Postmodern Christianity: A Marketing Campaign, or Something Else? [Archive]

View Full Version : Postmodern Christianity: A Marketing Campaign, or Something Else?

Phil Michaels

13th February 2007, 04:46 PM (16:46)

Wilson L. Deaton

13th February 2007, 05:49 PM (17:49)

I have written a review/critique of an article from the January/February 2007 issue of Holiness Today written by Jeff Edmondson titled "Marketing the Gospel." I thought I'd share the link (http://emergingnazarenes.blogspot.com/2007/02/postmodern-christianity-marketing.html#links) here and see if anyone had any additional thoughts or responses. Thanks,

Thanks for sharing the link to your review. Here are some of my first thoughts:

You wrote, "First of all, I didn't know that postmodernity was limited to a 'generation' ..."

I think due to fear, as well as the "shallow" understanding you referred to there are those who try to make postmodernism a mini-culture comparable to Builders, Boomers, and Busters, rather than a macro-culture of the nature of Ancient, Medeival, and Modern.

You also wrote:
He uses the example of Paul in Athens as how to reach postmoderns with the gospel. While I agree that Paul's ingenious use of the "altar to an unknown God" is an excellent use of cultural and religious symbols to aid in bringing the message of the gospel to those who have not yet experienced it, I had to ask myself why it seems that just about everybody trying to explain faith in a postmodern context uses this same example.

Everyone uses Athenians as the means of sharing the gospel to those of a non-Christian culture. It seems we forget that EVERYONE being evangelized in the New Testament was of a non-Christian culture.

For example, modern Christians complain that thanks to postmodernsim the Bible is not generally accepted as authoritative. Since when should we expect it to be authoritative to non-Christians? During the NT eras the time immediatly after the Gentiles would not have considered the Law and the Prophets as authoritative, and when the Gospel of Matthew first appeared I'm sure the Jews didn't give it authority either.

You wrote:

Edmondson quotes a youth pastor colleague as saying "It worries me that my students are more open to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology than they are to Jesus and salvation." No consideration is given, however, as to why this might be so.

Why might this be? My belief in the gospel and in Christ forces me to conclude that when the church is "losing" it is because the church is doing something wrong. We have the Way, the Truth, and the Life and we fail to handle it properly when we make it about rules and institutions and culture.

You wrote:
The idea of and the oft-quoted saying that "we don't change our message, just our methods" always assumes that we (Nazarenes, or whatever "group" is speaking) are the ones who have "finally got it right" when it comes to theology;

Now you are just asking for trouble. If you don't get misquoted on this one, I'll be surprised! We have to make sure when we talk about "not changing the message" we mean Jesus' message and not our spin on his message!

Wilson

Martijn van Beveren

14th February 2007, 07:08 AM (07:08)

Billy Cox

15th February 2007, 02:13 PM (14:13)

Phil Michaels

15th February 2007, 09:29 PM (21:29)

Thanks to all who have left some feedback here. I appreciate all of it, whether positive, negative, neutral, or whatever! :)

The objective of the article is not to say anything definitive about post-modernism. The far simpler aim is to portray post-modern openness to spirituality as an opportunity and not something to fear.

I can't argue with the objective as you have stated/understood it. The underlying assumption, though (that we have to convince Nazarenes not to fear postmodern openness to spirituality), shows an interesting and typical dynamic with the church (tip toe verrrryyyyy cautiously when approaching anything "new", and only years and years after the issues have begun to arise, waiting until we are on the edge of absolute irrelevance, and then introducing some sort of approach to dealing with the issues, but only through "safe" means. But I'm not a cynic...am I? :basic05 )

Consider also that people who care about a deeper understanding of world views and philosophy do not generally become '15 year veterans of youth ministry.'

Why? I'd love to hear more of why you think that this would be so. I'm not disputing that it's probably (usually) true. But I'd like to hear more.

Billy Cox

15th February 2007, 10:15 PM (22:15)

I can't argue with the objective as you have stated/understood it. The underlying assumption, though (that we have to convince Nazarenes not to fear postmodern openness to spirituality), shows an interesting and typical dynamic with the church (tip toe verrrryyyyy cautiously when approaching anything "new", and only years and years after the issues have begun to arise, waiting until we are on the edge of absolute irrelevance, and then introducing some sort of approach to dealing with the issues, but only through "safe" means. But I'm not a cynic...am I?

Yes, the whole notion that post-modernism is 'bleeding edge' is laughable, but to many Nazarenes it actually is. To work at Headquarters is to be sensitive to the more out-of-touch segments of the church and to gently bring them along.

Why? I'd love to hear more of why you think that this would be so. I'm not disputing that it's probably (usually) true. But I'd like to hear more.

Most youth pastors figure out that the real career track is in pastoring grown-ups. Those that are not purely motivated by career stay in youth ministry for other reasons...and it's generally not because of the bookish demands of preparing next week's youth bible study.

Phil Michaels

16th February 2007, 08:32 AM (08:32)

Most youth pastors figure out that the real career track is in pastoring grown-ups.

Oh boy....(thinking as he types: "How do I not go down any rabbit trails here and still reply how I want to reply?" Focus...focus...)....

As a former, and possibly future, youth pastor, and just being who I am, it's hard for me to understand the "career track" thing. It is NOT hard to understand the desire for 1.) More stability, 2.) More pay, 3.) More control over one's future, and 4.) Greatly increased ability to actually implement the visions that God gives for ministry, that come with "pastoring grown-ups."

But when considering the latter role, for me, it has always been because of 2 desires: 1.) To take better care of my family (rather than live in perpetual poverty and fear of losing one's job and being forced to move to "God knows" (literally!) where, and 2.) to be free to passionately pursue what I believe God wants for me to do and to be. The idea of "career track" never really enters into it for me....perhaps I am just vain or naive or both. :basic03

Those that are not purely motivated by career stay in youth ministry for other reasons...and it's generally not because of the bookish demands of preparing next week's youth bible study.

I'm presuming you mean, 'most youth pastors don't spend a lot of time preparing for teaching their youth groups, and if they do, it's not "weighty" preparation' or something along that line. Again, you are probably right that most don't. And I don't understand it. I have never been that way. I don't do "talk sheets" and a 10 minute "Bible study" on John 3:16 that says nothing more than "God loves you" (though I would, if it fit the situation and I thought it'd be effective.) I prepared for teaching with every bit as much study, thought, planning, preparation, seriousness, passion, pastoral concern, etc, as any (good) Senior Pastor would for their "preaching."

Of course, taking all this into consideration, it becomes obvious why I've been fired and forced to resign from youth pastorates....I just don't have a clue what it means to be a youth pastor! :rolleyes:

Oops....I think I lost focus and went down the rabbit trail.......and I tried so hard!

G R 'Scott' Cundiff

16th February 2007, 09:40 AM (09:40)

Help me out here. My understanding of postmodernism works something like this:

Christianity believes in revealed truth.

Modernism rejected that, and concluded that truth must be discovered and verifiable. Over time, Christianity adapted it's approach, and built entire theologies around defending it's approach to truth against Modernism's approach. At the same time, the church was being more and more influenced by Modernism, even tending to make it's points via apologetics, "proving" that which it believed God had "revealed."

Now, we have Postmodernism which pretty much rejects both Christianity's revealed truth and Modernism's subjective truth. Like the flower children movement of the 1960's Postmodernism says, "Hey, man, your truth is not necessarily my truth -- we each have to find our own truth."

The opening Christians see here is that unlike Modernism, which was basically constructed to oppose Christian thought, Postmodernism is at least open to hear us speak of truth as we understand it.

The problem for Christians is that we have, ourselves been infected with Modernism and our approach to truth is framed by it. As Postmodern culture expands, our influence on that culture shrinks because we are trying to advance Christianity in ways that make no sense to the Postmodern mind.

I'm not arguing for any of this, just trying to state it in ways that make sense to me.

Wilson L. Deaton

16th February 2007, 10:02 AM (10:02)

Now, we have Postmodernism which pretty much rejects both Christianity's revealed truth and Modernism's subjective truth....

The opening Christians see here is that unlike Modernism, which was basically constructed to oppose Christian thought, Postmodernism is at least open to hear us speak of truth as we understand it.

Personally, I get an inkling that the idea of "Postmoderns reject all truth," is a case of taking the thought of Postmodern extremists and applying to all Postmoderns. I think at the root, Postmoderns are more concerned about the way we know truth. I think most can accept that truth is out there but they reject the ways Moderns found and taught truth. Truth to a Postmodern is what they experience.

This is one way it might work: A postmodern hears, "God is love." That postmodern was raised in a neglectful environment with a dad who never cared and who beat his mother. He concludes, "God is love. I've never experienced love. God must not be real."

As Christian you can't convince him otherwise by quoting John 3:16. You cannot convince him with a well laid out expostion of the theory of atonement. On the other hand, you might be able to convince him by loving him.

Wilson

Marsha Lynn

16th February 2007, 01:14 PM (13:14)

This looks pretty good to me, Scott, but may need to go a little further.

The opening Christians see here is that unlike Modernism, which was basically constructed to oppose Christian thought, Postmodernism is at least open to hear us speak of truth as we understand it.

Here's my take on it.

Modernism says the way to know truth is to prove it with solid evidence. For example, if we can find the 'lost ark' then we'll know the Bible is true. If science can show that prayer makes a difference then we can jump up and down with glee and say, "See! I told you there was a God!" The way to 'prove' truth is to find scientific support for it.

Modernism operates on a conviction that absolute truth abounds and can be discovered. The modern theologian can take Hebrews 12:14 (Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord) and start a discussion on whether sanctification is essential to making heaven. Everything is laid out in black and white. "Without holiness no one will see the Lord."
Holiness = sanctification. Sanctification is a clearly defined experience. People will see the Lord in heaven. We can put all of these truths together and say, "Without the experience of sanctification as explained to us by our first teachers, no one will make it to heaven." Or we can redefine the terms and question that statement. The whole discussion revolves around the definition of holiness and its necessity for salvation (and is backed by a firm conviction that God exists and that the Bible represents truth). Are people 'in' or 'out'? We can know and we need to know.

Postmodernism questions the quantity of absolute truth that we can know and whether anyone has a corner on truth at any level. The postmodern disciple might look at Hebrews 12:14 and say, "As a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, I have an ongoing relationship with the God revealed in the Bible and have chosen to believe that I will spend eternity in His presence. Thus, according to this statement, there is a bud of holiness being formed within me. This verse is an encouragement to nurture that blossom into a life of clean living, of honesty and transparency." It wouldn't occur to such a person to place the verse against a black-and-white outline of the doctrine of "holiness" and try to draw tighter lines around their understanding of that term and exclude anyone who didn't believe like they do.

The HT article still assumes the existence and accessibility of absolute truth and sees postmodernism as soft toward it, as opposed to the more firm resistance of modern skepticism. It portrays postmoderns as being ripe for the picking, open to being reshaped in order to fit into the modern church.

As a postmodern Christian raised in the church, I do NOT fit into the modern church. I believe in God, but I also make allowance for the fact that I may be wrong. Not that I hedge on my own belief but I accept that my faith is a choice made without indisputable evidence and that it will be the same for everyone else. They can choose to believe or not. I can't give them irrefutable evidence. (If I could, it wouldn't be called faith.) If my beliefs are based on absolute truth then that truth will prevail and those who seek it will find it.

I choose to believe that the Bible contains everything necessary to have a relationship with the God described therein, and I live my life according to that belief. If you want to talk to me about holiness (or atonement), put it in terms of relationship, not a business transaction.

The problem for Christians is that we have, ourselves been infected with Modernism and our approach to truth is framed by it. As Postmodern culture expands, our influence on that culture shrinks because we are trying to advance Christianity in ways that make no sense to the Postmodern mind.

Yes. And I think Phil is saying that this article continues to do this. It sees the need to pull people out of postmodern thinking in order to get them into the kingdom.

I must admit that I had already read the HT article and it made so little impression on me that I didn't remember it. Having reviewed it, I think it can be summed up with two sentences.
Postmodern people are interested in spiritual things.
We should share our faith in culturally-sensitive ways while hanging tight to our convictions about absolute truth.

Same old message from the modern church. I'm not sure if that traces back to the author or the publication.

Marsha

Randy Wise

16th February 2007, 10:59 PM (22:59)

Now you are just asking for trouble. If you don't get misquoted on this one, I'll be surprised! We have to make sure when we talk about "not changing the message" we mean Jesus' message and not our spin on his message!

Wilson[/quote]

Wilson I think you zeroed in on the truth when you stated Jesus's message. That is the message that Christians promote and that message leads to eternal life.

Randy

David Cash

16th February 2007, 11:12 PM (23:12)

I like to think that Christianity surpasses modernism, postmodernism, ancient though/culture and whatever else may come along.

The whole idea of our religion from it's early pre-Christian days to today is that God has spoken, and we are to leave all and believe and obey what He says. God calls us to forget our system, forget our wisdom, and believe and obey Him. It's also why Paul could state that the preaching of the cross was foolishness to the perishing but the power of God to those who are saved.

God's truth is still absolute whether we can prove it to modern logic or demonstrate it to postmodern experience or whether we can't. We look at Jesus and say, "God has spoken, and I will follow Him."

David Cash

Mike Schutz

17th February 2007, 08:04 PM (20:04)

Okay.
Right off the bat let me say that I've known Jeff Edmondson for a long time. He is a good guy who was a good youth pastor and is now attempting to change the culture in KC as to how the denomination provides resources for youth workers.

Let me also say that I'm a 30 year veteran of youth ministry. (Don't let the "Senior Pastor" monikor fool you. I simply treat everyone in my church as if they are a teen. My Sunday morning Call to Worship is "Hey, Listen Up!")

I have also suffered the pains of having articles I was asked to write for denominational publications edited beyond all recognition.

That being said, I simply request a little fairness. Our first principle in biblical hermeneutics is to ask the question, "To whom was this originally intended?" Let's do the same here.

This article was intended for the typical reading audience of HT. Look around your church, or ask your pastor who has HT subscriptions in your church. If it is anything like at our church, they are folks who have not spent a lot of time thinking about postmodernism, or spent a lot of time recently thinking about ministry to youth. However, they may be on the church board, or they may have grandkids who are teens, and they are probably in the 55 and over age group that provides the vast majority of financial resources for the church.

And they may be asking the question: "Why aren't we doing youth ministry (or young adult ministry, or just about any kind of ministry) the way we used to do it?"

Perhaps the article is attempting to communicate, in an admittedly simplistic manner, that "the world is different and we have to take that into consideration as we minister to your grandkids. But don't worry, we are still telling them about Jesus."

Maybe that's who the article is for, and that's what it is intended to communicate.

Grace and peace.

Dale Cozby

17th February 2007, 11:26 PM (23:26)

I agree with Scott on this idea of where we are on the post-modern trail. We are still fighting the Modernism method and we need to adjust our tactics yet again to a new, yet somehow familiar threat to the Truth.

Christian Thought: You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free, and I am the Way the Truth and the Life - Jesus
Modern thought: "The Truth is Out there" - the X files
Post Modern thought: "What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate

So if you really think about this, Post-modern thought might be best dealt with going back to the early church fathers and reading how they combated Gnostics.

Some of them offered some good talking points to the crowd that asks What is truth?

Ron Davis

18th February 2007, 08:01 AM (08:01)

So if you really think about this, Post-modern thought might be best dealt with going back to the early church fathers and reading how they combated Gnostics.

Some of them offered some good talking points to the crowd that asks What is truth?

Doesn't this assume that postmodern thought is a defect that needs fixing? If so please explain the defect.

Randy Wise

18th February 2007, 04:06 PM (16:06)

As a postmodern Christian raised in the church, I do NOT fit into the modern church. I believe in God, but I also make allowance for the fact that I may be wrong. Not that I hedge on my own belief but I accept that my faith is a choice made without indisputable evidence and that it will be the same for everyone else. They can choose to believe or not. I can't give them irrefutable evidence. (If I could, it wouldn't be called faith.) If my beliefs are based on absolute truth then that truth will prevail and those who seek it will find it.

Marsha,
How does God write the new covenant on our hearts? That Spirit testifies to our Spirit we are God's child. We who have that Spirit know with certainty that Jesus is the Son of God let alone God exists. It has been my experience that people don't believe in Jesus because they were raised in another religion or raised without religion. Irregardless of why people don't believe in Jesus the message of the gospels hasn't changed and it is that message that is presented in all it's truth. For those that reject such a message it won't effect me, but I know where such rejection leads.

Randy

Carsten Schermuly

18th February 2007, 09:25 PM (21:25)

Modernism rejected that, and concluded that truth must be discovered and verifiable. Over time, Christianity adapted it's approach, and built entire theologies around defending it's approach to truth against Modernism's approach. At the same time, the church was being more and more influenced by Modernism, even tending to make it's points via apologetics, "proving" that which it believed God had "revealed."The correct answer was: "Christianity is timeless" (e. g. remember the Chicago declaration). The evangelical world in Germany was / is deeply infected, this church was, let me say, a light in the darkness.

--- edited ---
Billy Graham wrote in one of his books, the lutheran time era was gone with the end of WWII (after "Die Deutschen Christen", a Nazi - organisation inside the big churches). Now had broken on the Wesleyan era. And watching what is going on, I only can agree to. See statistics about church growings worldwide - the wesleyan churches are leaders.
That means,
the weslean churches should stand, should not be influenced by time spirits to keep the gospel as effective as possible.
Not the world has something to teach - the Wesleyans do have something to teach.
--- end edited ---

Now, we have Postmodernism which pretty much rejects both Christianity's revealed truth and Modernism's subjective truth. Like the flower children movement of the 1960's Postmodernism says, "Hey, man, your truth is not necessarily my truth -- we each have to find our own truth."I have watched this, I still think, the correct answer should be: "Christianity is timeless".

Dale Cozby

19th February 2007, 12:42 AM (00:42)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cozby
So if you really think about this, Post-modern thought might be best dealt with going back to the early church fathers and reading how they combated Gnostics.
Some of them offered some good talking points to the crowd that asks What is truth?

Doesn't this assume that postmodern thought is a defect that needs fixing? If so please explain the defect.

Are you sure you are in the right forum?

Christian thought: Truth is Absolute and Eternal and Revealed
Post-Modern thought: Truth is what ever you want it to be. Totally based on the individuals perspective and independent of any external source including an All-powerful, All-Knowing Creator of the Universe. According to Post-Modern thought, God doesn't even exist except in a persons mind.

If that isn't some defective thinking then we must not be able to agree on what defective means.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil."

Brad Mercer

19th February 2007, 03:31 AM (03:31)

Are you sure you are in the right forum?

Christian thought: Truth is Absolute and Eternal and Revealed

No, God is. When a Modern Christian says "Truth" he generally means "truths", a whole set of propositions, the belief and defense of which are the core of what it means to be Christian. When Jesus says He is the Truth, his statement mitigates against that Modern emphasis and places the focus not on the defense of all those positions, but on himself and the absolute primacy of relationship over argument.

Post-Modern thought: Truth is what ever you want it to be. Totally based on the individuals perspective and independent of any external source including an All-powerful, All-Knowing Creator of the Universe. According to Post-Modern thought, God doesn't even exist except in a persons mind.

Modernism appeals to authority and places primary value on logical defense of propositions. Postmodernism appeals to experience and places primary value on relationship. Worldviews, whether primitive agrarianism, modernism or postmodernism per se do not take positions. ie, on the existence of God. They are mindsets, fundamental ways of filtering our knowledge and experience. A premodern agrarian could on the basis of a primitive world view become either an animist or a Christian. A modern mind could on the basis of modern assumptions come to embrace either atheism or Christianity. A postmodern mind can on the basis of a postmodern set of filters come to embrace either an eclectic new-age hodge podge of religious beliefs and philosophies or Christianity.

The Bible nowhere tries to defend or prove the existence of God like Modern apologists do. It just assumes his existence. Much of the message of the New Testament is a far more natural fit with a postmodern mind than with a modern mind, simply because it is more about drawing us into real, open, honest relationship than about proving propositions.

In my experience, a genuinely postmodern secular person ultimately becomes comfortable embracing all the articles of faith secondarily and almost incidentally to his pursuit of unconditionally loving relationship with Christians first and then with Christ.

If we want to reach people, to connect with them, to lift up Christ so that he will be drawn to them, in a postmodern age that's going to mean spend a lot - a whole lot - more time up front just listening and learning to understand them, instead of jumping on them with proofs of what they're supposed to believe. We have a vital, life-giving message, but we can't communicate it clearly until we've given as much thought and care to the listener as to the message. That's why I think Jesus said the second greatest commandment was like the first greatest commandment. If we really love God - the message - with our whole heart, we'll also love our neighbor - the listener - with our whole heart. And if we really love them that much, we'll care enough to listen and understand and discover their real worth, pain, fear and confusion, and respond to those things with love and grace and compassion. That's really all it requires to be a postmodern Christian in a world of postmodern sinners.

Brad

Martijn van Beveren

19th February 2007, 06:52 AM (06:52)

No, God is. When a Modern Christian says "Truth" he generally means "truths", a whole set of propositions, the belief and defense of which are the core of what it means to be Christian. When Jesus says He is the Truth, his statement mitigates against that Modern emphasis and places the focus not on the defense of all those positions, but on himself and the absolute primacy of relationship over argument.

Modernism appeals to authority and places primary value on logical defense of propositions. Postmodernism appeals to experience and places primary value on relationship. Worldviews, whether primitive agrarianism, modernism or postmodernism per se do not take positions. ie, on the existence of God. They are mindsets, fundamental ways of filtering our knowledge and experience. A premodern agrarian could on the basis of a primitive world view become either an animist or a Christian. A modern mind could on the basis of modern assumptions come to embrace either atheism or Christianity. A postmodern mind can on the basis of a postmodern set of filters come to embrace either an eclectic new-age hodge podge of religious beliefs and philosophies or Christianity.

The Bible nowhere tries to defend or prove the existence of God like Modern apologists do. It just assumes his existence. Much of the message of the New Testament is a far more natural fit with a postmodern mind than with a modern mind, simply because it is more about drawing us into real, open, honest relationship than about proving propositions.

In my experience, a genuinely postmodern secular person ultimately becomes comfortable embracing all the articles of faith secondarily and almost incidentally to his pursuit of unconditionally loving relationship with Christians first and then with Christ.

If we want to reach people, to connect with them, to lift up Christ so that he will be drawn to them, in a postmodern age that's going to mean spend a lot - a whole lot - more time up front just listening and learning to understand them, instead of jumping on them with proofs of what they're supposed to believe. We have a vital, life-giving message, but we can't communicate it clearly until we've given as much thought and care to the listener as to the message. That's why I think Jesus said the second greatest commandment was like the first greatest commandment. If we really love God - the message - with our whole heart, we'll also love our neighbor - the listener - with our whole heart. And if we really love them that much, we'll care enough to listen and understand and discover their real worth, pain, fear and confusion, and respond to those things with love and grace and compassion. That's really all it requires to be a postmodern Christian in a world of postmodern sinners.

Brad

Thx, brad, I wish I could say it as clearly as you've just discribed about postmodernism.:fav18 I defenitly experience it this way. My goal is to spend time with my fellow being, talk with them, help them out, show them that I care, hear what they say, have a connection with them, and love them for who they are. And hoping that they feel the connection of love so that they find God on their path. :bannana
This whole postmodern way is very natural to me though the terminology and definition is quite new. I wish I've heard it earlier.:fun11 The pieces fit now. It gives me much more confidence and restful mindset.

Peace be with you,
Marty

Cindi Hammons

19th February 2007, 11:39 AM (11:39)

Dale Cozby

20th February 2007, 11:34 PM (23:34)

Brad Mercer, I was giving nice little bullets and you have to come along and clarify it for everyone and ruin it for me.:p (j/k)

I agree with what you say. This issue of absolute eternal truth is meaningless if you have no relationship with the hearer.

They could care less about our proofs. But they do care if it works and how well it works and how it makes them feel and how it gives them hope.

Dealing with post-moderns is actually easier if you DON'T act too modern.

We must win the right to have our "proofs" even heard. Hey, I didn't come to Christ because someone proved to me God existed. Did anyone here?

I came because of relationships. Broken and in need. I accepted that He might make a difference and so I prayed.

I love this old hymn and its meaning:

I know not why God’s wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.

I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing us of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.

Almost sounds post modern huh? And it was written in 1883.