Danger in Post Modernism?

[Ian Gentles]

I finding is as an everything goes, if its your thing, in theology. Bit worried about McLarens dealings with Hell doctrine. I probably still am a modernist, with no apologies! I find when distinctive's are taken away we open a can of worms!
I still studying this whole idea, but having problems I must admit. Are we too eager to run after new ideas i wonder? Oh agree we need to explore all areas in theology, but never sure where some of it is leading us?

[Roland Hearn]

Ian, it probably is important to point out that post-modernism does not come to any conclusions about anything it is a way of thinking through issues that is pervasive in the world today. People within that frame of reference do individually come to conclusions. As a post modernist I am not limited to come to a conclusion about heaven, hell, salvation, sanctification, abortion, human rights, war or any other issue. Post modernism predicts the process of arriving at conclusions and how tightly I will hold to my conclusions given evidence to the contrary. Modernism tends to start with precepts and conclusions from those that have gone before, post moderns tend to throw it all in the air and grab the things they like on the way down. The illusion is that all moderns have the same conclusions. They don't the system just predicts how they come to those conclusions. If it is all up for grabs anyway why not be one of the ones throwing it into the air.

[Ian Gentles]

Was talking with a mate today who studied in greatly in his degree scheme. He felt it was dangerous as it opened us to all sorts of ideas. Is it wrong to have definates?


http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Roland Hearn]

I just can't know the context in which your mate was speaking but I can't see how anyone could conclude that being opened to all sorts of ideas could be a bad thing. It isn't wrong to have definitive ideas except if the idea are wrong and many ideas that we hold to are wrong and we change. I use to believe absolutely certain ideas that made me a good Christian in certain contexts. I have come to believe I was wrong about those things. I am no longer considered a good Christian in those contexts but I am considered a good Christian in other contexts. The problem with certainties is that they are less certain then we would like to believe. Post-modernism is for me simply a much more intellectually honest way of going about things. Yes there are many people that have used this freedom to go down the wrong roads, but can it be said that in the system of absolutes and structures that people never went down the wrong road - of course not. People have been led astray for centuries by systems, structures and ways of thinking. I choose to think for myself and to allow ambivalence and uncertainty to exist where it should.

[Ian Gentles]

So are any of our structures secure things? ;)
I must admit my early, none intellectual, Christian days were easier in a way.
I find today my faith is very firm in Jesus, but not in all the church has taught me. Oh yes i am an evangelical, more so than ever before, in that i feel humane suffering and confussing more.
Regards post modernism i do wonder where its all going to end, where its leading us, is it a safe journey or a dangerous one?

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Roland Hearn]

So are any of our structures secure things? ;)
I must admit my early, none intellectual, Christian days were easier in a way.
I find today my faith is very firm in Jesus, but not in all the church has taught me. Oh yes i am an evangelical, more so than ever before, in that i feel humane suffering and confussing more.
Regards post modernism i do wonder where its all going to end, where its leading us, is it a safe journey or a dangerous one?

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

I think the more we are prepared to let our structures remain based on their own internal integrity the better we are. And no the journey is not a safe one, it is very dangerous. We are being torn apart at the point of our personal world views constantly. But God is bigger. If God is not able to sustain us then our structures are inadequate anyway. God goes beyond our structures to our hearts. I think we all feel safer when we can keep things tightly packaged but God wants our faith in Him not in our structures.

Let's try an experiment, let's look at a structure that you think we need to be secure in order to have faith and lets throw it around in a post-modern construct and see what happens - anyone up for the challenge?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It would have been better for each pastor that wished to operate in what they considered post modern ways, to just gradually begin; the changes in your own vineyard, and let it just happen, than to spend the hours that are spent writing and talking about it, by doing, or praying, or studying, playing, or whatever.

This is not to be mean, because the way you seem to believe to me is basically the way Dwayne and I have operated for years. Just let it happen gradually, as long as you feel certain, that what you are doing is God;s will.

[Bob Evans]

Ann

Great advice on change. I appreciate your years of experience and your willingness to give it out. I think bi vocational ministry is especially difficult and can be especially instructive to all who seek to serve.

Bob


It would have been better for each pastor that wished to operate in what they considered post modern ways, to just gradually begin; the changes in your own vineyard, and let it just happen, than to spend the hours that are spent writing and talking about it, by doing, or praying, or studying, playing, or whatever.

This is not to be mean, because the way you seem to believe to me is basically the way Dwayne and I have operated for years. Just let it happen gradually, as long as you feel certain, that what you are doing is God;s will.

[Roland Hearn]

Anne,
you said you don't want to be mean and certainly neither do but this post reveals how out of touch your perspective is. Post modernism began to take affect in the 60's and 70's. Pastors have in fact been considering these issues gradually for a long time. The church is reacting because these changes have entered into the main arena. To say that pastors are rushing these issues is to say you haven't been paying any attention at all to the world in which we minister.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Roland, my personality is to read, read, read, and do the same with listening. These thing were never discussed with the ministers we were around. We just gradually went about our work and did the things that the theology board seems to be pushing so hard for now in the the work of the Lord. We were just doing our utmost best to follow the leading of the Lord.
I still think it is much better to, do than constantly discuss or write about it, but if that is what you young men enjoy discussing, it is OK, I say, "Just do it." We've had our day. And, what I seem to sense from the Lord, is that when we see Him face to face, He will say, "Well done."

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems strange to me that you think my perspective is so out, on what has been going on. If so, how was it that we operated the ways you folk talk about all the time. Dwayne began pastoring at the age of 29 in 1968. He was raised in a parsonage, and, his dad never said or acted as if we were way out, from what others had been done doing-in the Lord's work. All one needs to do, is follow God's leadings for your life.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Have you ever read anythings I have written of Dwayne or his father's years of pastoring? Our perspective was within the boundaries of post modernism, whether it had been presented to us with those words or not.
Dwayne and I both have helped in starting churches long before New start was ever thought about, and no monetary help or any help in, any way was given from a district or generaal level, and bi-vocational pastors were looked down on.
If you are really working for the Lord, and follow His leadings, it seems to me, that what is being donw is under His leadersip/ Perspective or not, we worked that way. We did not have to learn the most current fad of using words to accomplish God's will. Try it. It works, without worrying about all the theology of it.

[Roy Richardson]

I just can't know the context in which your mate was speaking but I can't see how anyone could conclude that being opened to all sorts of ideas could be a bad thing. It isn't wrong to have definitive ideas except if the idea are wrong and many ideas that we hold to are wrong and we change. I use to believe absolutely certain ideas that made me a good Christian in certain contexts. I have come to believe I was wrong about those things. I am no longer considered a good Christian in those contexts but I am considered a good Christian in other contexts. The problem with certainties is that they are less certain then we would like to believe. Post-modernism is for me simply a much more intellectually honest way of going about things. Yes there are many people that have used this freedom to go down the wrong roads, but can it be said that in the system of absolutes and structures that people never went down the wrong road - of course not. People have been led astray for centuries by systems, structures and ways of thinking. I choose to think for myself and to allow ambivalence and uncertainty to exist where it should.

I used to believe that the desk my monitor is on is solid. But particle physics has shown it is made up of billions of molecules that are all in motion. While we perceive it to be solid, it really isn't. I say that to second the call to keeping an open mind toward new discoveries. As I believe McLaren said in "A new kind of Christian" if we went back in time 500 years what was "known" and unarguably true was that the earth was at the center of the solar system and universe and kings ruled by divine right.

While I believe the Bible to be a source of truth, it is not a textbook or a definitive history book. It is a narrative story of God, his people, and how he interacted with them.

I think post-Modernism is trying to right the ship of Modernism that tried to make the Bible the "end all- be all" on things it was never designed to address.

[Roland Hearn]

Anne,
I am trying to make some sense of what you have written here. I'm sorry, I can't. You said that the changes should be done slowly - I simply said they have been.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Well, we didn't know we were changing things. But the discussions I have been reading lead me to think it was something you guys wanted done, and hoped to bring about, so I advised for it to just be gradually done.
Roland, do you have any comments about what I wrote about a minisiter that served sliced oranges for communion?
Dwayne's brother is in ICu in a hospital in Nshville. While they were preparing to medivac him there, his wife heard him like he was singing. she leaned her ear close to him, and he was humming that song that has the words "Let the healing waters flow" in
it. When he realized where he was, he wanted to know why and what happened.
The attendants did not think he would make it alive to Nashville.
I would appreciate your reading those two forums, and pray for Ron. He has been "my liitle brother for nearly "49" years. He is 60 now, and only got to pastor six months, before severe heart trouble began. He has an office at a big Church of God, and most things connected with the property, and so forth go through his office, as he is not able to pastor. I think he visits and works with the elderly, until sometimes, he has to take to his bed, a hosptial bed, at that time, and maybe miss a little time of working.

Once we were with him at the VA Hospital in Nashville, and a call came through on his cell phone for advice of what to do--considering that someone connected with the church, or a relative of someone connected with the church had died.

If those Hood guys are able to moveat all, they are like Brad was about doing when they are not really able to do.

[Roland Hearn]

Well, we didn't know we were changing things. But the discussions I have been reading lead me to think it was something you guys wanted done, and hoped to bring about, so I advised for it to just be gradually done.

Anne simply changing things doesn't mean it is a post-modern construct. Your suggestion seemed to be aimed at your perception that there was a small group of people that had an agenda for change. You seemed to suggest they wanted to bring about rapid change but weren't doing anything practical about it. You said they should do more than simply talking about it. I don't think that shows an adequate grasp of what is being talked about here.

Roland, do you have any comments about what I wrote about a minisiter that served sliced oranges for communion?

Not really, I read your post, I wasn't sure what the point of the question was. I hadn't heard of it so I wasn't sure how to answer the question. If you are asking is it communion I would say it isn't. If your wondering if that is a post-modern adaption I would again so no it isn't. Post-modernism isn't about trying to find new ways of being attractive like gold-fish eating competitions, it is the way of thinking about the world, life, the universe, people and faith and many other things. A post-modern individual having accepted the premise of Christ's crucification would be very comfortable with the traditional expression of it in communion.


Dwayne's brother is in ICu in a hospital in Nshville. While they were preparing to medivac him there, his wife heard him like he was singing. she leaned her ear close to him, and he was humming that song that has the words "Let the healing waters flow" in
it. When he realized where he was, he wanted to know why and what happened.
The attendants did not think he would make it alive to Nashville.
I would appreciate your reading those two forums, and pray for Ron.

Certainly..I did and I have.

[Ian Gentles]

I do note that McLaren dosent say we should destroy the modern but progress from it. However i find his radical approach to Hell a little worrying, almost flinging out the baby with the bathwater. I feel we have to realise that much we have in modernism is good and to be cherished and held on to. I see post modernism as throwing everything up in the air then catching what we want as it comes down. Maybe i am wrong and misunderstanding it all?

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Billie Goodson]

I really struggle with post-modernism. From what I have read and researched, I have to agree with some who see it as a way to keep people busy, but, not much else. I read McLaren's work and watch interviews of Rob Bell, and think on the surface they really have powerful statements. But, when you sit and think on them, it is kind of like eating Chinese food, filling at the moment, but, I get hungry too soon afterwards for something that has substance.

One of the interesting thoughts I would like to find more time to research is the resemblance of the church to the government. Working with the government, I am always amazed at some of the people that will take buzzwords and concepts and then just apply them liberally across all things. They really don't understand them, but, it gives them the feeling of being "hip" or "informed" to throw around the terms. There are many examples I see in my professional life and it really takes a long time to get people to realize that the latest technology or concept is not the elixir of cure-all that they hoped it to be -- it fixes some things, and not all.

In Post-modernism, I see some in the church seeming to head in the same direction. We want to so much be on the front of philosophical thought that we grasp out at what sounds new and novel. Then everything must be neatly packed into that world view. Meanwhile, it seems that the world has dismissed post-modernism as non-coherent, yet, the church, ever the johnny-come-lately in modern philosophical thought has finally embraced the movement, and now we must wait until we realize the world moved on while we were embracing the wisp of the past. I guess I always struggle when I read statements that say "this is not relevant to post-modernists" or "this is how post-modernists think" then people say that one thing that defines post-modernism is "no absolutes." To say there are no absolutes is really amusing to me. And, for the church, seems to be dangerous. But, then again, I am obviously just trapped in modernism -- and happy to be so.

One thing I have realized is that I don't accept all world views, and it really bothers me not in the least that others do not accept mine. For some reason, the quote from Melvin Udall in "As Good As it Gets" comes to me when I hear people explain Post-modernism:

Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.

Another quote on post-modernism that I think sums up my thought is:

"The main purpose of postmodern Christianity is not to give you an answer but to put you off finding one by keeping you busy." -- J.P. Holding

Now, having said all of that -- for some, it works. I don't necessarily think they are wrong, just not universally right -- no absolutes -- does that make me a closet post-modernist?

[Oliver Phillips]

KWANZAA
December 26 – January 1

(A non-religious holiday with great principles)

Kwanzaa is derived from the phrase "matunda ya kwanza" which means "first fruits" in Swahili. Dr. Maulana Karenga, professor and chairman of Black Studies at California State University, Long Beach, created Kwanzaa in 1966. After the Watts riots in Los Angeles, Dr. Karenga searched for ways to bring African-Americans together as a community to celebrate family, community, and culture. It is celebrated for seven days: December 26 - January 1.

Each family celebrates Kwanzaa in its own way, but celebrations often include songs and dances, African drums, storytelling, poetry reading, and a large traditional meal. On each of the seven nights, the family gathers and a child lights one of the candles on the Kinara (candleholder)

The seven principles, or Nguzo Saba are a set of ideals created by Dr. Maulana Karenga. Each day of Kwanzaa emphasizes a different principle.

1. Unity (Umoja) - (oo-MO-jah)
To strive for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
2. Self-determination (Kujichagulia) - (koo-gee-cha-goo-LEE-yah)
To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
3. Collective Work and Responsibility (Ujima) - (oo-GEE-mah)
To build and maintain our community together and make our brother's and sister's problems our problems and to solve them together.
4. Cooperative Economics (Ujamaa)- (oo-JAH-mah)
To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
5. Purpose (Nia) - (nee-YAH)
To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
6. Creativity (Kuumba)- (koo-OOM-bah)
To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
7. Faith (Imani) - (ee-MAH-nee)
To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

[Mike McVey]

I think part of the problem people have with post-modernism is that they do not think they understand it, or they incorrectly think they do. To understand post-modernity, you have to understand the world landscape after WWI. Almost all of what is considered post-modern finds its roots immediately after the war. Europe was a dreary place and the ravages of war completely sapped Europe of hope. This is seen greatly in the German thinkers who started dialectical or crisis thought. When thinking goes through a crisis lens, it starts questioning all the presuppositions that led to the crisis. We now call this deconstruction. The Western world view has been hit hard by post-modernity because the West is what formed modernity. The Eastern world view has been largely unaffected (or I should say affected differently) as they did not let modernity take the same kind of grips.

One problem with the concept is the term used to describe it - "post". A term that might be more helpful is "hyper". Hyper-modernity is taking the terms of modernity to their logical end. This means that capitalism today looks nothing like Adam Smith's philosophy. Today it means that everything is expendable... for the right price.

Another major problem with understanding post-modernity is that it has already hypered most of the sciences and all of the arts. The only exception that I have seen so far is psychology, but I have been watching for it and I am now even seeing start to filter in. Theology is a science and entered the conversation way late even though there have been those who have thrived in the midst of the changes. None of these theologians are post-modern per se, but they have laid the ground work for those whom I would call post-modern. People like Barth, the Niebuhr's, Pannenberg, Bultmann, Wynkoop and Dunning; have all laid ground work for Moltmann, the Jesus Seminar, NT Wright, Hauerwas, Yoder, Oord, etc.

A final major problem is that too often people think that post-modernity is a cultural-mass philosophy - that it is philosophy for the masses of a specific culture. This is easy to understand because the current idea of popularity is definitely a post-modern construct. Anything we say "pop" in front of is an unidentifiable culture friendly term. Pop-psychology (better called pseudo) allows for PhD's like Dr. Phil to be famous. Pop-music allows for music that does not fit any specific category to become a category in itself that is highlighted by simple melodies with fun twists. "Pop" is an insult to anyone in that industry. But post-modernity is not always popular; it just seems to market that way.

I personally think that any and every world view has its trade-offs. Post-modernity will most likely develop into a set form of criteria when the fundamental roots of modernity are all that is left. We still value many things from medieval or pre-modern thought. It has not been abolished, but few embrace medieval thought unabashedly. It took hundreds of years before what we know call modernity to develop to the common person. Post-modernity has taken less than 100 years to impact the whole world in some fashion. It will still take anywhere between 20-100 years to become identified as the new thought. If there is danger in post-modernity, it is no more and no less dangerous than in any other system of thought. But post-modernity is dangerous to those who hold modernity as the only way.

[Billie Goodson]

If there is danger in post-modernity, it is no more and no less dangerous than in any other system of thought. But post-modernity is dangerous to those who hold modernity as the only way.

Mike, if your above statement is true, then it would seem to just be exchanging one danger for another -- I fail to see the logic in that. What I see demonstrated most often by "post-modernists" is the disturbing desire to tightly lock things into an either/or. This really seems to evade the true questions and obfuscate the issues. No example of this is more glaring than McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian". How does one "hold modernity as the only way"?

[Mike McVey]

Mike, if your above statement is true, then it would seem to just be exchanging one danger for another -- I fail to see the logic in that.

It would not be unlike Jesus challenging the paradigm of his day. He was not considered dangerous by those he helped, only those who abused their authority. And yes it is exchanging one danger for another, but that is always the case for new coming into the old.

What I see demonstrated most often by "post-modernists" is the disturbing desire to tightly lock things into an either/or. This really seems to evade the true questions and obfuscate the issues. No example of this is more glaring than McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian". How does one "hold modernity as the only way"?

McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" is a wonderful example of someone trying to come to terms with post-modern Christianity. And when you are coming to terms with something new, it is not uncommon to separate into either/or. But if you take McLaren's work collectively, he moves from either/or to both/and. When you say "post-modernists" are you talking only those within Christianity or as a whole? Post-modernity is not a new thing despite what Christians might think.

To answer your last question, we can absolutize anything, and unless it is it God in Christ resurrecting from the dead, it is wrong. I don't know how one absolutizes a system of thought. I don't think that I do it, but I am pretty sure that I know people that do.

[Billie Goodson]

It would not be unlike Jesus challenging the paradigm of his day. He was not considered dangerous by those he helped, only those who abused their authority. And yes it is exchanging one danger for another, but that is always the case for new coming into the old.


I think the romanticism of post-modernism far outweighs the accomplishments. This seems similar to McLaren trying to state that he sees himself as Martin Luther in his prologue. I guess I just need to see more worth before I consider an exchange.


When you say "post-modernists" are you talking only those within Christianity or as a whole? Post-modernity is not a new thing despite what Christians might think.

Mostly, yes, I am speaking of Christians. Much of what I found written in the secular communities of philosophy seem to indicate that post-modernism has seen its day -- and the promise was vacant. The general idea was that post-modernism failed to develop any coherency. This is interesting given a post several weeks ago by Hans about his reading of a primer on post-modernism. The author was talking about the coherency model of truth, no mention of correspondence which I understand to be the other major theory.

Coherency holds that an idea only needs to be coherent to be truth. Correspondence means we hold it up to another ideal to see how it corresponds or seems alike. I am probably doing a hugely poor example of explaining the ideas, but, you get what I paid for -- nothing. I think many of the ideas of people like Koresh and Jones made sense to themselves, and even to some others. They followed coherence to its worst conclusion (not the only conclusion, but, the worst).

That being said, I hope to one day finish McLaren's book. I think there are some excellent examples of problems in the church that he is extremely accurate in pointing out. I just am not sure I find any answers in his writings -- and I frankly am not sure that I should have to read four books to figure it out. I think his style allows him to take too many liberties and since there is no character in the book to offer any semblance of a counter argument, I find he seems to mainly be preaching to his own choir.


To answer your last question, we can absolutize anything, and unless it is it God in Christ resurrecting from the dead, it is wrong. I don't know how one absolutizes a system of thought. I don't think that I do it, but I am pretty sure that I know people that do.

So you are saying that modernity requires absolutizing? I am confused. I don't really think this is the definition of modernism, just a simplification that makes critiquing it easier. I think there are more absolutes than the one you provided that would hopefully fall within the realm of truth -- would you agree that Christ died for all men? Hmm, well, that would be challenged by Hyper-Calvinists so maybe it is a bad argument. Anyway, I am not sure I completely understand your answer, but, it is probably better to move on.

[Mike McVey]

Mostly, yes, I am speaking of Christians. Much of what I found written in the secular communities of philosophy seem to indicate that post-modernism has seen its day -- and the promise was vacant. The general idea was that post-modernism failed to develop any coherency.

Billie, who? Who are these people? This is a subject I have spent much research on and I have yet to come across any scholar who says it's already over. The only ones that I have read that say it is over are those who think it is a fad that started within the past 10-15 years. And most of these people are Christians.

That being said, I hope to one day finish McLaren's book. I think there are some excellent examples of problems in the church that he is extremely accurate in pointing out. I just am not sure I find any answers in his writings -- and I frankly am not sure that I should have to read four books to figure it out. I think his style allows him to take too many liberties and since there is no character in the book to offer any semblance of a counter argument, I find he seems to mainly be preaching to his own choir.

Having read almost everything that McLaren has published and having listened to several of his sermons and seminars, I can fairly say that McLaren has never stated he has it all figured out. What he says numerous times is that he has questions that whenever he asked them he got labeled as a heretic or something else. Of course he takes liberty. He's asking questions in extreme ways. He wants people to stop and think and wonder if what he's writing has any merit. Apparently a lot of people think what he has written has merit. True, you don't have to read any of his other books, but it seems weird to only read "The Fellowship of the Ring" and ignore the rest of the trilogy. I also disagree that there is no counter-argument in the book, but my question is less where is he wrong than where is he right. That's how I look at most books - looking for what is good. McLaren's purpose in writing is to start conversations. Nothing more, nothing less. His goal is not to start arguments.

So you are saying that modernity requires absolutizing? I am confused. I don't really think this is the definition of modernism, just a simplification that makes critiquing it easier. I think there are more absolutes than the one you provided that would hopefully fall within the realm of truth -- would you agree that Christ died for all men? Hmm, well, that would be challenged by Hyper-Calvinists so maybe it is a bad argument. Anyway, I am not sure I completely understand your answer, but, it is probably better to move on.

No, I did not say that. I read my post several times to make sure. Your question was how someone could "hold modernity as the only way". I have not implied you or anyone else, at least not on NazNet. The way someone could hold only to modernity as the only way is by absolutizing it. The modern project is based on building a solid foundation on which to build. The post-modern project says that there is no foundation that is completely solid, because there is always something that can crack the foundation. The post-modern project uses the construct of a web instead of a building foundation. A web does not come apart if one place is suddenly unhinged.

Please understand that absolutizing something is not the same thing as saying there are no absolutes. Absolutizing is making something always true that is not always true.

[Billie Goodson]

Billie, who? Who are these people? This is a subject I have spent much research on and I have yet to come across any scholar who says it's already over. The only ones that I have read that say it is over are those who think it is a fad that started within the past 10-15 years. And most of these people are Christians.


The two that come most readily to mind are J.P. Moreland and Alvin Plantinga -- but, I still need to find their exact quotes before I would attribute it to them totally.

On the part of people in the church stating it is a new phenomenon, I completely agree with you -- that is what I was trying to say in my first post -- the church seems to be johnny-come-lately in these discussions. The church gets there and then figures out everyone else has already moved on. I recall reading that long ago, the church was in the forefront on these issues, but, we (the church) has backed out of being a leader in philosophical thought and left it to the secularists. This was what I was researching when the apologetics thread was started here -- and why I felt so strongly about it (and still do).

In fact, I wonder that post-modernity is not a secular attempt to get around God. One of the promises that some saw in "modernism" was that through it, God could be declared dead. When that didn't happen, "they" needed another scape goat -- hence the birth of post-modernism -- if "we" can't kill him one way, lets try another. We can't prove he doesn't exist, so maybe we can assert he is not relevant -- that he doesn't matter, it all works out in the end. This is the message I see coming through McLaren, and others. I am not sure I would say that McLaren is a heretic -- maybe just self-absorbed.


McLaren's purpose in writing is to start conversations. Nothing more, nothing less. His goal is not to start arguments.


I have to agree partially with you on this from what I have read so far. Since there is no other voice than Neo and Dan (who seem to be in total agreement with each other) there is little room for argument in ANKOC. There are many ways to start conversations, poking people in the eye is not always the best.

[Martijn van Beveren]

The two that come most readily to mind are J.P. Moreland and Alvin Plantinga -- but, I still need to find their exact quotes before I would attribute it to them totally.

On the part of people in the church stating it is a new phenomenon, I completely agree with you -- that is what I was trying to say in my first post -- the church seems to be johnny-come-lately in these discussions. The church gets there and then figures out everyone else has already moved on. I recall reading that long ago, the church was in the forefront on these issues, but, we (the church) has backed out of being a leader in philosophical thought and left it to the secularists. This was what I was researching when the apologetics thread was started here -- and why I felt so strongly about it (and still do).

The church in many occasions came late:bishop. flat earth round earth, position of the sun, greek influence, powerabuse, crusades.... and that are just couple. Most of the time we got back on track on time because the church had/has power.
The first thing people leave church is mostly not the wrong/right, but the way the church seems to grab hold of that idea and stick to it with all of it's might and defend it's issue (by the sword if nessesary). it's like saying we want to keep the house and forget's it's fundaments. So also with biblical interpretation and theology. they work as a house, some houses need to be reconstructed and maintained, and some need to be pulled down so a new up to date house can be constructed, till the next generation of houses.


In fact, I wonder that post-modernity is not a secular attempt to get around God. One of the promises that some saw in "modernism" was that through it, God could be declared dead. When that didn't happen, "they" needed another scape goat -- hence the birth of post-modernism -- if "we" can't kill him one way, lets try another. We can't prove he doesn't exist, so maybe we can assert he is not relevant -- that he doesn't matter, it all works out in the end. This is the message I see coming through McLaren, and others. I am not sure I would say that McLaren is a heretic -- maybe just self-absorbed.

About secular post-modernism. Yes there was/is a counter manifestation. Here in the NL we've had our share, now they mostly turn towards muslims these days. But besides that, there are a lot of early postmoderns here from a writers movement who already came from a church background. They've been in church, they've seen the scene. And they declared God dead, or made a new beginning for a divine hunting season in their books. But the science scene mostly wasn't looking for answers to discard God (some did, yes). There are many who just wanted to figure things out, wheter the Bible was right or wrong, that is for a sciencetist a non-issue. He just does his/her job, explore new possibilities. So their motivations is mostly not counter-God, though we assume it is.
In my opinion, I'd even say I am more convinced to find God's greatness in nature/science. Having said that, I know that there's a "essential?" split on how to view God and the Bible in this sense. because this goes to the core of people who see the Genesis chapter as mostly litteral, where as science goes evolution. (we've read and wrote the threads on this one!!!):eek:
So stating that postmodernism declares God dead is too black and white for me. Sure there are always those who say or do (also in modernity we had our share, we have modern preachers declaring not to believe in God:eek:), but Brian Mclaren doesn't do that. He's just starting to help(guide) the people who have read the questions of postmoderns. He's giving a way to live with God and Christ that is relevant to the "postmodern" Christian.


I have to agree partially with you on this from what I have read so far. Since there is no other voice than Neo and Dan (who seem to be in total agreement with each other) there is little room for argument in ANKOC. There are many ways to start conversations, poking people in the eye is not always the best.

As far as I've read it, it's not about poking the eye. It seems to me that the main character Dan (or maybe Brian himself) cannot work anymore with the already outlined plot of modern theology. It just doesn't hold ground anymore. The way of modernity, it is going to end, slowly, but surely. Even though it still has power, but it's fighting a huge mindset, which is here to stay. Even if I wanted to stop it I couldn't, because if it's not in the church, it's going to develop outside of it.

My guess is that McLaren wanted to be on the edge so that he would get the questions and arguments and media. And as we know since he started to go public with this, it worked out pretty wel, and there have been many who have felt the same questions and have the same issues with what they are taught. So maybe, yes it can feel like poking, but I do not think that his poking is meant to be as threat, but as exploration.:q)

In His love,:fav04
Martijn

[Ian Gentles]

I wonder as i read posts, read books, would the ordinary Christian have a clue what we are talking about? I also wonder if they would really care if they did? It is we the select few who grapple with these questions, the ordinary person grapples with other matters and needs. We may be in danger of dragging the ordinary Christian where they don't want to go! If post modernist brings God closer to us, great! If it dosent, why bother?

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder as i read posts, read books, would the ordinary Christian have a clue what we are talking about? I also wonder if they would really care if they did? It is we the select few who grapple with these questions, the ordinary person grapples with other matters and needs. We may be in danger of dragging the ordinary Christian where they don't want to go! If post modernist brings God closer to us, great! If it dosent, why bother?

I think the ordinary Christian doesn't have a clue about the philosophical ideas of post modernism, and couldn't care less. But that is not the point. The point is that these ideas seem to slip through anyway. How often don't you hear it said that "if it works for you, that's just fine"? Post modern to the core.

[Ian Gentles]

I think the ordinary Christian doesn't have a clue about the philosophical ideas of post modernism, and couldn't care less. But that is not the point. The point is that these ideas seem to slip through anyway. How often don't you hear it said that "if it works for you, that's just fine"? Post modern to the core.

Yes i think we established on threads that folks are already there without realizing it ;)

[Mike McVey]

I wonder as i read posts, read books, would the ordinary Christian have a clue what we are talking about? I also wonder if they would really care if they did? It is we the select few who grapple with these questions, the ordinary person grapples with other matters and needs. We may be in danger of dragging the ordinary Christian where they don't want to go! If post modernist brings God closer to us, great! If it dosent, why bother?

What is an ordinary Christian? Is Billie not ordinary? He's not a pastor and he is interested and engaged in discussion. Of course there are several extraordinary Christians who have no clue about what we are talking about.

I have found that people generally invest their time in what they believe to be beneficial to them. If they think a discussion on post modernity is beneficial, they will study up on it and discuss. A better example. If I were to get open heart surgery, I could talk to a doctor to ask what would be involved, but I guarantee you the doctor would spend more time answering my questions based on what I researched on the process.

Despite my title as "pastor" I decided while in school I would dedicate myself to being a pastor-theologian. And to understand theology, you have to understand philosophy. And to understand people (as a pastor) you have to understand sociology and psychology. And all of these fields are dealing with similar problems concerning a post-modern construct. Since every person by definition is either an I or Thou, then that means they are social beings who has inner moves within themselves. I don't believe this is dragging people into it, it is embracing where they already are.

BTW, I do not consider myself an ordinary Christian... I usually think of myself as lessordinary than extraordinary.

[Billie Goodson]

As far as I've read it, it's not about poking the eye. It seems to me that the main character Dan (or maybe Brian himself) cannot work anymore with the already outlined plot of modern theology. It just doesn't hold ground anymore. The way of modernity, it is going to end, slowly, but surely. Even though it still has power, but it's fighting a huge mindset, which is here to stay. Even if I wanted to stop it I couldn't, because if it's not in the church, it's going to develop outside of it.

Martijn

I tend to be somewhat closer to fundamental than liberal (if they exist as two opposite points on a line) so I know my reading is heavily filtered through that lens. Having said that, I am not sure that I agree that McLaren is not poking in the eye with his critique. That is one of the reasons I decided to put the book down for a while. I found myself getting more and more critical of his work and felt I had lost the sense of even being able to read it remotely objective.

Then again, since I do place myself closer to fundamentalism than liberalism, some might disagree with Mike's comments that I am an ordinary Christian and instead call me a near-atheist.

[Mike McVey]

I tend to be somewhat closer to fundamental than liberal (if they exist as two opposite points on a line) so I know my reading is heavily filtered through that lens. Having said that, I am not sure that I agree that McLaren is not poking in the eye with his critique. That is one of the reasons I decided to put the book down for a while. I found myself getting more and more critical of his work and felt I had lost the sense of even being able to read it remotely objective.

Then again, since I do place myself closer to fundamentalism than liberalism, some might disagree with Mike's comments that I am an ordinary Christian and instead call me a near-atheist.

Billie,

I actually disagree with Martijn... partially. I think McLaren is poking at the Evangelical Movement's gut and saying how fat that they have become. This was the first book I read of McLaren and I thought he was another pop-author that was wasting my time (at that time in my life I was moving from fundamentalism to what is known as post-liberal). Then I found out one of the professors I respected the most highly regarded the book. So I read it through again. Then I saw the genius of McLaren. He willingly sacrificed all of his merit as an important Evangelical, to bring up issues that the Church largely ignored. And he was an important Evangelical. He was never considered a theologian, but several enjoyed rubbing shoulders with him. When he wrote this book, several Evangelical leaders castrated him from their fellowship. But because of what McLaren had written, several who remained loyal to the church despite being disenfranchised resonated with him.

Feel free to be critical of him. I was. I wrote about ten pages worth of objections to things that he said. I even read Francis Schaeffer because of McLaren's criticism's of him. And I found that Schaeffer was deluded in wanting the church to be the true church... y'know, at the time that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli started their own churches. McLaren won't lose any sleep over your criticisms. In fact, I really believe he would welcome them if you did it in a civilized manner.

I don't know about you, Billie, but when I was a fundamentalist, I chose to be one. My parents did not raise me that way. I chose it because at the time, they were the only ones who tried to answer my questions. I had a lot of them. But fundamentalism is a product of radical liberalism. Radical liberalism espouses the myth that we can choose our past, therefore we can choose our future. If you live in America and you believe in any kinds of rights to be provided, then you are a product of liberalism. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (or happiness) is the motto of liberalism. Being a liberal is not the same as being a product of liberalism.

I also doubt that anyone would consider you an atheist. There have been many great fundamentalists who have carried the mantle well. Just as there have been many liberals. And there will be many post-evangelical/post-liberals who will carry the mantle well. I think you are an ordinary Christian. Partly, because I don't think most people who claim the name are. Therefore, with the downsizing in my mind there has to be somebody ordinary, right? :rolleyes:

The reason I am no longer a fundamentalist has little to do with McLaren, though I appreciate him journeying with me a little. The reason is that I realized I no longer needed to prove God or prove God right. God is powerful enough to defend Godself. All I am called to do is be faithful in recognizing Him as Lord of all.

[Billie Goodson]

The reason is that I realized I no longer needed to prove God or prove God right. God is powerful enough to defend Godself. All I am called to do is be faithful in recognizing Him as Lord of all.

One of the things that bothered me in McLaren's book was his assertion on page XV that he "was writing for God's sake" (this is a huge paraphrase probably, I would need to find the book and in the recent moving, I am not quite sure where it is -- just like the phone). I found it really self-absorbed that he felt compelled to put that comment in the prologue or intro. Your statement reminded me of that statement.

Maybe my issue is that I seriously hate labels -- which is funny, because I probably apply them as liberally as anyone. I think the only label that might be important to me is "Christian", them maybe father/husband applies next. I really would not even like to call myself a Christian -- I had rather people see my life and apply the label for themselves. It seems cheating if I have to tell someone I am a Christian. Then again, maybe the word "Christian" has so much baggage attached to it. What is a Christian anyway?

[Billie Goodson]

I don't know about you, Billie, but when I was a fundamentalist, I chose to be one. My parents did not raise me that way. I chose it because at the time, they were the only ones who tried to answer my questions. I had a lot of them. But fundamentalism is a product of radical liberalism. Radical liberalism espouses the myth that we can choose our past, therefore we can choose our future. If you live in America and you believe in any kinds of rights to be provided, then you are a product of liberalism. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (or happiness) is the motto of liberalism. Being a liberal is not the same as being a product of liberalism.



Mike, I am not sure I agree with you on this (or that I really even disagree). I really can't seem to grasp what you are getting at. Maybe part of it is that I can't seem to get past Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness (a nod to the Will Smith movie there) being a product of liberalism. Maybe a good definition of liberalism would help here..

Would the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)definition of liberalism be what you are pointing at?

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.

[George Wallace]

Below is a portion from another of my posts:

I believe that many Nazarenes are easily swayed and don’t have or don’t use proper discernment. I know I’ll take some heat for this but… Why is the Emergent Movement or ‘Conversation’ being embraced by so many Nazarenes? Why is Brian McLaren speaking at both NNU and Point Loma this winter/spring? This man preaches, that which is antithetical to the one true gospel. In a Christianity Today article he states “I don’t think we’ve got the Gospel right yet…” In an internet radio http://www.wonderosity.com/?s=Mclaren interview McLaren calls the Cross a distraction and openly questions the existence of Hell. I firmly believe that this movement is the type Paul warned about in Galatians 1: “6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! I do believe that this movement is dangerous and is leading people down the path of destruction. Most Emergent types also embrace so called Christian Mysticism and focus on Contemplative Spirituality (See Lighthouse Trails Research Project http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch....irituality.htm) I also believe that many in the movement advocate not just ecumenism but pluralism and Universalism.

This can be a topic for an additional post.

This appears to be the correct spot for this portion of another of my posts thank you Ian.

Now I will apologize in advance to Roland and any other Post-Modernists out there but when I read pro-postmodern/emergent thought expressed, with their lack of certitude I feel like saying “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus…!” Meaning, I am not arrogant enough to say that I or any human has every line of scripture understood with 100% accuracy, but there are absolutes! Christ, Salvation, Heaven, Hell, right and wrong…. How can anyone read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), plus Jude and 2 Peter and reconcile these books with much of what is being espoused by post-modernists?

I just don’t get it?!

George Wallace
1Cor 1:18

[Marsha Lynn]

Hi, George. Welcome to NazNet!

So... I take it you're not a fan of Brian McLaren then? Or did I misunderstand your message?

I might consider studying your words more closely but I have to guard against being 'easily swayed' by the opinions expressed here on NazNet. :basic03

Seriously, I don't believe the way I do because Brian McLaren wrote a book and enticed me to reconsider my basic beliefs. He simply voiced what was already welling up within me based on my own experience and what I have absorbed from Scripture. You can still think that's wrong and quote the Bible to prove your points, but Scripture has been an essential ingredient for me in settling into the beliefs I hold today. This is certainly not the first time in history that Scripture has been studied by different people who have come to what looks like diametrically opposed opinions as to its message. I don't believe the way I do because I haven't dug deep enough into the Bible to figure out that I'm wrong. It is Scripture itself that has shaped my beliefs and brought me independently to many of the same conclusions as McLaren.

I'm certainly not embracing everything I hear and read from the emerging church. But neither am I likely to reject it simply because someone tells me that it goes against the clear teaching of the Bible. I can't even begin to enumerate the many things that people have told me over the years that I can't believe because the Bible clearly has a different message. I'm not quite old enough to include the idea of the earth rotating around the sun or the inherent inferiority of certain minorities on my personal list, but they certainly could be included if one were to make a historical list of such statements. Just because someone says that the Bible clearly makes certain points doesn't mean that the matter is eternally settled.

I'm curious. This is the first of your posts that I have seen. Do you have credentials that qualify you for the position of official Bible interpreter for the Church of the Nazarene? If so, I hope that you will excuse my ignorant babble here. Not that my beliefs would change if that were the case, but I would retreat to my former position of wondering if I'm in the wrong denomination.

Marsha

Below is a portion from another of my posts:

I believe that many Nazarenes are easily swayed and don’t have or don’t use proper discernment. I know I’ll take some heat for this but… Why is the Emergent Movement or ‘Conversation’ being embraced by so many Nazarenes? Why is Brian McLaren speaking at both NNU and Point Loma this winter/spring? This man preaches, that which is antithetical to the one true gospel. In a Christianity Today article he states “I don’t think we’ve got the Gospel right yet…” In an internet radio http://www.wonderosity.com/?s=Mclaren interview McLaren calls the Cross a distraction and openly questions the existence of Hell. I firmly believe that this movement is the type Paul warned about in Galatians 1: “6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! I do believe that this movement is dangerous and is leading people down the path of destruction. Most Emergent types also embrace so called Christian Mysticism and focus on Contemplative Spirituality (See Lighthouse Trails Research Project http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch....irituality.htm) I also believe that many in the movement advocate not just ecumenism but pluralism and Universalism.

This can be a topic for an additional post.

This appears to be the correct spot for this portion of another of my posts thank you Ian.

Now I will apologize in advance to Roland and any other Post-Modernists out there but when I read pro-postmodern/emergent thought expressed, with their lack of certitude I feel like saying “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus…!” Meaning, I am not arrogant enough to say that I or any human has every line of scripture understood with 100% accuracy, but there are absolutes! Christ, Salvation, Heaven, Hell, right and wrong…. How can anyone read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), plus Jude and 2 Peter and reconcile these books with much of what is being espoused by post-modernists?

I just don’t get it?!

George Wallace
1Cor 1:18

[James Diggs]

Below is a portion from another of my posts:

I posted my response back in the thread you originally cut your comment from here at this link (http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=16873).

[Ian Gentles]

Well, reading a lot and considering, but it if, am I a modernist, oh tag me! At present getting simple, tomorrow i may not, but can this be a lot of rot? Oh i don't mean anything bad to anyone, but I, we, seem so full off new theological ideas, and aren't they just that, ideas?

[Richard Call]

The description of post modern thinking sounds familiar. Acts 17: 21, NIV, "21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)" The Athenians had a problem. They weren't sure what absolute truth was so they threw ideas in the air and caught the one they liked best. It think they were pre post modernists. That's they way the UMC changes light bulbs...each one brings his light bulb and then they decide which may be the right one (not certain of course) and they try to light the darkness with this hoping it will illuminate to meet their need.

God's eternal word is absolute truth it does not change and is not subject to human intellectualism, or, human claims to uncertitude.

[Billie Goodson]

I'm curious. This is the first of your posts that I have seen. Do you have credentials that qualify you for the position of official Bible interpreter for the Church of the Nazarene? If so, I hope that you will excuse my ignorant babble here. Not that my beliefs would change if that were the case, but I would retreat to my former position of wondering if I'm in the wrong denomination.

Marsha

Marsha, I do not see where George established himself as the "official Bible interpreter for the Church of the Nazarene". I see where he clearly stated his beliefs and see at least a few other places where he states "I firmly believe" -- but, no, nowhere where he claims the title as official interpreter.

[Marsha Lynn]

Marsha, I do not see where George established himself as the "official Bible interpreter for the Church of the Nazarene". I see where he clearly stated his beliefs and see at least a few other places where he states "I firmly believe" -- but, no, nowhere where he claims the title as official interpreter.

Thanks, Billie. You're right. Most of the statements George made here are expressed as opinions. I guess I either didn't read closely enough or was reacting to this one declarative (absolute) statement:

This man preaches, that which is antithetical to the one true gospel.

And to the list of absolutes that he classified as beyond debate.

In following the link James posted to the other thread, I see that the disclaimer giving George space to speak with authority as a recognized Bible teacher in the denomination was unnecessary. There are a few around here who truly are in that position, you know, and I'm certainly not one of them and try to be careful about challenging the statements of those who are. My comment wasn't intended to say, "Who are you to say such things?" but rather, "I hope I didn't miss your introduction and stumble into a position of challenging someone around whom I would do better to be respectfully silent."

But then again, maybe respectful silence and listening truly would have still been a better choice than responding. Sigh.

So, I wonder... is the conference at NNU in February officially associated with the Church of the Nazarene? i.e., Is it indicative of the degree to which the "Emergent Movement or 'Conversation'" is being embraced by "so many" in the Church of the Nazarene? How many is "so many" in this case? And who is doing the embracing? I wonder how far it is from "so many" as to alarm George to "so many" as to give me hope that the Church of the Nazarene is viable as an organization bringing welcome light to the world in the 21st century.

Just curious.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

Meaning, I am not arrogant enough to say that I or any human has every line of scripture understood with 100% accuracy, but there are absolutes! Christ, Salvation, Heaven, Hell, right and wrong…. How can anyone read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), plus Jude and 2 Peter and reconcile these books with much of what is being espoused by post-modernists?

I don't know what is being espoused by post-modernists, I don't think anyone who would consider him/herself as part of that group has the authority to speak on behalf all of them.

However, there is a problem with the idea of absolute truth. I think it exists, only, like you say, who can claim to have understood it with 100% accuracy? Let's face it, when God Himself became flesh and started to teach among us, most of what He told us were stories. Now what's the absolute truth in a story? I mean, the Good Samaritan didn't even exist! Nor did the prodigal son.

The problem with absolute truth is that people think they know it, which means that if you don't agree with them, you're an heretic. Somehow, that attitude is not reflected in Jesus.

In another thread we talked about the mysteries of faith, of which God Himself is quite likely #1. That's a whole different way of talking theology than trying to get "absolute truths" out of the Scriptures. And, BTW, there are very few truths that would even be considered "absolute".

Perhaps the Nicean Creed would be considered one of the most universally accepted statements of faith of the church. The interesting thing is that it doesn't even mention hell. Neither does the Apostle's Creed (for its reference to "hell" is not what we consider hell, but merely the realm of the dead). So all those that run around screaming "heretic" because McLaren messes with absolute truths regarding his views on hell, may try to get there lists of "absolute truths" in alignment with the creeds first.

[Hans Deventer]

So, I wonder... is the conference at NNU in February officially associated with the Church of the Nazarene?

What would require that? A letter of invitation by the Board of General Superintendents? Don't think there is one. But I'm quite sure NNU officially and formally invited him, yes.

i.e., Is it indicative of the degree to which the "Emergent Movement or 'Conversation'" is being embraced by "so many" in the Church of the Nazarene?

No. Only that some at our schools are interested in a dialogue with this man. And he has already been invited to MNU in Nov 2005 as well, and even (oh, the horror) been welcomed there as "a brother in Christ". The proof can be found here http://www.podcastpickle.com/cast/12300/ Just listen to the start of the first session.

I wonder how far it is from "so many" as to alarm George to "so many" as to give me hope that the Church of the Nazarene is viable as an organization bringing welcome light to the world in the 21st century.

:basic01

[Hans Deventer]

God's eternal word is absolute truth it does not change and is not subject to human intellectualism, or, human claims to uncertitude.

You forgot the capital "w". God's eternal Word is absolute truth, meaning, Jesus Christ Himself. He made the claim to be the truth. Of the Scriptures, we know they are "God-breathed". But since God breathed through humans, which is a different concept from throwing golden plates down from heaven, that is a different story alltogether.

Or are we to presume the following words were literally dictated by God? I'd say they were inspired by a very unholy spirit:

13 Then the commander stood and called out in Hebrew, "Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria! 14 This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you. He cannot deliver you! 15 Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the LORD when he says, 'The LORD will surely deliver us; this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.' (Isaiah 36)

[David Parker]

Hope you all have time for a simple question on this subject. I am not sure I have any idea of Post Modern/Emergent substance. I'm totally confused.

Is the tension only regarding form and expression, or is there theological tension regarding the foundations of our faith? In other words, is this about dress, design, music, order of service, worship styles, mission philosophy,....or is there a fundamental questioning and dispute over basic doctrine?

Sorry to be so dense, but having read this entire thread, I'm now even more confused. :o

[Mike McVey]

Hope you all have time for a simple question on this subject. I am not sure I have any idea of Post Modern/Emergent substance. I'm totally confused.

Is the tension only regarding form and expression, or is there theological tension regarding the foundations of our faith? In other words, is this about dress, design, music, order of service, worship styles, mission philosophy,....or is there a fundamental questioning and dispute over basic doctrine?

Sorry to be so dense, but having read this entire thread, I'm now even more confused. :o

Because this is involved with the thread about the book about postmodernism, I will try to quickly answer your question and encourage you to read the conversation in the book forum on Stanley Grenz "A Primer to Postmodernism".

Postmodernity is not about form or expression initially, because it takes many forms and expressions. It is also not questioning the fundamentals of basic doctrine so much as looking at how the doctrines can be expressed in the new social construct. A postmodern Christian, like myself, embraces all of the tenets of say, the Manual. But the way I understand/interpret those might look different than a modern Christian.

[Hans Deventer]

Is the tension only regarding form and expression, or is there theological tension regarding the foundations of our faith? In other words, is this about dress, design, music, order of service, worship styles, mission philosophy,....or is there a fundamental questioning and dispute over basic doctrine?

It is about the way we arrive at truth, about what truth is. It is a departure of the correspondence theory. The correspondence theory says that if I have described something and am able to check the correctness of that description by observing the described thing, I have stated something truthful about that thing.

However, post modernism questions if this observation is ever objective, and hence, if truth is ever objective.

See for instance the quantum theory.

[Billie Goodson]

Hope you all have time for a simple question on this subject. I am not sure I have any idea of Post Modern/Emergent substance. I'm totally confused.

Is the tension only regarding form and expression, or is there theological tension regarding the foundations of our faith? In other words, is this about dress, design, music, order of service, worship styles, mission philosophy,....or is there a fundamental questioning and dispute over basic doctrine?

Sorry to be so dense, but having read this entire thread, I'm now even more confused. :o

I think there are two things to consider, form and function -- which may be analagous to your form and foundation.

Form is those things we do in the church like have services on Sunday, or have a sermon. It is the order of the service or the types of music that we have. Personally, I think we need great latitude on the form, for it would be to me what Wesley calls the non-essentials.

Function is the church doing what the church is supposed to do from a biblical perspective. One could say it is the expression of the gifts of the spirit. It is the ministries, it is the church as the bride. In the function, we need to adhere to the responsibilities of the church -- they would be the essentials. Without them, it would seem that the church would be imbalanced and destabilize and the body would be negatively effected.

In response to George, I shared many of your concerns when I began to look into post-modernism. One of the most refreshing things to me was in seeing how consistent people like Roland, Marsha, Mike, and Hans are on the essentials. I am still concerned that some that read McLaren may completely adopt his theology, which to me would be disturbing. I do not believe a statement that there are no absolute truths has any validity, for it is self-refuting -- I don't think that is what Hans is saying. What I believe he is challenging is those things we place into absolute truth that are interpretation.

Now, I could have royally messed all of this up, I am thinking through this, please, if you disagree, please provide specific bible verse and Greek translation....just kidding! Let us reason, for I believe there is great room at the foot of the cross for brothers and sisters.

[Billie Goodson]

It is about the way we arrive at truth, about what truth is. It is a departure of the correspondence theory. The correspondence theory says that if I have described something and am able to check the correctness of that description by observing the described thing, I have stated something truthful about that thing.

However, post modernism questions if this observation is ever objective, and hence, if truth is ever objective.

See for instance the quantum theory.

Hans,

As a Christian, how do we not hold to a correspondence model of truth? If I hold Christ to be absolute truth, and I not checking my correctness against that idea of him? Is saying my goal is to be Christ-like not in and of itself applying a correspondence theory?

A competitive theory is that the cohesion. In the cohesive theory, it is stated that a truth only needs to be coherent to itself to be valid. In this theory, I think we can clearly place most of the heretical positions of the church -- they may make sense within themselves, but, they tend to show at the least an imbalance, and at the worst a complete abandonment of Christian commitment.

[Hans Deventer]

As a Christian, how do we not hold to a correspondence model of truth? If I hold Christ to be absolute truth, and I not checking my correctness against that idea of him? Is saying my goal is to be Christ-like not in and of itself applying a correspondence theory?

In way, yes. But do notice with whom you are comparing. Your view of Christ will be different than mine. So the theory is used, but not as in modernism, to describe absolute truth, but rather to define truth within a certain context. And that is the very core of post modernism. Jesus is the truth, no doubt about it. But that does not mean that my statements about Him fall in the same category. They are shaped by the context in which I was raised, my culture, etc etc etc.

This is actually the very argument post-moderns use. Your checking your correctness against Him differs from mine, and ours again from other Christians. Hence the denial of our being able to know absolute truth as a statement.
The good news of the gospel is however that the absolute truth is not a statement, but a Person. Not a dogma to believed, but a Person to follow and to get to know! Even considering our limited view of Him, that is still our task.

I once preached on the great commandment. We should "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." So, with YOUR heart, YOUR soul, YOUR mind and YOUR strength. Which means the commandment it completely adapted to me. To my strength, mind, heart etc. Now of course we are to be the body of Christ, a community of believers, and learn from each other. So the context of what this means will be defined by the church we're a part of. Still, the commandment comes to you and me and will mean different things to either of us.

I hope I'm not confusing stuff...........

[Billie Goodson]

We should "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." So, with YOUR heart, YOUR soul, YOUR mind and YOUR strength. Which means the commandment it completely adapted to me. To my strength, mind, heart etc. Now of course we are to be the body of Christ, a community of believers, and learn from each other. So the context of what this means will be defined by the church we're a part of. Still, the commandment comes to you and me and will mean different things to either of us.

I hope I'm not confusing stuff...........

Nope, I don't think you are (confusing stuff). Actually the part I quoted above is probably almost my entire theological position in a nutshell (or maybe a nuts shell, you decide). I feel that I am accountable to God for those things which He has revealed to me. That being said, I can't be lazy and stick my head in the sand and say if I don't want to hear it, it isn't being said. I believe the Holy Spirit may place conviction on me for a certain action/thought, and you may never be made aware of it in your own life. However, the Spirit, knowing me -- has decided that something that may be fine for you, is not for me. Let's say making taking a sip of wine... Does that make sense.

This seems consistent to me with the warning that Paul gave about eating the meats and such. So, I believe it is my responsibility to be consistent to the convictions that I have, and the requirements that God places upon me.

On truth, it seems that the problem is universal truths, not absolute. That just may be me using words that make sense to me, but, it seems to get at what you are saying. I can accept that there is not a good universal truth -- but, I still get back to the fact that I measure a statement/position against what I believe truth to be, not itself. But, that is what works for me.

[Hans Deventer]

However, the Spirit, knowing me -- has decided that something that may be fine for you, is not for me. Let's say making taking a sip of wine... Does that make sense.

Yes.

On truth, it seems that the problem is universal truths, not absolute. That just may be me using words that make sense to me, but, it seems to get at what you are saying. I can accept that there is not a good universal truth -- but, I still get back to the fact that I measure a statement/position against what I believe truth to be, not itself. But, that is what works for me.

Well, I do believe that God is the truth, the ultimate, absolute truth. Not dependent on anything or anyone else. He IS. But we all know He chose to reveal Himself in history, which means, in a specific context. So our knowing of Him has to be influenced, if not largely defined, by that context.

[George Wallace]

David,
I think I am partly responsible for some of the confusion. My previous post in this thread actually deals with the Emergent Movement or Conversation and not specifically Post-modernism. Ian’s originally post pertained specifically to post-modernism and I responded with my personal Emergent problem. So please allow me to attempt a 30,0000 ft view of the modern, post-modern, emergent correlation. For those unfamiliar with the 30Kft reference I mean “really basic” as in viewing something on the ground from 30Kft. So please don’t hit me too hard in your responses as I am not trying for great detail.

Modernism: Purported to have begun with the Enlightenment, furthered by Descartes (Rationalism) Kant & Hume (Reason). Fast-forward a few centuries and the net result of Modernism is the belief that Science, specifically the Scientific method and man’s Reason can provide all the answers i.e. discover all truth.

Post-modernism: Start time is fuzzy, some say after WW-I into the 1920’s. This was the heyday of the Theological Liberalism (Darwin, H.G. Wells). Others, (I think Leonard Sweet) started writing about it around 1957. Some peg the start as the 60’s Counter-culture VN era. I think there may be some validity in all of these views but I tend to believe that what we have today labeled as Post-modernism began in earnest after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hans’ definition for post-modernism is probably the best concise definition I have seen. I won’t add to it other than reaffirm that it is all about how you view truth. Post-moderns typically reject the notion that Sciences and man’s reason are sufficient for completely defining truth.

Emergence: Official start… well you got me there, probably the late 50’s early 60’s with Sweet and Webber. Today’s Emergent Movement (I use that term loosely) has been growing strong since probably the early to mid 1990’s. The reason for some of the confusions is that you can speak of post-modernism as divorced from Christianity or religion; it is about the view or the philosophy of truth and absolutes. While obviously once you start discussing things of this nature most people will end up talking about their belief system, pure post modern thought does not have to pertain specifically to Christianity. The Emergent Movement is the embodiment of post-modern thought within the context of Christianity. The Emergent Movement or Conversation is very amorphous and hard to define. Many different beliefs are lumped under the Emergent moniker. To be fair, to define someone as Emergent is technically unfair. It would be like trying to define the term Baptist. Well do you mean, Northern, Southern, Independent, Billy Graham Arminian alter-call Baptist or Charles Spurgeon Reformed Calvinistic Baptist?

The best practical explanation of the Emergent I have found is here:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22406

The author Ed Setzer is one I would consider a participant in the Emerging Conversation or Emergent friendly. To my knowledge he is not a leader or propagator of emergent thought or theology. Please read the link it is short and I believe quite an accurate description of the Emergent. I am sure that not all Emergent folks believe they fit into his three categories of, Relevants, Re-constructionists, Revisionists, but like a Bell curve I think most will fit within the context of these categories. I believe that if you vist web sites from the Relevants, or the Recostructionists it will only take 2 to 3 mouse clicks on their links or resources page and you end up back at the Mother ship, with Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Rob Bell and Doug Padggit. I hope this is now clear as mud! I hope this is now clear as mud!

For a pro-emergent research try:
emergentvillige.com (http://www.emergentvillige.com)
solomonsporch.com (http://www.solomonsporch.com)
deepshift.org (http://www.deepshift.org)

For the opposite perspective try:
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.515
sliceoflaodica.com (http://www.sliceoflaodica.com)
extremetheology.com (http://www.extremetheology.com)

Thes are Calvinist sites and you may have to do a bit of surfing, but only a few clicks should be required before you find some anti-emergent info.

George
1Cor 1:18

[Kevin Rector]

The description of post modern thinking sounds familiar. Acts 17: 21, NIV, "21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)" The Athenians had a problem. They weren't sure what absolute truth was so they threw ideas in the air and caught the one they liked best. It think they were pre post modernists.

...

God's eternal word is absolute truth it does not change and is not subject to human intellectualism, or, human claims to uncertitude.

Does your last paragraph mean that I can disregard your first? It is your intellect that allowed you to interpret (and add to) the scripture about the Athenians. So your "human claims" about the Athenians "Having a problem" and not being "...sure what absolute truth was..." and how they, "...threw ideas in the air and caught the ones they liked best." can all be ignored right?

The craziest thing to me is how you don't see how inconsistent your very own position is and how it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Kevin Rector]

I am still concerned that some that read McLaren may completely adopt his theology, which to me would be disturbing. I do not believe a statement that there are no absolute truths has any validity, for it is self-refuting...

I hate to speak for anyone else (especially one as prolific as Brian McLaren) but he would not say that there are no absolute truths. I think he would say that we can not know truth absolutely. There is a subtle but very important distinction because the latter puts us into humility while the former allows us to get rather puffed up and over confident about what we "know".

Furthermore, this rings correct for Christians because we make the claim that all truth is wrapped up in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Or put another way, absolute truth is God. We will never be God, so there is no way that we will ever know truth in it's entirely (however I'm very confident that we will in glory have an astoundingly clear image of the truth of God).

[Billie Goodson]

I think he would say that we can not know truth absolutely. There is a subtle but very important distinction because the latter puts us into humility while the former allows us to get rather puffed up and over confident about what we "know".



I would agree that this could be a danger -- allowing us to become puffed up, if, we divorce our ability to recognize truth, from our ability to define truth. This actually goes back to the correspondence theory question with Hans. Each of us almost every day makes an application of the correspondence theory in how we ascertain measurements. If I say an object is a foot (12 inches), you and I both correspond what I am saying to what we both hold as truth what a foot is defined to be, or what it corresponds to in an accepted form. Should I be proud or puffed up because I recognize a foot as being 12 inches?

[George Wallace]

Here is a quote from John MacArthur:

"In one narrow respect, the driving idea behind the Emerging Church movement is correct: The current climate of postmodernism does represent a wonderful window of opportunity for the church of Jesus Christ. The arrogant rationalism that dominated the modern era is already in its death throes. Most of the world is caught up in disillusionment and confusion. People are unsure about virtually everything and do not know where to turn for truth.

However, the absolute worst strategy for ministering the gospel in a climate like this is for Christians to imitate the uncertainty or echo the cynicism of the postmodern perspective – and in effect drag the Bible into it. Instead, we need to affirm against the spirit of the age that God has spoken with utmost clarity, authority, and finality through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). And we have the infallible record of that message in Scripture (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Postmodernism is simply the latest expression of worldly unbelief."

Truth War page 24

Thoughts?

[Hans Deventer]

Thoughts?

Yeah. Everything Kevin and I already wrote in this thread.

[Billy Cox]

I suppose that we could agree that God is absolute truth. Some conclusions that I draw from that statement:

-- Absolute truth is all inclusive. There is no truth outside of the absolute truth.

-- If there is no truth outside of absolute truth, then all truth is derivative of the absolute truth.

-- The printed Bible in itself cannot be absolute truth, but points to it.

-- Doctrines and theology, even if derived from a precise understanding of the Bible, will be at least two steps removed from the absolute truth.


Thoughts?

[Billie Goodson]

I suppose that we could agree that God is absolute truth. Some conclusions that I draw from that statement:

-- Absolute truth is all inclusive. There is no truth outside of the absolute truth.

-- If there is no truth outside of absolute truth, then all truth is derivative of the absolute truth.

-- The printed Bible in itself cannot be absolute truth, but points to it.

-- Doctrines and theology, even if derived from a precise understanding of the Bible, will be at least two steps removed from the absolute truth.


Thoughts?

My initial response is that they are nice concise statements that I don't see any disagreement to. Then, I sit and say, "Ok, so what does that mean."

Billy, this is my response to much of what McLaren writes. I do not want to say you write like McLaren when you wrote that, just that it reminds me of my reaction when I read McLaren. It just seems to be replacing a model with another one, and demanding that I accept the new model simply because it has been proposed.

So, while I am in agreement with your statement, I am left with the question of what do I do with that agreement?

[Billy Cox]

One possible application, but certainly not the only one...

If I have to choose between loving my neighbor and defending the doctrine of the trinity (or the virgin birth, or the doctrine of entire sanctification, etc.), I will choose to love my neighbor...hands down.

Btw, I have known plenty of people who would consign me to Hell for suggesting that the Bible is not absolute truth.

[Billie Goodson]

One possible application, but certainly not the only one...

If I have to choose between loving my neighbor and defending the doctrine of the trinity (or the virgin birth, or the doctrine of entire sanctification, etc.), I will choose to love my neighbor...hands down.

Btw, I have known plenty of people who would consign me to Hell for suggesting that the Bible is not absolute truth.

So, what if you had to choose between loving your neighbor and defending your statement that the bible is not absolute truth?

[Marsha Lynn]

Thoughts?

My thoughts on postmodernism and absolute truth are here (http://marshalyn.blogspot.com/2007/11/postmodernism-and-absolute-truth.html), for what they're worth.

Marsha

[Kevin Rector]

So, while I am in agreement with your statement, I am left with the question of what do I do with that agreement?

So what you do is that you don't become dogmatic. You don't assert that you know it all. You don't belittle people for having a different understanding about God than what you have. You treat all people with respect. You recognize your own fallibility. You act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.

You probably do a lot of that if not all of it already, if so then fabulous. Lots and lots of Christians don't do that. Lots and lots of Christians say things like, "God said it and I believe it and that settles it for me...and if it doesn't for you then you're wrong and probably going to hell."

[Kevin Rector]

My thoughts on postmodernism and absolute truth are here (http://marshalyn.blogspot.com/2007/11/postmodernism-and-absolute-truth.html), for what they're worth.

Marsha

Good thoughts. Well said.

[George Wallace]

Does this response seem rude and dismissive, to anyone else but me?

I will provide the benefit of the doubt. I know that with out the benefit of tone, inflection, facial expression and other non-verbal’s it is easy to perceive an innocent written comment as something other.

Hans,
Obviously, you’ve made statements that indeed make it clear that you see no need to “affirm against” postmodernism when you are a proponent of postmodernism. But, from a cursory overview of your’s and Kevin’s posts I don’t see how you have addressed the idea that the uncertainty often associated with postmodernism is the “worst” strategy for ministering to people in the post modern context. My hope is that someone on your side of the ‘fence’ will explain why their position is better. Also, I hope that someone will explain the Scriptures in Mr. MacArthur’s quote from a postmodern context.

I have taken all of your prior posts from this thread as well as the 2 from Kevin and pasted them into a Word Document. I will review them in detail. If I am being dense or have missed something please forgive me.

Honestly, I perceive this response to my post as the blog equivalent to providing a 1 Cent tip at a restaurant; it is meant to be insulting. If you weren’t attempting to be flippant let me apologize in advance. I know I am the new guy, but if you were, then might I request that you just ignore my posts in the future as not to foment any trouble. Emergentnazarenes.com would probably be a better blog for you to post in if you don’t like agreeing to disagree.

George
1Cor 1:18

[Billie Goodson]

So what you do is that you don't become dogmatic. You don't assert that you know it all. You don't belittle people for having a different understanding about God than what you have. You treat all people with respect. You recognize your own fallibility. You act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.


But Kevin, I don't see that as anything "new" or post-modern in that. I see most of that as trying to be Christ-like. Can I be a trans-moderns?

[Kevin Rector]

But Kevin, I don't see that as anything "new" or post-modern in that. I see most of that as trying to be Christ-like. Can I be a trans-moderns?

I want to preface this post by saying that epochal though systems are very nebulous things that are difficult if not impossible to get our brains fully around. It is very complex and touches on just about every area of the human sciences as well as the arts. Speaking of these things is sort of like speaking of generational cohorts, the barriers of who's a builder or a buster are very fuzzy and the generalizations about them are not always applicable to individuals.

Post-modernism is a way of thinking. It is about how we get at what we know. I can not choose to be postmodern or modern. A great deal of that comes from the influences that and forces at work in my world that have helped to shape how I think.

An example perhaps. A modern person would say, "I know the bible is true". A postmodern would say, "I have chosen to accept the claims of the bible."

Actually the postmodern might say, "I know the bible is true" but what they mean is "I have chosen to accept the claims of the bible."

Or perhaps another example, some atheists love the idea of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_unicorn). When a Christian says that they know God exists the atheist says that they know the IPU exists. Because both God and the IPU are unobservable through empirical research the atheist claims that the "fact assertions" about God are spurious.

In point of fact the atheist is right, and we can not in any modernist empirical sense know that there is a God. I do not know that there is a God, but I certainly have chosen to believe that there is one. Ours after all is a religion of faith.

As for being trans-modern, I'm not sure that's a word but it certainly should be. All of us are some parts modern and some parts post-modern. Some more than others. :)

We're all still trying to figure out what all of this means, but for me one of the biggest differences is that modernism taken to it's conclusion tends to support fractious and divisive systems of though while post-modernism (in its infancy) tends to support unifying open dialog.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

If that is the way a postmodernist thinks, then I would choose to not only veer away from it, but run as fast as I could.
I do not choose to say, "I have decided to accept what the bible says.
i would definately say that "I know the Bible is true." Otherwise, there would be a doubt left in the mind of those listening to me.
We have to be fully convinced of something, and believe it is completely right and true, or else, why would we accept Christ into our hearts?
This reminds me of how many of the 30 somethings talked in the ninties. A "Christian" professor, in a Christian school, was accusing our son, of something that he did not do, and going around in circles in the way he talked. Dwyne told him, he wanted him to speak plain English to him. He was anxious to get to a class, but, Dwayne stood in a doorway with his arms propped on either side, and said, "You aren't going anywhere, until you say, that you don't think my son stole your laptop computer." Anyone, that actuallly knows Dwayne Hood will be thoroughly shocked at this, but, when it comes to standing up for the right, his personality changes.
Anyway, the type of talk I mentioned at first, sort of reminded me of this professor. Do we believe that the Bible is true, or do we not? Otherwise, some of things I have heard about post modernism, is just the way, we have always, worked in the Kingdom of God. So, what else is new?

[Billie Goodson]

I want to preface this post by saying that epochal though systems are very nebulous things that are difficult if not impossible to get our brains fully around. It is very complex and touches on just about every area of the human sciences as well as the arts. Speaking of these things is sort of like speaking of generational cohorts, the barriers of who's a builder or a buster are very fuzzy and the generalizations about them are not always applicable to individuals.

Post-modernism is a way of thinking. It is about how we get at what we know. I can not choose to be postmodern or modern. A great deal of that comes from the influences that and forces at work in my world that have helped to shape how I think.

An example perhaps. A modern person would say, "I know the bible is true". A postmodern would say, "I have chosen to accept the claims of the bible."

Actually the postmodern might say, "I know the bible is true" but what they mean is "I have chosen to accept the claims of the bible."

Or perhaps another example, some atheists love the idea of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_unicorn). When a Christian says that they know God exists the atheist says that they know the IPU exists. Because both God and the IPU are unobservable through empirical research the atheist claims that the "fact assertions" about God are spurious.

In point of fact the atheist is right, and we can not in any modernist empirical sense know that there is a God. I do not know that there is a God, but I certainly have chosen to believe that there is one. Ours after all is a religion of faith.

As for being trans-modern, I'm not sure that's a word but it certainly should be. All of us are some parts modern and some parts post-modern. Some more than others. :)

We're all still trying to figure out what all of this means, but for me one of the biggest differences is that modernism taken to it's conclusion tends to support fractious and divisive systems of though while post-modernism (in its infancy) tends to support unifying open dialog.

Thanks for the input Kevin -- personally, I prefer the FSM to the IPU. :)

I don't disagree with anything specifically that you said, but, can I offer some food for thought?

I always find it interesting when people will declare "I am a postmodern" for many of the points you state in your post. How do I know I embody post-modernism and/or/not modernism? How do I know that postmodernism is actually a epoch of thought vice a transitional period? What I do see it as, and excuse my ignorance maybe in saying it, is a manner to establish difference, and I don't find that useful. Personally, I find the reliance on empirical fact non-useful. I see it as a defense mechanism against the failures of modernism to discredit faith -- but, that is simply my opinion.

[George Wallace]

I am posting a link to a short (7min I think, I can’t access YT from work) video. The video is a short response to Postmodern/Emergent thought by each Robert Mohler, R.C.Sproul and Ravi Zacharias. All three are well known Calvinists, although Ravi appears to be less partisan than the others. There are some statements that at first may seem rude, but I think are actually born out of frustration. For any willing please watch this clip and tell me what you think? I am particularly interested responses to Mr. Zacharias’s comment about boredom and the Secret Message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6uxCch7oc

Thank you for your time

George
1Cor 1:18

[Kevin Rector]

I do not choose to say, "I have decided to accept what the bible says.
i would definately say that "I know the Bible is true." Otherwise, there would be a doubt left in the mind of those listening to me.

...

We have to be fully convinced of something, and believe it is completely right and true, or else, why would we accept Christ into our hearts?

God bless you Anne.

The two posts above highlight that you are a modern thinker. That's pretty normal for someone your age. It's not "good" or "bad" to be either modern or postmodern. You are what you are and it makes sense to you and you can't understand how us younger people think, and that's ok. I am who I am and it's hard for me to understand how you think.

It doesn't really matter though, because we're both following Christ, we are both children of the most high God. Blessing on you.

[Mike McVey]

Does this response seem rude and dismissive, to anyone else but me?

I will provide the benefit of the doubt. I know that with out the benefit of tone, inflection, facial expression and other non-verbal’s it is easy to perceive an innocent written comment as something other.

Hans,
Obviously, you’ve made statements that indeed make it clear that you see no need to “affirm against” postmodernism when you are a proponent of postmodernism. But, from a cursory overview of your’s and Kevin’s posts I don’t see how you have addressed the idea that the uncertainty often associated with postmodernism is the “worst” strategy for ministering to people in the post modern context. My hope is that someone on your side of the ‘fence’ will explain why their position is better. Also, I hope that someone will explain the Scriptures in Mr. MacArthur’s quote from a postmodern context.

I have taken all of your prior posts from this thread as well as the 2 from Kevin and pasted them into a Word Document. I will review them in detail. If I am being dense or have missed something please forgive me.

Honestly, I perceive this response to my post as the blog equivalent to providing a 1 Cent tip at a restaurant; it is meant to be insulting. If you weren’t attempting to be flippant let me apologize in advance. I know I am the new guy, but if you were, then might I request that you just ignore my posts in the future as not to foment any trouble. Emergentnazarenes.com would probably be a better blog for you to post in if you don’t like agreeing to disagree.

George
1Cor 1:18

George, I can't speak for Hans, but the fact that he responded to you at all means he is not 1 cent tipping you. I'm honestly tired of trying to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. It is frustrating, even if asked in good heart, to explain something clearly to only be bashed that what we are explaining is a bunch of hooey. Also, I have looked at the various links you have posted... they have little to do with postmodernity, and the groups writing, save emergent village, are fairly hostile towards anything of the postmodern persuasion.

I think George MacArthur is covering his butt, personally. He has said many hateful things throughout his writings towards groups such as anyone not from a fundamentalist persuasion. The quote you give sounds something similar to, "You can eat the chocolate if you want. Chocolate tastes good. But if you eat chocolate, you'll probably get really fat and die of obesity."

This may or may not pertain to you, but if anyone really wants to understand postmodernity, study it. Places like NazNet are not meant to be places of argument meant to convince another of where they are wrong, but interestingly it is postmodern-like in that NazNet is a place for conversations. Some good books to read would be Stanley Grenz and James Wm. McClendon. They give a balanced Christian understanding of postmodernism.

[Hans Deventer]

Does this response seem rude and dismissive, to anyone else but me?

I will provide the benefit of the doubt. I know that with out the benefit of tone, inflection, facial expression and other non-verbal’s it is easy to perceive an innocent written comment as something other.

Thanks. My point was that it helps a lot to link a statement to a discussion as it has already developed. So I tried to point you towards that. But I could have elaborated that point for clarity, that much is true. I should have taken more time.

Obviously, you’ve made statements that indeed make it clear that you see no need to “affirm against” postmodernism when you are a proponent of postmodernism. But, from a cursory overview of your’s and Kevin’s posts I don’t see how you have addressed the idea that the uncertainty often associated with postmodernism is the “worst” strategy for ministering to people in the post modern context.

Well, I did try to explain, but perhaps not clear enough, that this isn't merely a matter of uncertainty. It is a new framework. Trying, like you suggested in your post, to work even harder at explaining away uncertainties, is like starting to talk louder in English to an Italian when it appears he doesn't understand English. That's a waste of energy.

So there is no choice. Trying to prove our certainties in terms of absolute truth only communicates one thing: we don't understand. Which means to the post moderns: there is nothing worth while we have to offer. But we do!

So we simply have to learn the "language". The question is how to present the gospel in post modern concepts. Not if.

[Billie Goodson]

.. is like starting to talk louder in English to an Italian when it appears he doesn't understand English.

But Hans, we know they can understand it.. they just are choosing not too...or have we been wrong all of these years? :)

Try being an American, trying to order ice cream by speaking German to an Italian -- just to have him ask slowly for the third time -- "which flavor?" in very clear, deliberate, and precise English.... Been there, done that...

[George Wallace]

“George, I can't speak for Hans, but the fact that he responded to you at all means he is not 1 cent tipping you”.

Am I supposed to feel honored or something? To me his answer means “I already covered that dummy go read it.” Maybe he did and I am being dense but I still think there are more appropriate ways to respond. (I.e. George, I believe I covered that here….Reference and here…Reference…)

“I'm honestly tired of trying to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. It is frustrating, even if asked in good heart, to explain something clearly to only be bashed that what we are explaining is a bunch of hooey.”

Somebody please point me to where I bashed? Or stated that someone beliefs are hooey. I don’t have an agenda. What I have is a completely different opinion combined with strong inability to understand what is even remotely appealing about postmodernism and Emergence. Do you think you are the only one who is frustrated?

“I'm honestly tired of trying to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. It is frustrating, even if asked in good heart, to explain something clearly to only be bashed that what we are explaining is a bunch of hooey… Places like NazNet are not meant to be places of argument meant to convince another of where they are wrong, but interestingly it is postmodern-like in that NazNet is a place for conversations.”

Correct me if I am wrong but the title of this NazNet post is Dangers of Postmodernism? We are discussing postmodernism, this is a conversation what’s the problem?

When I taught we used to have a saying “If the student failed to learn the instructor failed to teach.” Let me tell you, to help some truly understand, it really does require you “ to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. “

Sorry Mike, but it seems to me that many Emergent postmodern types only want to converse with those that either agree with them or are in a seeking not committal mode. You guys sure get your panties in a bunch when some disagrees with you! (Can you say Panties in a bunch on NAZNET? My apologies for any offence but he you guys got Pastor that curse from the pulpit so this shouldn’t be a problem.)

After all of that, how about I agree with you! We have spent much energy trying to explain and define postmodernism.

Let’s focus on the topic Dangers of Postmodernism. I believe that in some cases Postmodernism can lead to:

Pluralism:
That is the denial of Jesus’ exclusivity as a means of going to heaven. Meaning all devote Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Scientologist … go to heaven as long as they are sincere.

And

Universalism:
We have got it all wrong. God is love we are all his children no matter what we believe and would never allow us to go to hell no matter what! That would be cosmic child abuse!

Josh McDowell has a book out called the Last Christian Generation. I have read just the first couple of chapters. But I don’t think he makes any statements for or against postmodernism (I could be wrong, since I haven’t finished it yet)

But I will make a leap and say that postmodern dialog and consistent redefining and the way it changes, or has the potential to change our children is dangerous and is a an underling cause for his writing of this book.

I have 22 and 17 year old sons. Ripe ages for you post moderns to pluck; I think that their souls are at risk THAT IS DANGEROUS.

Please respond!
George, I can't speak for Hans, but the fact that he responded to you at all means he is not 1 cent tipping you. I'm honestly tired of trying to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. It is frustrating, even if asked in good heart, to explain something clearly to only be bashed that what we are explaining is a bunch of hooey. Also, I have looked at the various links you have posted... they have little to do with postmodernity, and the groups writing, save emergent village, are fairly hostile towards anything of the postmodern persuasion.

“George, I can't speak for Hans, but the fact that he responded to you at all means he is not 1 cent tipping you”.

Am I supposed to feel honored or something? To me his answer means “I already covered that dummy go read it.” Maybe he did and I am being dense but I still think there are more appropriate ways to respond. (I.e. George, I believe I covered that here….Reference and here…Reference…)

“I'm honestly tired of trying to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. It is frustrating, even if asked in good heart, to explain something clearly to only be bashed that what we are explaining is a bunch of hooey.”

Somebody please point me to where I bashed? Or stated that someone beliefs are hooey. I don’t have an agenda. What I have is a completely different opinion combined with strong inability to understand what is even remotely appealing about postmodernism and Emergence. Do you think you are the only one who is frustrated?

“I'm honestly tired of trying to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. It is frustrating, even if asked in good heart, to explain something clearly to only be bashed that what we are explaining is a bunch of hooey… Places like NazNet are not meant to be places of argument meant to convince another of where they are wrong, but interestingly it is postmodern-like in that NazNet is a place for conversations.”

Correct me if I am wrong but the title of this NazNet post is Dangers of Postmodernism? We are discussing postmodernism, this is a conversation what’s the problem?

When I taught we used to have a saying “If the student failed to learn the instructor failed to teach.” Let me tell you, to help some truly understand, it really does require you “ to expend enormous amounts of energy trying to explain something that is nowhere near as complex as many try to make it. “

Sorry Mike, but it seems to me that many Emergent postmodern types only want to converse with those that either agree with them or are in a seeking not committal mode. You guys sure get your panties in a bunch when some disagrees with you! (Can you say Panties in a bunch on NAZNET? My apologies for any offence but he you guys got Pastor that curse from the pulpit so this shouldn’t be a problem.)

After all of that, how about I agree with you! We have spent much energy trying to explain and define postmodernism.

Let’s focus on the topic Dangers of Postmodernism. I believe that in some cases Postmodernism can lead to:

Pluralism:
That is the denial of Jesus’ exclusivity as a means of going to heaven. Meaning all devote Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Scientologist … go to heaven as long as they are sincere.

And

Universalism:
We have got it all wrong. God is love we are all his children no matter what we believe and would never allow us to go to hell no matter