Update of the Modern/Post Modern Question

[LossForWords]

The way I understand it, is that there are 4

[eric]

Well if some people are gullible enough to fall for the likes of Jim Jones, Joseph Rutherford, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, they will fall for the heretics like Rob Bell Brian Mclaren, probably all master minded by Robert Schuller. the daddy of them all to day

The message of the bible is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and I'm a fundie as well as a lot of others on this board. Ya don't mess with the word Of God.

e

[LossForWords]

lol

[apothanein kerdos]

Your post broke my heart, simply because you're actually buying into what Brian McLaren has to say. I posted this in the last topic and I hope you will read it.I will respond to your initial post at the bottom of this post:

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.

Area 1 refers to the old ways of seeing things. Over time it becomes increasingly cramped and feels more like a prison than freedom.

Area 2 describes the early transition period, where there is a lot of frustration and reaction. People turn against the old way and can

[apothanein kerdos]

Here is something I wrote concerning Rollins, another Emerging leader out of Ireland:

Before we get started, maybe some background information is needed. A brief summary:

An existentialist is someone that believes life, as we know it is in a constant state of despair because everything is ultimately unknowable. It refers to an unknowable epistemology (just a big word that refers to our ability to understand something). Because we cannot know anything and our existence is unexplainable, life is just a bad place to be. However, it can be overcome by one experience (that cannot be explained). The only thing we can know is that we had an experience, that it brought us past this despair, and that we cannot truly explain it, that there is no rational basis.

Kierkegaard comes into play in that he is often considered the father of this movement. His view was slightly different from modern existentialists in that he was referring to faith as the experience. To Kierkegaard, all faith in God was a

[Kabowd]

LossforWords, I hope you read through apothanein's post and take it to heart. He's 100% accurate. I'd HIGHLY suggest you read some books by Francis Schaeffer. He was a true intellectual believer, philosopher/teacher..and reading his books will give you the tools necessary to be able to discern the errors in things like McLaren's and Donald Miller's books. You need a solid foundation before delving into books like McLaren's which have SO many theological errors in them.

[apothanein kerdos]

Just curious as to why this is being ignored.

[LossForWords]

Ooops...sorry! Didn't mean to ignore your thoughtful posts.

To me, post-modernity, or transitioning into post-modernity means changes. The church, traditions, etc...change. We do not go to church or conduct church or preach to others in the same way that it was accomplished in the 5th century.

My question was, how many people are seeing a change in their church or in their lives...not whether or not you think everybody who claims to be seeing a change is evil and is on their way to a dark place. I do not believe this, and there is nothing in the Bible that can convince me that a change in the way we do things is wrong.

Thanks so much for your interest and your subtle persuasion anyway. I appreciate it.

[LossForWords]

Just remember, that a long time ago, people listened to the likes of a priest by the name of Martin Luther...who's life and work took the end of the Middle Ages into the Modern Era. He was considered controversial during his time. But without him we might not have the King James version of the Bible, we might not have singing of hymns in our churches, etc...

Can you imagine where we would still be if people had listened to the folks saying that Martin Luther was making horrible decisions, that he was not really called by God, and that his beliefs were going to take everybody down a dark path that would certainly lead to Hell?

There is always going to be controversy, and Christians are always going to be changing, it's a fact.

Edited February 27, 2007 by LossForWords

[apothanein kerdos]

That's the thing though - Martin Luther did have horrible ideas. This is the same man who supported a sacral system and wrote a justification for the German princes to kill and massacre the populace.

His ideas weren't new, but had been followed since the beginnings of Christianity. That's the point I'm making - he didn't "change" anything. The good ideas he had were not new at all, but instead had been taught for quite some time.

External change can be good, but the problem is that the Emergent Discussion doesn't end there. In "Adventures in Missing the Point" McLaren attacks the doctrine of Christianity and encourages us to abandon it as well and change it. The problem with using historical examples is that the only time it is good for the Church to abandon a doctrine or practice is when it's not established in the scriptures. Yet, notice that even inerrancy is being questioned in the Emergent Discussion - this causes a massive problem because we now have no way to establish our doctrines, or even our ideas.

Think of it this way. When a building is remodeled, the support beams, the foundation, etc all remain the same (most the time). If a new foundation is laid, or a new structure is given to the building, it's essentially a new building. Imagine that the walls, the decorations, the furniture, and all of that represents the practices of the Church. The walls would be the practices we cannot change (standing against sin, feeding the poor, etc) without exposing ourself to the elements. The flowers, furniture, cabinets, and all that are practices we can change (what time we meet for church, what songs we sing, etc).

There is no problem in removing the aesthetics of the house, changing the cabinets, getting a new refrigerator, there is nothing wrong with that. However, when you begin to mess with the foundation, the pillars, the walls, then the house begins to tumble. This is what McLaren, and the post-modern movement in Christianity, does to doctrine. It removes the foundations that we need in order for Christianity to survive.

Trust me, I used to be part of the Emergent Discussion (though for a short time, and I was a "part" of it in that I believed it). I have read almost all of McLaren's works, Miller, Rollins, Bell, and others. Mate, this is a dangerous belief, and one that will eventually harm Christianity. If you are interested in discussing it, then tell me what you think. Tell me where you think I'm wrong, where you have questions, how I came to view this through my experience, etc.