Modern or Post Modern?

[AndrewA]

Of course Christian groups that shout

[Iryssa]

Of course Christian groups that shout

[Masked Chris]

Just curious...

How many people on Worthy Boards would call themselves a full force modern christian, and how many would say that they are beginning the transition into post-modernity?

thats kind of hard because I don't think post-modernity really has a real definition yet.... I guess predictions say that in the next 10-20 years cultures will shift from modern to post-modern... but it's hard because post-modernity really has no definition as of now... it remains a mystery.

[Arthur Durnan]

Truth to tell, there's no "big deal" anywhere. It's just that many Christians prefer to be known as CHRISTIANS, yea, Spirit-filled, Bible-based, Christ-honoring WITHOUT adding any further descriptions whether "modern," "pre-modern," "post-modern." whatever. Like I've already plainly stated, "ANCIENT & NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIAN" fits this particular observer best. Why all the flurry?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Guest lnj]

Not sure what "classification" you would give me BUT I love the "radical" teachings of Jesus and Acts has me sitting on the edge of my seat , Revelation in it's Symbolism and imagery leaves the computer graphics of big time movies for dead ( Lord of the Rings) !! and the New Testament....LOVE IT, then the Old Testament is just..... beautiful! All of Scripture shows you God's characteristics and personally - I have LEARNED alot from the OT.

[LossForWords]

Some seem to be having a slight "problem" with my meaning of modernity and post modernity as it refers to Christianity. I'll post more on this later, as it is late, and I just returned home from a Christian Concert with the teens in our youth group.

I do think Masked Chris is more on track with my thinking. There really is no such thing as a post-modern Christian as of yet, but there are Christians who are transitioning, and actually want to travel that transitional road.

I'll post more on this topic tomorrow...the responses you have given are interesting.

[Giaour]

I am so confused.

[Guest lnj]

Like someone said before...why can't we just be Followers of Christ? I don't need to fit into a "box" - because I know where I stand With God...

[apothanein kerdos]

The problem with the question is that it presents a very false dilemma or categorization. This is essentially the problem with many post-modern 'thinkers' in Christianity, such as McLaren, Rollins, Miller, and others. It is viewed that you are either a "modern" Christian that is set in one's views, or one that is transitioning (or emerging) into a post-modern view of Christianity via conversation within the community.

Both are inadequate and ultimately anti-Christian (though both hold partial truth).

A true modern Christian would be someone that followed German rationalism or Neo-Orthodoxy - in other words, someone that is often referred to as a "liberal." A modernist Christian is going to remove all supernatural elements out of the faith, or at best, take out miracles but leave things such as the resurrection, incarnation, etc. This is where they get it wrong, because they take a hyper-rational approach to the Bible and look at it through materialistic views.

The correct aspect of modernism within Christianity, however, is that it does rely on the intellect. In other words, one must read scripture and "dissect" it, study it, get to know it through study. It removes the Bible from the "narrative" field (or at least, out of the solely narrative) and allows a deeper study. The problem with treating the Bible as a narrative, or meta narrative (as post-modernists do), is that there is no solid way to interpret the Bible - it becomes so fluid that it loses any solid ground. All interpretation is ultimately left up to the community, and then the individual, for interpretation.

Post-modernity, however, take an equally radical view. The problem with post-modernity isn't necessarily its ethics, but how it critiques all epistemological value. Iryssa, you state that extreme forms of post-modernity are wrong, but the more normative forms of post-modernity (which is essentially a contradiction, post-modernity can't be normative) seem to be okay, or at least not as wrong as people make them out to be.

However, I would say look to the originators of this idea and we see that, ultimately, post-modernity leads to nothing good at all. The two most common camps that post-modernity will always lead if continued are Nihilism and Deconstruction. Nihilism eventually recognizes that under the system there is no way to ever gain truth about anything, thus all life is worthless (a funny depiction of Nihilism is "Little Miss Sunshine", the son who doesn't speak). The other end is Deconstruction, specifically deconstruction in literature and narratives (such as what McLaren views as the Bible). It seeks to say that we cannot know anything except by our experience, thus any attempt at a uniformed communal epistemology is worthless and in vain. When reading the Bible, these types take a more Derrida approach in that we read meaning into the text, instead of extrapolating meaning from the text (the irony is that Derrida eventually wrote a response to a critique of his theory, siting that he has been misunderstood...).

No matter what, the "Emergent Conversation" (as Rollins calls it) is not leading anywhere good. It is the attachment of post-modernity to Christianity. Such books as "The Secret Gospel of Jesus" and "How (Not) To Speak of God" all explore the idea of basing our idea of God upon our experience. Though we can say what we think God is like, we cannot know what God is like (with the exception of "love," again, according to Rollins). This is why Christians moving toward a more post-modern view of Christianity are ultimately in for a violent shock, as it will leave them empty and what I call "Christian Nihilists." I would almost venture another self-created term - Christian Neo-Existentialists. Unpacking this statement, they base their faith on just a few things:

1) Experience

2) Strength of their belief

3) Community aspects

Notice that there is no intellectual portion of this faith, it is all based upon the subjective experience of the person and the community. This would be akin to Kierkegaard's existential leap of faith (even if he did not mean for it to be intended in such a way), only different in that it relies on experience and is validated by the seriousness of the belief in the person. Take, for example, Donald Miller's book "Blue Like Jazz" which in his chapter, "Birth of Coolness: Belief" he begins the chapter telling us how he doesn't care how God can or cannot be proven. Essentially, he states that he does not care about the rationality of the existence or nature of God. He then goes on to tell us that belief is the most important thing, that we have to be strong in our belief. However, one must ask, if we are to be strong in our belief, how can we remove the intellectual portion of it? It would be like jumping on a bed made out of paper - even if you seriously believe you will bounce, eventually you will fall through.

Thus, to finally answer the question, I would not place myself in either camp. Though I see value in both, I also see rampant heresy in both as well. Instead, I am orthodox (which is a philosophy within Christianity) in my view.

[MeCajunboy]

Do you really understand what post modernist means? modern and post modern are of the world and are damaging to a Christians soul and connection with God. We are living in Post modern time, basically a politically correct time where everyone is equal and everyone is right, no one has all the answers and anyone who does have all the answers, ie Christians are seen as dangerous and deluded.

You can see how many individual churches and clergy have split away as they allow post modernist thinking to cloud their judgment, such as saying there is nothing wrong with homosexuality , denying supernatural events like virgin birth and resurrection took place and even pouring doubt on if there is a hell.

The only label we should be concerned with is wearing that of