A friend on Facebook sent a couple of questions to me via chat yesterday that I thought could be more easily answered in an article than in short bursts on instant messaging. I've written about my thoughts on postmodernism, its effects on theology and the church before, but it's an important enough subject to revisit from time to time.
His first question was (and I'm paraphrasing):
What do you think about the emerging church movement?
First, I think he rightly identifies it as a movement, more viral in nature than any particular institution would tend to propagate a set of ideals. I told him that I felt that emerging church, as an idea, is a natural byproduct of postmodern culture. In short, postmodernism challenges the more dichotomous, black-and-white, either-or thinking of modernism. Postmodernism suggests that the dualistic attitudes of modernism, which began as early as the Enlightenment, paint an overly simplistic picture of reality. In the United States in particular, postmodernism has found voice as our culture becomes increasingly pluralistic and those lines we believed were clear before begin to blur.
As for the emerging church movement, I told him that I see this as a natural response to postmodern thought. Though our understanding of what exactly emerging church is varies by individual (typically postmodern, isn't it?), there are a handful of general attributes that I see as defining what emerging church is:
As for defining emerging church beyond this, I find it hard to do. Some claim it's a predominantly liberal movement, and in so much as one defines "liberal" as downplaying the importance of institutional and doctrinal authority, I suppose that's accurate. But I know social conservatives and progressives who identify as part of the emerging church movement, along with agnostics and evangelicals.
Emerging church does not promote a specific Christology or set of theological ideals, as this would be contrary to the very concept from which it came. This doesn't mean that, on occasion, some folks won't try to co-opt the emerging church label on behalf of their own particular agenda, but such labels end up falling away.
My friend's second question was:
Isn't postmodernism giving way to a kind of hyper-modernism?
I think this is an astute observation, especially with the growing visibility of such people as John Piper and Mark Driscoll. However, my short answer to his question would be "no."
I think that any time a new worldview begins to take hold, there will be some degree of push-back from those entrenched in the prior way of seeing things. This is especially true for individuals and institutions that stand to benefit from things staying the way they are. In this case, religious fundamentalism -- whether from the right or left -- depends on a more dichotomous, either-or way of thinking. So any alternative to this understanding of the world is considered a threat.
Although more fundamentalist, doctrinal and/or dogmatic approaches to religion may be more vocal in their reaction to postmodernism and the emerging church, this does not necessarily mean that they are gaining popular momentum. On the contrary, as a more people understand the world in pluralistic, fluid (some might argue relativistic) terms, such vocal opposition seems increasingly out of step with reality. As technology allows us to exchange ideas and experiences more easily and rapidly, and as our communities reflect an increasingly heterogeneous face, efforts to draw clear lines and define life with absolute, monolithic clarity simply begin to lose credibility.
So in short, though there are "hyper-modern" advocates who would have us believe that postmodernism and the emerging church are merely the passing fad of the moment, a longer-term, broader perspective reinforces the idea that we cannot simply go back to old ways of thinking when the world around us is so much more integrated, fluid and diverse than ever before in history.
Such changes simply can't be undone, despite the vocal cries for a return to the ways of the past. You can't un-open the box.
Follow Christian Piatt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christianpiatt
Emerging church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Streams of the Emerging Church | Christianity Today | A ...
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that fundamentalism will eventually die, though. I think fundamentalism has always been and will always be around - what changes is the philosophy that fundamentalism is based upon. Fundamentalism based on modernism (or hyper-modernism) will eventually pass away, but some other form of fundamentalism will take its place.
Will there ever be a fundamentalist version of postmodernism? This article definitely brought this question up. It'll be interesting to see in fifty years whether or not one can arise. I'm not sure postmodernism can be sustained long enough for a fundamentalism based upon it to arise, though, since postmodernism is essentially a reaction to modernism, and reactions tend to be the dying gasps of both what is being reacted to and the reaction itself.
Maybe THIS year, eh?
The religious history of this country is the history of a battle between religious fundmentalism and 'emerging church' mentality.
One stresses absolutism in the form of rigidly codifying 'moral' or 'god-pleasing' behavior. Every person's behavior, is measured against this rigid accounting. Not surprising, this approach emphases the ways that humans fail to measure up. It, delivers a message that most of us are in the end doomed sinners. It emphasizes individual failure and weaknessIt is a doctrine that isolates people from others, since the focus is on the individual vs dogmatic expectations.
The other approach rejects the harshness and detached quality of the above; it is much more involved and focused on the value of striving, good intentions and of understanding and tolerance of both one's own failures and the failures of others.
The two approaches spring from deep, conflicting impulses - the need for predictability and control of one's environmentvs the need for the freedom to explore, grow and take risks. As long as this conflict exists in the human psyche, the back and forth battle between these two approaches to god-pleasing salvation will continue.
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
1Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
It is true, of course, that anyone who can read can read the Bible. However, understanding the Word of God comes only through the Spirit of God who lives within those who have accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Through all translations, etc. The Word has not changed. Why? Because it is not just written word. It is God's message to man. Christ is God's message to man. And Christ himself is the Word of God. As the Word says, however, those who reject Him, cannot possibly understand what the Bible represents. I hope that while you are here writing and reading in this forum that He will speak to your heart and call you to Him. He is your Creator, He loves you and He wants you to come home to Him. You are loved more than you can ever know until you open your mind and heart to the possibility of God.
Its a trap son.
They claim they own Absolute Truth and that is what motivates their policy arguments. However, they reject science as requiring as much "faith" as religion, demonstrating how the foundation of their beliefs really is built on sand. There is no evidence for their arguments, they just "know" it to be the divine word of the One True God.....just ask them.
It is the dumbing down of science, to make it comparable to religious beliefs, that demonstrates how their worldview is a postmodern view. It is a belief comparable to other beliefs.
•An emphasis on service-based ministry over traditional evangelism for the sake of conversion.
•A call to live out ministry in the cultural context where you find yourself, rather than expecting the community to come to you through the institutional church.
•A focus on trying to live as Christ lived and taught, rather than propping up church dogma, doctrine or any one particular statement of faith.
Any movement that centers on these ideas seems to understnatd how greed and comunity ego has corupted the surrent christianity. We have been lied to and manipulated to much by past chritian movements and churches to believe them anymore. The teachings of christ should in a church dedicated to christ be more important then the teachings of paul who never learned from christ or his deciples. Christ is down played and pauls teachings exalted. Comunity, peace, jumbleness these are jesus' teachings on the path to heaven. Not so of the Pauline churches we see today.
Last week a guy was telling me all about how Christians are following Paul's teaching about atonement instead of Christ's...and had absolutely no clue about where Jesus talked of the atoning nature of His death. It's astonishing how everyone wants to "interpret" stuff they have not even read to begin with.
Christians have many to choose from.
Maybe jesus will come eh?
Look busy, I see someone now.