When I was in college I got swept up into the idea that understanding and perhaps even becoming post-modern was going to be key to evangelistic and pastoral success among people born after Beatlemania.
It was a fun study, as I could identify with much of what it was about. It loved pop culture and so did I. And much of the criticism at that time was by people who had not even attempted to understand what it really was or where it was coming from. Therefor the criticisms were easily dismissed.
It had become, for a short time, like a shiny new Messiah that I could ride to ministry success and personal relevance. (That should be viewed more as a criticism of my own character and maturity than of post-modernity or its proponents.) When God called me to an older church, most of that stuff became blatantly irrelevant.
Eight years since the post-modern crowd has apparently morphed in "emerging" and "emergent" movements. While I have read books by Rob Bell and Shane Claibourne, and the occasional blog post by Dan Kimball; I have ignored most things Gen X due to the fact that it has so little to do with what I am doing in my ministry.
Recently I have been reading Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat. It is a commentary on Colossians, however it is very unique in that it written for a post-modern audience. Large sections of this commentary deal with post-modernism.
Perhaps it is because it is written to such an audience that the authors address post-modernism with great sympathy in both style and substance. When they finally address how and where post-modernism fails, and they do, the Gen-X-er's may actually listen.
The book has made me begin to wonder how much of my thinking is formed by modernism (where logic is a false god) and post-modernism (where truth is unknowable). While both have some limited value, neither paradigm is Christian, neither submit to God's Word, neither promote Christ-centered living.
I realized through their definitions of post-modern thinking, that at least my politics are shaped by post-modernism. They termed what I have a "hermeneutic of distrust", I think it was. I don't trust Republicans. I don't trust Democrats. And I don't trust any Media outlet. It seems to me that there is too much genius, money and power working to protect Democrats and Republicans for us to ever really know what's going on. We either get one party's spin-machine or the other's.
But that's post-modernism. That cynicism may not be particularly God-honoring. So what do I do now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
In one of my classes we are studying patristic and medieval church leaders (and their biblical commentaries) which are of course pre-modern. Through these studies I have been faced with the question of, "What is the field of interpretation?" On the one hand they all understood that there are many ways to view a passage of Scripture. At the same time, there was a limit.
My point is this - even in our interpretations we get a sense of both post-modern and modern. If we were completely post-modern, then all interpretations would be acceptable (reletavized truth). If we were completely modern, there would be 1 truth per passage. And yet, most Christians see varied interpretations but have their limits to what is acceptable.
I say all this to point out, perhaps we are neither. Perhaps we are actually returning to an earlier understanding instead of something new and profound. And that may not be so bad.
I'd suggest a personal relationship with Jesus lived out in the opportunities and people He brings your way.
I know you do Shannon. That's just the, call it idealistic, way I think of all the "post-modern", "emerging", "Traditional", "seeker-sensitive", "academic", ways we are told are going to be a magic key to changing the world.
Sam started to hit on it, maybe the key is very simple. Is that allowed?
It's difficult for me to comment on particulars as I'm neither postmodern in the American sense, nor a minister in its classical sense.
However, it seems to me the larger issue is how Christianity and secular culture co-exist and interact. We've had troubles with the questions for centuries. Constantine - the First Christian Emperor - has done little for the Church. Eventually, we hit the other extreme - Christian hermits and monks completely removed from the culture.
How much you are to be the salt of the earth and how much you are to be not of this world? It's a tough call. It is difficult not to be influenced by the ways of the world, so you should not be beating yourself up for it.
I think that's the problem as I see it. You are succumbed to this world because you live in it. But it may sound banal, trivial, trite - I'm running out of words in my Thesaurus - but trust in the Lord. Reserve your complete trust for Him and then decide what portion of your secular trust you'll hand to media, the Democrats, or the Republicans.
The world has its own ideas - some of which are good - but pray for wisdom to determine which are good, which are bad. The key to a good living is constantly seeking the truth in the context of the Truth. It's looking at relatively trite matters - like someone's politics - trying to determine if they're true in the context of the larger bigger Truth. And to me, a truth-seeker doesn't trust every word anyone says, but approaches facts and information with a critical eye and challenges their claims.
Personally, I cannot function in the church setting. I find it suffocating. I do not like deep, involved theology. I find it irrelevant to everyday living. I have longed for practical down-to-earth Christianity. I find I can live a better Christian life in the world because my Christian is constantly challenged and I constantly rely on God for guidance through these treacherous waters. I find it is much more honest to live in the church than outside of it, which it seems what you're trying to do.
I apologize for rambling. Hopefully, Shannon, you found a tiny bit of information useful.
Post-modernism is still alive and kicking in scholasticism. The problem with such a broad term is that it has different connotations for every field of study.
My field is history, so post-modernism expouses that the past cannot be known. And in a way that view is true because the past cannot be 100% known. We have to trust the reliable evidence and the passing down of that evidence through history. But the evidence is only trustworthy if we can trust the creator of that evidence. How do we decide who to trust when we do not even know them?
This debate of post-modernism in history hits squarely on Christianiity because we are a historical religion with our faith centered on an event in the past that is only knowable through our trust in history. It does become difficult. The post-modern in me wants o say, "Well, maybe our faith should not be centered in the past but in the present. What does it matter if a person believes in the historical Jesus and his sacrifice as long as they live the way they should." The modernist in me wants people to believe in the historical Jesus, his sacrifice, and understand the faith the way I understand it (because my understanding is obviously the right understanding).
There does not seem to be an easy answer.
On a little side note. Post-modernism was discussed so much when we were in college because modernists were wanting to bridge the gap to reach the post-modernists. It was a bunch of fruitlessness because post-modernist Christians would become the most effective Christians at reaching post-modernists. In the vein of someone much more profound than me, when I am with modernists, I will behave and talk like a modernist. When I am withe the post-modernist, I will behave and talk like a post-modernists. I will become all things to all people as long as it is not compromising to the message of the kingdom.
Barry, you're right. I no longer for post-modernism to be some magic elixir. But reading that text helped me get a better understanding on why I and other people my age struggle so hard with absolutes. It was a good exercise.
Regan, in my opinion, the modern professors were trying to prove the weakness of post-modernism with very modernistic logic.
Some of the professors were trying to destroy post-modernism, but there were also a lot of good meaning modernists trying to understand post-modernism in order to plant churches effectively. When I said "post-modernism was discussed so much when we were in college," I was meaning the larger context rather than just the confines of GLCC.
I think we are well past that phase now.
"behave and talk" is quite a loose paraphrase there Regan. Maybe too loose.
Post a Comment