Postmodernis...The Emerging Church

[apothanein kerdos]

No, pragmatism is a word. Because somebody chose that word to describe a philosophy that has more to it than pure pragmatism, that doesn't change the true meaning of the word.

I, too, have a goal that I will do anything (so long as it's legal, moral and biblical) to accomplish: to grow God's Kingdom. In the strictist sense, I am a pragmatist. I recognize that philosophy doesn't get work done. Nevertheless, this is all semantic and meaningless.

Which, of course, is wrong...

First off, that was unneccesarily snotty, and frankly a little arrogant.

The fact, again, that somebody imbued a word that already existed (hence FA's dictionary definition) with another meaning, is completely meaningless to me. The same goes for your postmodern definition. Yes, in fact, I have studied it, both in church and culture. You again are resorting to mere semantics and suggesting that these prove your argument. They don't. Nevertheless, I suspect you are quite tied to your own theories on the subject, and any and all arguments will be meaningless to you. This isn't an indictment -- if you didn't think you were correct, it wouldn't be your opinion. I'm the same way. But this turn in conversation has convinced me that arguing the point with you is without purpose.

So are you a follower of Derrida? Words have a meaning within a certain context...we don't put our own meaning into them.

Also, the reason I said you were wrong is because you were wrong mate.

Also, if you aren't going to debate me, then why respond in the first place? At that point it just seems like you wanted to get a personal attack in and leave it at that. A way of saying, "I don't want to debate you, but I don't like you, and I'll let you know it."

If you aren't going to debate someone, then don't respond. Don't slap them then run away.

[rtwo]

Also, the reason I said you were wrong is because you were wrong mate.

Yes, and I think you're wrong about nearly everything on this subject. But I'm not going to discuss it further here, because it simply won't do any good; and we seem to agree on a great many other topics. You and I will just have to not discuss meanings of words and the "Emergent Church."

Everything else is a go though.

[Kabowd]

People who have not studied pragmatism should not be arguing in support of it. I assure you, if you understood it, you would see that it is not consistent with biblical Christianity.

[Kabowd]

"Pragmatists contend that one cannot think or even feel truth, but he can discover it by attempting to live it. Truth is not what is consistent or what is empirically adequate but what is experientially workable." - Norman Geisler in Christian Apologetics, pg. 101.

In Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant defined pragmatic as a "contingent belief, which yet forms the ground for the actual employment of means to certain actions" but this became a test for truth by people such as William James. In Pragmatism, he wrote "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot". An idea, from his perspective, is not inherently true or false...it is made true or false in practice.

Certainly, there are elements of pragmatism in Scripture (such as knowing one another by our fruits). However, this cannot be labeled as pragmatic because it does not hold to the basic tenets of philosophical Pragmatism:

1. Pragmatism is the belief that truth is tested via human experience. In other words, does it work? Is it livable?

2. Pragmatism suggests that truth is determined over a period of time, after multiple experiences prove to confirm it.

3. Pragmatism does not hold that truth is absolute or final. Instead, truth is progressive and can change according to circumstances.

While there is nothing wrong with being practical, and certainly our lives should be evidence of the truth within us, this is a far cry from stating that the truth within us is defined by our lives. Do you see the difference? Here are some good reasons why Pragmatism (as we are discussing it) is not biblical:

1. Truth isn't Truth because we are capable of living it. Truth is Truth whether our lives display it or not.

2. Truth isn't always "practical" or expedient. Very often, it is the long and narrow road filled with sweat and suffering, instead of the wide and open road that's easy to tread. Therefore, just because something seems to produce results does not mean it is the true/right way. Which leads me to my next point....

3. Results do not establish what is true or false. Growth, wealth and health are not indicators of truth or even necessarily God's blessing. I've heard reports that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Does that make it true? I've read statistics that Buddhism had an increase of nearly 80% over a period of several years recently. Does that make it true? I know some Mormons who are probably the nicest, most decent citizens in America. They are very moral and friendly and live a very comfortable lifestyle. Does that make Mormonism true? I have a friend who's Mom believes she was cured of cancer by wearing crystals around her neck. It appears to have worked for her...does that make it true?

4. It leads to relativism and experientialism. Who gets to define what "works"? What "works" for you, may not "work" for me. Which way is true and right? Who's experience is authentic?

Obviously, the answer to all of these is "No". But I hope you see my point. Too often these days, especially among Western Christians, there's this philosophy that if it produces desirable results it can't be wrong. We look at a large, fast growing church and automatically think whatever they're doing must be right because it's "working". Even worse, we compromise the truth in order to increase desired results. The popluarization of fads such as the "40 Days of Purpose", "The Prayer of Jabez" and books like "Wild At Heart" is further proof that American Christians are very quick to embrace what appears to "work" and jump on bandwagons, whether or not truth is found therein. This of course does not mean that good things cannot come from some of these books, but again...results are not an indicator of truth. In fact, I think it would be more often an indicator of the opposite. Suffering for the sake of righteousness is not a popular message. Obedience, discipline and accountability are not the truths that people often want to hear. Churches that teach on these things and the consequences of sin are probably not going to grow at the rate that churches who promote physical healing, prosperity and "living your passion" will. Go into any Christian bookstore and look what they have on their end-caps for promotion. It's not the books on apologetics, reasoning, studying truth or hermeneutics that are best sellers. It's the self-help books such as "Your Best Life Now", "The Purpose Driven Life" or fictional books like The Left Behind series that sell. Why? Part of the problem is what JP Moreland calls "the empty self". He describes this as a mindset that is individualistic, infantile, narcissistic, and sensate (to name a few). Here's what he describes in his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind":

"The empty self is also the enemy of the Christian mind and its cultivation. Try to think about what a church filled with empty selves would look like in a culture. What would be the theological understanding, the reading habits, the evangelistic courage, the articulate cultural penetration of such a church? Pretty inadequate, I'm afraid. If the interior life does not really matter all that much, why spend the time reading and trying to develop an interior, intellectual, spiritually mature life?.....If a person is sensate in orientation, music, magazines filled with pictures, and visual media in general will be more important than mere words on a page or abstract thoughts....And if someone is overly individualistic, infantile, and narcissistic, what will that person read, if he or she reads at all? Such a person will read Christian self-help books that are filled with self-serving content, many slogans, simplistic moralizing, a lot of stories and pictures, and inadequate diagnosis of issues that place no demand on the reader." - Moreland, pg. 93

This is the result of a slow influence of pragmatism. People care less and less about what is true, and more about what will "work" for them. They're primarily concerned -even church leaders- with what will produce the best results (which often means growing in numbers). No one wants to admit it, but there's competition among pastors and ministers about the size of their churches and ministries. Size does matter to some Even beyond church though, we're a fast-food generation that has grown so selfish and impatient that we get angry when our food isn't ready at the second drive-up window. In the last 10 years, cosmetic surgery has increased by over 400 %, and yet more than half of us are overweight enough to be considered obese. We slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent children in utero every day (largely due to "inconvenience"), thousands of gay couples are now "married", and our students are gunning down one another in school. It isn't practical or expedient to give up personal comfort and sacrifice in order to meet the needs of others. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on meals or medicine to give to those in need doesn't seem as practical as building a bigger facility with nicer carpet and softer pews...but what is right? Do you feed the empty selves by catering to the selfish desires of lazy parishioners to keep them happy and tithing? Or do you preach the truth, even when it steps on wealthy toes, and trust God to provide you with what you need to keep ministering? Do you keep telling church people that God likes them and wants to bless them in spite of their sin because this makes them feel good and the service more energetic (not to mention it keeps them coming)? Or do you tell them God hates their sin and they need to repent....at the risk of losing half (or more) of your congregation?

We should hold to what is true, whether it will produce desired results or not.

[apothanein kerdos]

"Pragmatists contend that one cannot think or even feel truth, but he can discover it by attempting to live it. Truth is not what is consistent or what is empirically adequate but what is experientially workable." - Norman Geisler in Christian Apologetics, pg. 101.

In Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant defined pragmatic as a "contingent belief, which yet forms the ground for the actual employment of means to certain actions" but this became a test for truth by people such as William James. In Pragmatism, he wrote "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot". An idea, from his perspective, is not inherently true or false...it is made true or false in practice.

Certainly, there are elements of pragmatism in Scripture (such as knowing one another by our fruits). However, this cannot be labeled as pragmatic because it does not hold to the basic tenets of philosophical Pragmatism:

1. Pragmatism is the belief that truth is tested via human experience. In other words, does it work? Is it livable?

2. Pragmatism suggests that truth is determined over a period of time, after multiple experiences prove to confirm it.

3. Pragmatism does not hold that truth is absolute or final. Instead, truth is progressive and can change according to circumstances.

While there is nothing wrong with being practical, and certainly our lives should be evidence of the truth within us, this is a far cry from stating that the truth within us is defined by our lives. Do you see the difference? Here are some good reasons why Pragmatism (as we are discussing it) is not biblical:

1. Truth isn't Truth because we are capable of living it. Truth is Truth whether our lives display it or not.

2. Truth isn't always "practical" or expedient. Very often, it is the long and narrow road filled with sweat and suffering, instead of the wide and open road that's easy to tread. Therefore, just because something seems to produce results does not mean it is the true/right way. Which leads me to my next point....

3. Results do not establish what is true or false. Growth, wealth and health are not indicators of truth or even necessarily God's blessing. I've heard reports that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Does that make it true? I've read statistics that Buddhism had an increase of nearly 80% over a period of several years recently. Does that make it true? I know some Mormons who are probably the nicest, most decent citizens in America. They are very moral and friendly and live a very comfortable lifestyle. Does that make Mormonism true? I have a friend who's Mom believes she was cured of cancer by wearing crystals around her neck. It appears to have worked for her...does that make it true?

4. It leads to relativism and experientialism. Who gets to define what "works"? What "works" for you, may not "work" for me. Which way is true and right? Who's experience is authentic?

Obviously, the answer to all of these is "No". But I hope you see my point. Too often these days, especially among Western Christians, there's this philosophy that if it produces desirable results it can't be wrong. We look at a large, fast growing church and automatically think whatever they're doing must be right because it's "working". Even worse, we compromise the truth in order to increase desired results. The popluarization of fads such as the "40 Days of Purpose", "The Prayer of Jabez" and books like "Wild At Heart" is further proof that American Christians are very quick to embrace what appears to "work" and jump on bandwagons, whether or not truth is found therein. This of course does not mean that good things cannot come from some of these books, but again...results are not an indicator of truth. In fact, I think it would be more often an indicator of the opposite. Suffering for the sake of righteousness is not a popular message. Obedience, discipline and accountability are not the truths that people often want to hear. Churches that teach on these things and the consequences of sin are probably not going to grow at the rate that churches who promote physical healing, prosperity and "living your passion" will. Go into any Christian bookstore and look what they have on their end-caps for promotion. It's not the books on apologetics, reasoning, studying truth or hermeneutics that are best sellers. It's the self-help books such as "Your Best Life Now", "The Purpose Driven Life" or fictional books like The Left Behind series that sell. Why? Part of the problem is what JP Moreland calls "the empty self". He describes this as a mindset that is individualistic, infantile, narcissistic, and sensate (to name a few). Here's what he describes in his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind":

"The empty self is also the enemy of the Christian mind and its cultivation. Try to think about what a church filled with empty selves would look like in a culture. What would be the theological understanding, the reading habits, the evangelistic courage, the articulate cultural penetration of such a church? Pretty inadequate, I'm afraid. If the interior life does not really matter all that much, why spend the time reading and trying to develop an interior, intellectual, spiritually mature life?.....If a person is sensate in orientation, music, magazines filled with pictures, and visual media in general will be more important than mere words on a page or abstract thoughts....And if someone is overly individualistic, infantile, and narcissistic, what will that person read, if he or she reads at all? Such a person will read Christian self-help books that are filled with self-serving content, many slogans, simplistic moralizing, a lot of stories and pictures, and inadequate diagnosis of issues that place no demand on the reader." - Moreland, pg. 93

This is the result of a slow influence of pragmatism. People care less and less about what is true, and more about what will "work" for them. They're primarily concerned -even church leaders- with what will produce the best results (which often means growing in numbers). No one wants to admit it, but there's competition among pastors and ministers about the size of their churches and ministries. Size does matter to some Even beyond church though, we're a fast-food generation that has grown so selfish and impatient that we get angry when our food isn't ready at the second drive-up window. In the last 10 years, cosmetic surgery has increased by over 400 %, and yet more than half of us are overweight enough to be considered obese. We slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent children in utero every day (largely due to "inconvenience"), thousands of gay couples are now "married", and our students are gunning down one another in school. It isn't practical or expedient to give up personal comfort and sacrifice in order to meet the needs of others. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on meals or medicine to give to those in need doesn't seem as practical as building a bigger facility with nicer carpet and softer pews...but what is right? Do you feed the empty selves by catering to the selfish desires of lazy parishioners to keep them happy and tithing? Or do you preach the truth, even when it steps on wealthy toes, and trust God to provide you with what you need to keep ministering? Do you keep telling church people that God likes them and wants to bless them in spite of their sin because this makes them feel good and the service more energetic (not to mention it keeps them coming)? Or do you tell them God hates their sin and they need to repent....at the risk of losing half (or more) of your congregation?

We should hold to what is true, whether it will produce desired results or not.

Wow. I wish I would have written something like that. Excellent post.

[methinkshe]

I'll second that - excellent post. Truth is truth whether or not we live it. I'm sick and tired of hearing God's Word traduced, reduced, stripped, perverted, turned upride-down and inside out just because we as frail humans are incapable of living His truth to the utmost. Truth exists whether or not we attain to it. To base truth on a human capacity to discern or live it, is to be content with Satan's lie - Did God say.....?

Ruth

[RustyAngeL]

Hey, what is the deal with the Emerging Church???

The definition I read:

A noticeable shift of contemporary churches with non-religious approaches is becoming known by many as the Emerging Church Movement.

What does this mean? How can you have a non-religious approach to something that is meant to be religious?

Doctrine should come from the word of God, not from something Rick Warren or some other surface-level writer has thrown out to barnes & noble for some pocket change.

I hate to be blunt.. but unless someone can clear something up... The emerging church seems closer to the emerging cult.

As a born-again, baptised-in-the-Spirit believer living in the UK, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to come against the latest so called Christian Movement emanating from the USA. There's been the discipleship movement that places new converts back into a bondage of works; the what-you-say-is-what-you-get type of positive thinking movement that is materialistically propagated; the health, wealth and happiness movement, the Promise-Keepers movement; the Toronto Blessing movement; and now, apparently there is an "emerging church" movement. Sorry, I want none of it. They are all cults. Not movements of the Holy Spirit. They all seek to ADD to grace. I know only Christ crucified and that's enough for me. The UK is far less godly as a society than is the USA from what I can tell from this side of the pond, but we are also far less likely to fall for cultish expositions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that people in the UK are hungry for the REAL THING, but maybe people in the US just want a new experience of God and are thus more susceptible to any new thing. That's just my personal observation. And I could be terribly wrong - but that's how I see it at the moment. All I can say is that I have spent more than a few hours attempting to counteract cultish propaganda regurgitated by newly converted Christians who do not have the benefit of a Christian heritage and who thus find it much harder to distinguish truth from counterfeit. In short, the "Emerging Church" sounds to me like another American cult...sorry.

Ruth

Don't you just love it when someone from another country bashes us not only as a country but as Christians? It really annoys me especially when they don't know wht they are talking about.

[apothanein kerdos]

Hey, what is the deal with the Emerging Church???

The definition I read:

A noticeable shift of contemporary churches with non-religious approaches is becoming known by many as the Emerging Church Movement.

What does this mean? How can you have a non-religious approach to something that is meant to be religious?

Doctrine should come from the word of God, not from something Rick Warren or some other surface-level writer has thrown out to barnes & noble for some pocket change.

I hate to be blunt.. but unless someone can clear something up... The emerging church seems closer to the emerging cult.

As a born-again, baptised-in-the-Spirit believer living in the UK, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to come against the latest so called Christian Movement emanating from the USA. There's been the discipleship movement that places new converts back into a bondage of works; the what-you-say-is-what-you-get type of positive thinking movement that is materialistically propagated; the health, wealth and happiness movement, the Promise-Keepers movement; the Toronto Blessing movement; and now, apparently there is an "emerging church" movement. Sorry, I want none of it. They are all cults. Not movements of the Holy Spirit. They all seek to ADD to grace. I know only Christ crucified and that's enough for me. The UK is far less godly as a society than is the USA from what I can tell from this side of the pond, but we are also far less likely to fall for cultish expositions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that people in the UK are hungry for the REAL THING, but maybe people in the US just want a new experience of God and are thus more susceptible to any new thing. That's just my personal observation. And I could be terribly wrong - but that's how I see it at the moment. All I can say is that I have spent more than a few hours attempting to counteract cultish propaganda regurgitated by newly converted Christians who do not have the benefit of a Christian heritage and who thus find it much harder to distinguish truth from counterfeit. In short, the "Emerging Church" sounds to me like another American cult...sorry.

Ruth

Don't you just love it when someone from another country bashes us not only as a country but as Christians? It really annoys me especially when they don't know wht they are talking about.

How is it bashing? It's true. Most cults and heresies of the last century have originated out of America...

[None]

Hey, what is the deal with the Emerging Church???

The definition I read:

A noticeable shift of contemporary churches with non-religious approaches is becoming known by many as the Emerging Church Movement.

What does this mean? How can you have a non-religious approach to something that is meant to be religious?

Doctrine should come from the word of God, not from something Rick Warren or some other surface-level writer has thrown out to barnes & noble for some pocket change.

I hate to be blunt.. but unless someone can clear something up... The emerging church seems closer to the emerging cult.

As a born-again, baptised-in-the-Spirit believer living in the UK, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to come against the latest so called Christian Movement emanating from the USA. There's been the discipleship movement that places new converts back into a bondage of works; the what-you-say-is-what-you-get type of positive thinking movement that is materialistically propagated; the health, wealth and happiness movement, the Promise-Keepers movement; the Toronto Blessing movement; and now, apparently there is an "emerging church" movement. Sorry, I want none of it. They are all cults. Not movements of the Holy Spirit. They all seek to ADD to grace. I know only Christ crucified and that's enough for me. The UK is far less godly as a society than is the USA from what I can tell from this side of the pond, but we are also far less likely to fall for cultish expositions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that people in the UK are hungry for the REAL THING, but maybe people in the US just want a new experience of God and are thus more susceptible to any new thing. That's just my personal observation. And I could be terribly wrong - but that's how I see it at the moment. All I can say is that I have spent more than a few hours attempting to counteract cultish propaganda regurgitated by newly converted Christians who do not have the benefit of a Christian heritage and who thus find it much harder to distinguish truth from counterfeit. In short, the "Emerging Church" sounds to me like another American cult...sorry.

Ruth

Don't you just love it when someone from another country bashes us not only as a country but as Christians? It really annoys me especially when they don't know wht they are talking about.

How is it bashing? It's true. Most cults and heresies of the last century have originated out of America...

I second that.

[methinkshe]

Don't you just love it when someone from another country bashes us not only as a country but as Christians? It really annoys me especially when they don't know wht they are talking about.

I apologise if my post came across as America bashing. I am actually a staunch supporter of America and recognise that in the UK we have drifted very much further from our Christian foundations than has the USA. Your President is still not fearful of mentioning the name of God. Our Prime Minister is pilloried if he dares to suggest that he may have prayed for guidance. I was trying (obviously rather inarticulately) to suggest that the very cynicism that besets UK society does tend to innoculate us against some of the whackier so-called Christian Movements. That it also tends to innoculate us from ALL things to do with our Lord Jesus is just par for the course. I genuinely believe that UK society is desperate to know Jesus Christ. I also believe that US Christian Society has run after a lot of false movements via tele-evangelists et al. "Gimme your money" is how they are perceived over here, and I think not without just cause. Anyway, far be it from me to resurrect a post-colonial war (oops! should I have even mentioned colonialism!!!) God bless you my American brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. Would that we in the UK still paid even lip-service to Jesus Christ. I envy the godliness that is still the backbone of American society and did not wish to rubbish it. But I cannot help but observe that nearly all the new cultish elements that have attached themselves to God's Word emanate from America.

In Christ Jesus

Ruth

Edited April 15, 2007 by methinkshe