the third millennium, apologetics and evangelism must go hand in hand.”97 This is because “[a]pologetic preaching unashamedly takes on rival meaning systems and helps address obstacles to faith. The smorgasbord of religious options open to postmodernists rivals the array at any cafeteria. Other religious systems—Islam, New Age, varieties of Eastern cultic religions—unapologetically vie for postmodern people’s attention and allegiance. Apologetic preaching equips Christians, intellectually and spiritually, to intelligently present and defend the Christian faith. [For the unbeliever,]…apologetics creates a climate favorable to faith.”98 As noted above, however, “[f]or Christians to assume they can do business as usual and remain a player in the world of multiple religious options borders on the ridiculous.”99 We are reminded by the apostle Peter that this is not an option: “Always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15).100 Emphasize Education Apologetics and thoughtful, substantive sermons are rare today, perhaps because they require hard work. We preachers often object that we are not theologians or apologists—but we will have to be if we want to engage today’s audience. Citing George Hunter III, Johnston relates that most people today “doubt the intelligence, relevance, and credibility of the church and its advocates.”101 Fifty years ago ministers were usually the most educated people in their community. This is not the case today. In many communities they are below 83 84 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. the average educational level. In any event, people are reading and thinking for themselves. They are influenced by far more voices claiming authority than the voice of the minister alone. It is time we preachers upped our game. Modern listeners expect and demand that communicators be widely informed.102 It is no longer enough to simply know one’s Bible. We must also be familiar with the issues and concerns confronting us in this culture. Johnston notes, “It’s a shame when fellow preachers write off even the attempt to engage our culture and state, ‘Why bother?’ It’s deemed a waste [of time] to [do outside reading].”103 The unsaved world, however, does not limit itself to TBN and Charisma magazine. As communicators of the gospel we must keep up with what is going into the minds of our congregants, our children, and the unsaved we want to reach. We have to be informed so we can reach the world at the level of ideas. This is what Jesus and Paul did so well. It is their role model we need to follow, not the Christian version of “What’s Hot and What’s Not.” How do we handle the Word with sensitivity, become apologists and theologians, and get to know our world as well as a missionary does his prospective field of ministry? We discipline ourselves to read. We do serious study. We take courses in “continuing ed” programs. In other words, we commit ourselves to the task of being life-long learners. Loscalzo suggests that to do less amounts to “ministerial malpractice and should not be tolerated by churches.”104 The time has come to apply ourselves. Our world is wallowing in subjectivity and relativism, and at the same time crying out for reality. We must take it as our responsibility to give exactly that. I have visited many PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD churches where copies of Charisma magazine are prominently displayed in the waiting room. In only one instance did I come across Biblical Archaeology Review. Not surprisingly, therefore, some of the most astounding archeological discoveries in history, making recent news, have received little or no notice in our pulpits. Examples of this are myriad, but simply think back and see if you can remember any mention of the Jesus Boat, the Tel Dan Inscription (which proved once and for all that David was a historical figure), or the discovery of the Tomb of Caiaphas. Since the story of the ossuary of James broke in October 2002, I have been following it closely. It has been publicized as the most significant New Testament archeological discovery in history. Having asked students from all over the country about it in the last few months, however, I have had only one say it was mentioned from the pulpit of her church. Why not take such events as opportunities to proclaim a historically- and factually-based gospel to a world that questions the existence of absolutes? We do not have to continue in the current mode of creating stories to support what we believe. For example, when Kathleen Kenyon excavated Jericho from 1952 to 1966 she proclaimed it an unwalled village in the time of Joshua. Pentecostal “apologists” quickly rebutted, “Of course you found no walls—the angels pushed them straight down into the ground!” Not only did we sound foolish; we also rewrote Scripture, for Joshua 6:20 indicates “the wall fell down flat” (NASB). Instead, why did we not train and fund individuals to reinvestigate this liberal’s claim? Eventually, this is what Bryant Wood did, and he found the wall exactly where it was supposed to be.105 The point is this: There are enough objective, historical, factual realities available to support our positions 85 86 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. that we do not need to manufacture them. Instead, we need to discipline ourselves to “study to show ourselves approved.” There is no need for us to perpetuate modern myths like the “rope around the High Priest’s leg/waist” (which cannot be found in Scripture or any other ancient source) when we have such inscriptions as “James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.” Reality is sensational and convincing enough. We need only to educate ourselves about it! Moreover, thinking of our liberal and postmodern world as a mission field, we will need to begin putting more emphasis, effort, and money into preparing ourselves to harvest it. For one thing, we must reach our own culture so we can continue to be the sending and giving nation that we are. Given this situation, we must bring more content to the lectern and pulpit than our parishioners are able to get on-line or from a study Bible; we must continue to train ourselves, and promote the training of others. For example, a facility in biblical languages is a tremendous enhancement to teaching and preaching. Up to this point, liberals have had what amounted to a monopoly on language studies. Consequently, we have had to rely on their sometimes tendentious commentaries and lexicons. However, liberal universities have taught their students that the Bible is mere literature for so long that today their students are opting out of serious language study. This has left the door open for students who accept the Bible as the Word of God to make great strides—if we’ll encourage them. With respect to the laity, the church is also woefully unprepared to meet these challenges. Since the media has taught us to let them do the thinking for us, Johnston suggests that part of the pastor’s mission is to PROCLAMATION IN A POSTMODERN WORLD “help [parishioners] rediscover truth for themselves as opposed to having ideas dropped into their lap.”106 He also notes that by helping our laity develop their critical thinking skills, they “can increase their awareness; in time, they’ll become critically discerning of the messages they receive….You can also educate people to evaluate the underlying, inherent messages [of liberal and postmodern thought].”107 In so doing, the pastor will be following Paul’s defensive, preventive advice for steadying the believer (Ephesians 4:14). But what about the offensive, evangelistic aspects of Paul’s injunction (verse 12)? Loscalzo issues both a warning and a challenge to those of us who wish to “equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the Body of Christ”: “[A] survey of contemporary Christianity would be a church membership with little reflection on or understanding of the implications of Christian faith. If the typical congregant were asked to make a defense for the hope they hold, I’m afraid the results would be less than admirable….Christianity will not survive into the third millennium with believers who cannot articulate and make defense of their faith. Aloof, apathetic, comfortable Christianity will not survive the twenty-first century….A key role of apologetic preaching is to provide believers with the wherewithal to make that defense….[A]pologetic preaching becomes basic training for church members to present and defend their Christian faith. It could be argued that the pulpit is not the proper venue for such instruction….However, the gathering of folk in worship remains the best venue to allow a congregation as a whole to know and be exposed to the issues facing them as believers.”108 87 88 WAVE E. NUNNALLY, JR. CONCLUSION I have sought to convey the most basic aspects of liberal and postmodern thought, to candidly discuss some of the ways Pentecostalism has responded to and been affected by these movements, and to lay out a more effective strategy for the future. I hope this chapter has not only educated, but also challenged you to take action. The situation is not hopeless, but I think it’s close to that. God raised up the Pentecostal movement to be a witness. Although today the world looks significantly different from those early days, we are still to be His witnesses. In Nero’s day, the need was for faithful witnesses willing to suffer martyrdom. In William J. Seymour’s day, the need was for men and women open to the power of God and willing to suffer humiliation. In today’s world, we need the resolve of these previous generations, plus the courage to suffer…education! Today, the flashpoint is not the executioner’s sword or tar and feathers; rather, it is the world of ideas, and we must be equipped to engage and affect our culture. Today we must shift our focus to Jesus and Paul as models. Both were well-equipped to deal with the competing worldviews of their day, and both were men of the Spirit and of power. The premium would not seem to rest on being either “unschooled” or educated—but on being devoted and obedient. Yet today, fullness of the Spirit combined with excellence in education means a more powerful and effective Pentecostal witness to our liberal, postmodern world. May we display our love and devotion to God “with all [our] heart and with all [our] soul and with all [our] strength and with all [our] mind (Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 22:37 and Mark 12:30).