who likes them ?
Wha hates their doctrines?
Wha hates their doctrines?
To me, it looks like a movement where people gather together to find the truth outside, rather than inside, the Bible. Post-modern thought, interfaith dialogue, and a new way to "do" church suggest that they're trying to meet people where they are. However, they don't know where they're going in the first place. If they're trying to figure out who God is based on everyone else's personal belief, then they're in real big trouble.
A) The definition being used for 'post-modern' changes to contrast whatever is in vogue at the time - at one time it was a reaction to French Impressionist art. Or more specifically, to indicate a reaction against what 'modernism' did. People use it as some kind of dirty word because they only choose to see one definition of it, when there is no single definition. You ask several different people and you'll get several different answers, some more extreme in their view than others; some may not even be talking about the same field, considering the origin of the term is from architecture.The issue is that post-modernism it is based on human interpretation based on feeling and desire. Humans are sinful at the core, and this idea of interpreting Scripture in light of us creates doctrine that is not Biblical. It's the decades old "existence precedes essence" existentialism rehashed with a new name. Scripture must interpret Scripture. We don't need new interpretations of Scripture, just Biblically-sound and culturally-relevant methods of applying Scripture. The emergent movement, in general, wants to not only have relevant methods, but have relevant Scripture, which is not Biblical. Methods may not be timeless, but Scripture is. We must read Scripture in light of its original application, and apply it relevantly based on that. Scripture interprets culture, not the other way around.