One of the more insidious attacks against the gospel in recent years is the attack against human language as a means of valid, meaningful communication. This issue began in Genesis 2 & 3 where the Serpent beguiled Eve and then Adam into questioning whether the categories of trees from which they were allowed to eat and the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden that was forbidden.

The opening attack was “has God said.” I cite a section from my own book on the Emergent Church where I respond to sophisticated, postmodern claims that language could not convey valid truth from God to man, or humans to other humans. Even the basic foundation of all language, that A is not non-A at the same time and in the same relationship, is questioned and doubted.

The result is that categories are confused and communication through words is rejected as valid communication. Of course, such a claim is self-stultifying since the claim is made in words which are expected to be understood. When human language is rejected then there is no way to test rival truth claims. In fact, knowing the truth is rejected as a reasonable, possible outcome.

Rather, mystical, undefined experiences are ends in and of themselves, and assumed to be from God.  Romantic idealism replaces, “God has spoken.” We make numerous applications to current practices and teachings in progressive churches. Paul’s message of “Christ Crucified” is grounded in history, God’s mighty work in Christ and God’s promises. All these are conveyed by human language.