Analysis of what makes his technique so effective - Dr. Ravi Zacharias Postmoderism and Philosophy

Video Ravi Zacharias:  Postmodernism and Philosophy

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAwyIDKoXYY

Christian Commentary on Ravi Zacharias:  Postmodernism and Philosophy

 As Ravi Zacharias begins this presentation, he acknowledges the brilliance of the other speaker Albert Mohler in such a humble way.  To anyone viewing Ravi's presentation, his humility is immediately apparent, thus displaying his character.  Ravi also elicits emotion in his audience through humor.  Pastors learn this technique in Homiletics.  Laughter stimulates a part of the brain known as the Amygdala.  Once stimulated, concepts within the sermon more easily conjure up the intended emotions.  In making decisions, we most often decide based on how something makes us feel.  Have you ever thought, "It doesn't feel right."  Ultimately, you will be pushed by the evidence to decide for yourself if what is being said rings true in your heart.  So, Ravi has drawn his audience in by expressing his character and eliciting emotion before beginning to build his argument.  He then builds credibility by truly defining an understanding of both views.  He later discredits opposing views, not by his own opinion; rather, by the writings of the philosophers themselves.  Ravi does not tell us what to think; rather, he intends to provoke thought.  He then leads us to the conclusion and wraps it up.  This is brilliant both in presentation style and content.  It's important that we dissect the structure of his presentation as well as what is said to fully grasp his effectiveness.

Ravi emphasizes that we cannot write off what this new seemingly illogical postmodernism viewpoint is espousing.  He states that we need to understand what this new ideology is attempting to do; moreover, he wants us to understand the depth of its origin and purpose.  Likely taking his example from Jesus's parables, Ravi begins to tell a story to teach us about Postmodernism.  Stories are the best way to reach his intended audience, the postmodernist.  Postmodernists are not engaged by facts, laws or objective truth.  Rather they are offended by them.  So, Ravi utilizes the most appealing way of presentation.  He presents the way his audience thinks by offering an experience.  For the believer, this story shows the contradictory confusion created by the postmodern ideology.

One example hardly makes a case, so Ravi continues through two more stories.  Each creating a vivid picture in the listener's mind.  Then almost in the middle of his third story, he begins asking questions.  RZIM's radio ministry is called, "Let My People Think".  What provokes thought better than questions, and what elicits a change of heart and mind more than the answer coming from deep within the listener himself?  At this, Ravi then shocking concludes his story.  The listener is on the edge of their seat wanting to hear more.  Now thoughts and questions are flying through the listener's head.

The audience is now set up to listen to the evidence.  Ravi Zacharias begins with George Will's critique of postmodernism speakers.  He highlights the futility of intellectual effort in academia today.  Detailing rationalism, empiricism, naturalistic viewpoint, existentialism and how these led to postmodernism.  In the detail, he adds credibility by objectively listing each viewpoint and crediting the author of each philosophical style.  Wrapping this up, Ravi brings each of their arguments back to the original sin by quoting the serpent in the garden of evil saying, "Did God really say?"  Then showing how long this battle against God and His word has existed, he quotes Muddridge stating, "All news is old news happening to new people."  In other words, the serpent and the proponents of postmodernism are really the same characterin the same story in a new decade.  Ecclesiastes 1:9 refers to this stating, "...there is nothing new under the sun."

You must ask yourself, why would anyone argue an age-old losing argument again?  This question is answered in Richard Rorty's American philosopher's statement when Ravi says, "In the beginning, he would read the scriptures, but he saw the demands of humility and could not bring himself to that point."  Mankind is unwilling to humble itself in the face of God.  Mankind continues in the original sin that inspired the first rebellious act against God, pride.  So, in order to justify disobedience, man just like the serpent redefines the meaning of words.  Postmodernism is basically saying, "Did God really say?"  Protecting their point of ideology, Ravi states, "It holds to an endless instability of words.  Texts are stripped of their meaning.  Words are given no point of reference."  To prove his point, Ravi brilliantly quotes the postmodernist philosopher Paul De Man's illogical defense.  Translating Paul De Man's clearer serpent-like words, Ravi states, "What Paul De Man is really saying is it takes you to dizzying heights of meaninglessness."  Then, in the same way that Jesus confronted Satan in his 40-day trial in the wilderness, Ravi addresses the issue directly with the confronting scripture of Isaiah 44:14-17.  Ravi clearly comparing idols of wood to idols of words.  An idol is still an idol whether we add it to or elevate it above God.

Moving forward to create his case against postmodernism, Ravi focuses his attack of logic on the Laws of Logic.  In typical Jesus like fashion, Ravi creates vivid pictures with a humorous story about lost man and a farmer.  The story is used to illustrate the futility of postmodern arguments against the Laws of Logic.  He notes that arguments against them are somewhat futile.  As soon as you logically beat them at their own logic, they redefine the words of their own argument to mean something else.  In this way, they never concede contradiction.

Finally rather than ridiculing the philosophers, Ravi brings to light the brilliance of one ofpostmodernism's brightest minds.  Though the story of Michel Foucault's life, Ravi shows the futility of a life lived in this ideology stating, "The Son of God weeps at the loss and misplacement of such genius as Michel Foucault."  The compassion Ravi expresses for the life and talents of this gifted man reflects the loss that God must feel.  It also expresses the compassion of Christians for the spiritually lost.  In Exodus 35 and 36 we see examples of gifted men and women consecrated to serve God.  These skilled craftsmen are given their abilities by God through the Holy Spirit for holy purposes.  It must pain God to see such giftings wasted.  Gifts are intended for good to glorify God.  The greater the giftings, the greater the ability to do good.  To explain more clearly, I will give three examples from C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity:  1) Moses, 2) Hitler and 3) Satan.  Which had the greatest God-given capacity for good?  It may be tough to make a comparative analysis of the brilliant minds of Moses and Hitler; however, it is clear that Satan is the most gifted of all.  So why isn't he good?  It is because he chose to pervert the giftings to create his own reality, one in which he himself is a god.  This reality is, of course, a delusion of grandeur.  So it is with postmodernism.  By denying God's metanarrative and declaring themselves gods, postmodernists have used their bright minds in pride to create an alternative evil ideology.