More Questions for "Emergent" post-modernists

[gracefaith]

Dear post-modernists,

I'm still on my quest to understand. After a great deal of online investigation and fresh from a reading of "The Church on the Other Side" by Brian McLaren, I have some more questions. Forgive me if I asked them before.

1) Does a post-modern emergent Christian believe scripture is the ultimate authority by which we are to judge something?

2) Do they believe in original sin? Total depravity?

3) Do they believe in a literal hell?

4) If one cannot know the whole truth and no church has the whole truth, how do you choose which church to attend?

5) Is there any place for dogmatism or systematic theology on "the other side?"

6) Is it McLaren's view that an intelligent, informed, thoughtful, reasonable Christian has no choice but to accept the reality of post-modernism and temper their approach to the world according to it?

7) This one really interests me: Is there any purpose to martyrdom in the post-modern world?


Again, thanks for your patience with all my queries!

GRACE

 

[Gold Dragon]

Dear post-modernists,

I'm still on my quest to understand. After a great deal of online investigation and fresh from a reading of "The Church on the Other Side" by Brian McLaren, I have some more questions. Forgive me if I asked them before.

Having never read "The Church on the Other Side", it would be helpful for me to hear your thoughts on some of the main themes and your responses to them.

I don't want to be the spokesperson for the emergent church because I am really not all that connected to the "movement", but I'll share what I am aware of and my personal positions which seem to be generally in line with most around these parts that would identify themselves as postmodern.

1) Does a post-modern emergent Christian believe scripture is the ultimate authority by which we are to judge something?

The question of authority itself from any source is something that postmodernism ultimately challenges. However, challenging authority doesn't mean that there is no authority or that authoritative things like the bible have no value.

I would say that no, scripture is not the ultimate authority for postmodern Christians. And yet, I believe that the bible is God's inspired and holy word to mankind that is completely authoritative and trustworthy and I believe many postmodern Christians would share this view. How does that work?

I believe the ultimate authority is not held in the bible but in the person of Jesus Christ that the bible gives witness to.

NASB - John 5:39-40

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

 

[Gold Dragon]

2) Do they believe in original sin? Total depravity?

3) Do they believe in a literal hell?

For each of these positions, some do and some don't. This variation also exists in modernist Christianity.

 

[jason_the_ecumenicalist]

1) Depends on the individual church, mine does.

2) Do they believe in original sin? Total depravity?

Yes, mine does as well. We believe that everyone is totally deprived and that this is a reason why Christians should be more gracious to the "sinners." We believe that the lives of a sinner show us what it can look like for one not to have God's hand on us. We believe therefore, that it is wrong and sinful for us to judge and rebuke others, because often it ends up with one exalting themself as being better.

3) Do they believe in a literal hell?


4) If one cannot know the whole truth and no church has the whole truth, how do you choose which church to attend?

It is true that no chruch ha steh whole truth figured out. Any pastor could tell you that. the important thing is to join a community and to become a part of it. Be part of a community where you can serve each other and preach teh kingdom of God to the broken with out judging them.

5) Is there any place for dogmatism or systematic theology on "the other side?"

depends. WHen it comes down to the essentials, yes. (Nicene, Appostles Creeds). But the lesser issues are seen as important to study,but should not be issues that divide as they often do.

6) Is it McLaren's view that an intelligent, informed, thoughtful, reasonable Christian has no choice but to accept the reality of post-modernism and temper their approach to the world according to it?

Not sure at this point. I think Christians need to communicate to a post-modern world in a much better way. Obviosuly rationalism is no longer the norm, but that is where many evangelicals desire to remain.

7) This one really interests me: Is there any purpose to martyrdom in the post-modern world?

what do you mean? Die for your faith like those in persecuted countries? In that case yes. But having catholics and portestants martrying eachother, no.

 

[Gold Dragon]

4) If one cannot know the whole truth and no church has the whole truth, how do you choose which church to attend?

I don't know if there is a defacto postmodern answer to this question, but I believe that it isn't the church you attend that will have all the answers, but the Christ you worship and discover through your church that has the answers. Some churches are really good at discovering doctrines and teachings that may or may not point to the person of Christ. Attend a church that is fully devoted to discovering the Christ that the scriptures bear witness to and then being Christ in this world. This could very well be a church that looks nothing like an "emergent" church and have no idea what an "emergent" or postmodern church is. And most likely is like the one that you already attend. Journey with this imperfect church of yours to know better the perfect Christ.

 

[Gold Dragon]

5) Is there any place for dogmatism or systematic theology on "the other side?"

There is definitely a place for dogma and systematic theology. Both have made invaluable contributions to the story of Christianity. But when they hold a place primacy in our faith that really only belongs to the person of Christ, there is cause for concern.

 

[Gold Dragon]

6) Is it McLaren's view that an intelligent, informed, thoughtful, reasonable Christian has no choice but to accept the reality of post-modernism and temper their approach to the world according to it?

Saying that others having no choice would be quite dogmatic, wouldn't it?

McLaren recognizes that some will never understand or accept postmodernism. They are just as much a part of the journey as those who do. The goal of postmodern Christianity isn't to convince others that they are another group that is right at the exclusion of others.

 

[Gold Dragon]

7) This one really interests me: Is there any purpose to martyrdom in the post-modern world?

I don't see why not. If you think that there is nothing in their faith important enough for a postmodern Christian to die for, then you are very mistaken. The centrality and the divinity of the person Christ is the very thing that the martyrs in the early church died for. The Christian canon of the bible didn't exist yet. Systematic theology didn't exist yet. Almost all evangelical doctrines didn't exist yet. Most of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions didn't exist yet either.

 

[gracefaith]

Hi Gold Dragon, thanks for letting me pick your brain again!

I'm not sure where to begin with book review of "The Church on the Other Side" really. I can say that it was primarily written with church leadership in mind and contained sort of the "plan of attack" (in the form of 13 strategies) for addressing the issues of post-modernity. I'll admit that McLaren is right about many things; namely, that the world and the sensibilites of many of the people in it have changed and that it will require some creativity and flexibility to maximize our effectiveness in the coming age. In as far as he encourages Christians toward active compassion, love and gentleness as their primary form of witness, I think he's right on.

All this being said, I have a lingering concern that prompted the questions I asked and continues to make me queamish about certain passages in the book. The concern is this: where do you draw the line being effective in post-modernism and being affected by it? More bluntly, will this fundamentally alter our theology and if so, is it a good thing? The answer, I believe, lies in what one considers to be fundamental theology. What are you willing to stand by as absolutely true and what are you willing to admit is not completely knowable?

So, I guess, I'm trying to determine what, if anything, post-modernists believe to be absolutely true, what core beliefs they base their theology on. This is why the question of martyrdom interests me. Here's a quote from "The Other Side"

"3. Postmodernism leans toward the humorous
We shouldn't take ourselves or anyone else too seriously. After all, if our perspectives are biased by the groups we belong too, if our view is valid only from a subjective standpoint, the each of us is untrustworthy and subjective in knowledge and judgement and none of us can presume to very much authority...Postmoderns in this way would be quick to agree with C.S. Lewis, who noted that those most willing to die for their beliefs are often those most willing to kill for them. To avoid becoming a villian, then, it is best to hold your own beliefs in check with a dash of humor: 'I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.'"

I can only take from this the idea that a post-modern, whatever he believes, considers dying for his beliefs to be the height of arrogance; a step away from killing for them. Is there anything a post-modern would not bend on? Any core belief they would die for?

There is so much more I want to say, but I need to head off to work. Thanks for giving me your ear again.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Hi Gold Dragon, thanks for letting me pick your brain again!

Always a pleasure.

The concern is this: where do you draw the line being effective in post-modernism and being affected by it? More bluntly, will this fundamentally alter our theology and if so, is it a good thing?

These are some great questions and we could spend hours talking about how we can never truly live in a culture without it affecting us in some way, even if the resulting effect is a position of opposition to the culture.

Another issue is the view of unchanging towers of theology that modern Christianity has submitted to, whether that is fundamentalist, conservative or liberal theology. We like to look at historical theologians and say, "Augustine's theological position is .... or Calvin's theology is .... or C.S. Lewis believed ....". But a real look at their spiritual lives and interaction with God shows something far less static and far more fluid than how we present it. They struggled and wrestled with God's word and His truth. They made claims at one point in life, only to double back and alter that claim later on, maybe in clarification or maybe in self-correction.

We like to have our beliefs wrapped up in neat little simple packages that can be easily digested. But the solid food that is the absolute truth is not so simple or easily digestable or easily wrapped up in a few phrases. That absolute truth is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ who we worship and imitate.

I can only take from this the idea that a post-modern, whatever he believes, considers dying for his beliefs to be the height of arrogance; a step away from killing for them. Is there anything a post-modern would not bend on? Any core belief they would die for?

Dying for a doctrine or system of belief is foolishness. Dying for the person of Jesus Christ and his message of love, relationship and salvation for all of humanity isn't.

 

[mrcrow]

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/maranathacommunity/state_of_our_nation.htm

this is where its going...back to pre modernism please!!!!!

 

[gracefaith]

The centrality and the divinity of the person of Christ is the very thing that the martyrs in the early church died for...Dying for a doctrine or system of belief is foolishness. Dying for the person of Jesus Christ and his message of love, relationship and salvation for all of humanity isn't.

Some churches are really good at discovering doctrines and teachings that may or may not point to the person of Christ...There is definitely a place for dogma and systematic theology. Both have made invaluable contributions to the story of Christianity. But when they hold a place primacy in our faith that really only belongs to the person of Christ, there is cause for concern.

I believe the ultimate authority is not held in the bible but in the person of Jesus Christ that the bible gives witness to.

You use this specific phrase a lot. At the risk of sounding stupid, I'd like to know what exactly you mean by it. How do I to ascertain the nature of the person of Christ? Once I ascertain his nature what do I do with it?

 

[artybloke]

The person of Christ:

well, now there's a difficult one. I could quote what the Creed says, but that's what we Quakers would call a "notion." It's an "idea about Jesus" rather than Jesus himself. Even reducing Jesus down to the message of love God and love your neighbour, or to his example of death on the cross, is to reduce Christ to a series of ideas.

But the early church had some kind of experience of the "Risen Christ": whatever the status of the stories of Jesus' post-resurection appearances as historical (and liberals like myself will have a variety of opinions on them) the church nevertheless has an experience of the power of the Risen Christ in their lives that transformed them, and made them go out into the world to spread God's message of love and reconciliation to the world.

That's what it is for me: an encounter with the Risen Christ. I have no problem with the Creeds as expressions of that experience; and some systematic theology can also express that experience. But the experience of the Risen Christ, not "correct theology," is what drives the church forward.

That can be found among all sorts of people; but I don't think it's just an individual thing. It's a group thing too; sometimes in Quaker meeting, or in an Anglican Eucharist, it's almost palpable.

The Person of Christ is what (or who) sends us into the world to spread good news. For me, at least.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You use this specific phrase a lot. At the risk of sounding stupid, I'd like to know what exactly you mean by it.

I guess my not-so-subtle propoganda is working. The good news about my propoganda is two-fold:

1) Knowing the person of Christ, instead of the institutions, doctrines or book that tries to point to him, is something that this relationship-centric postmodern generation can identify with.

2) Knowing the person of Christ is exactly what Jesus emphasized during his ministry.

NASB - John 14:5-7

Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?"

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

NASB - John 5:39-40

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

NASB - Luke 18:18,22

A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
...
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

We often focus on the selling of possessions but if you look carefully, that wasn't the answer to the ruler's question. That was how to have treasure in heaven. Inheriting eternal life involves following Jesus, the same call to all his disciples.

How do I to ascertain the nature of the person of Christ?

Ascertain is such a modernist word. It implies certainty. It implies knowledge. It implies complete understanding or conquest of a subject.

But a person is not something we can encapsulate in "three simple points". A relationship is not something that can be broken down into several formulas. A relationship is a living, complex, beautiful thing and the very thing that Christ came to establish with mankind.

A more postmodern question would be, how do I discover the person of Christ? Fortunately Christ gave us his Holy Spirit to be in contant relationship with us.

NASB - John 14:16-21

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.

The Holy Spirit has also been given to other Christians in the Church in history and the biblical doctrines they have discovered about that relationship. And of course we have the bible that God has inspired men to write. All these are wonderful things that point us to the person of Christ. However, like many good things, Christians have a tendency to raise a good thing to become something more than it was supposed to be.

Once I ascertain his nature what do I do with it?

Instead of saying "once I ascertain" a better approach would be "as I discover" his nature what do I do with it?

We live it. We be Christ's witnesses. We do his work. We becomes his arms, legs, mouth and body.

NASB - Matthew 25:35-36,40

For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat;
I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink;
I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
naked, and you clothed Me;
I was sick, and you visited Me;
I was in prison, and you came to Me.

Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.

 

[techjedi]

Paraphrasing a bit.....

All this being said, I have a lingering concern that prompted the questions I asked and continues to make me queamish about certain passages in the book. The concern is this: where do you draw the line being effective in post-modernism and being affected by it? More bluntly, will this fundamentally alter our theology and if so, is it a good thing? The answer, I believe, lies in what one considers to be fundamental theology. What are you willing to stand by as absolutely true and what are you willing to admit is not completely knowable?

So, I guess, I'm trying to determine what, if anything, post-modernists believe to be absolutely true, what core beliefs they base their theology on.

I've been on a McLaren kick lately... I started by reading A New Kind of Christian and The Story We Find Ourselves In, both of which are excellent. They totally changed my outlook on life and spirituality because for a long time I have felt like something was missing or wrong (either with me or with the churches that I would attend). Having said that, I don't know that the people involved with Emergent would really say that there will ever be an Emergent Church. Having one kind of defeats the whole change in perspective that emergent brings, it would instead be another denomination that would split the faith. Knowing that I am not in any way-shape-form a spokesperson, I would offer up that emergent strives to adjust the course headings that the various denominations are such that they all start converging back to a single area. Churches will always be different, because people are always different... but recognizing each other's differences and not being divisive about it is a good thing.

Wow that was longer than I thought... ultimately, I think a lot of the questions you have might be answered, or given a new perspective, in his more recent book - A Generous Orthodoxy. Check it out, even if you hate it and disagree 100%, the editor offers a money back guarantee (At least it did when I bought it, there was a sticker on it).

Ultimately, I think the emergent movement will fundamentally alter the way you look at a great many things, and if it suits you it is a great thing (if not, fine as well). Good Luck on your journey, I am well into mine and I am enjoying life more than I ever have.

 

[stofo]

your talking about postmodernism like its a denomination or something someone decides to become. the issue is not what we (postmodernists) believe theologicaly. in the same way that some modern christians believe in a literal hell and some dont, there are postmodern christians who believe in a literal hell and some that dont. its a very modernistic device to write a book about a certain people, label them, the descibe all their behaviors. so when you read on of these books about postmodernism, chances are it wasnt written by a postmodernist. i consider myself a postmodernist, there i just did it, i operated under modernism and labeled myself. these are the sort of paradoxes we face in this new age.

one wrong idea about postmodernism is that postmodernists do not believe in abolsute truth. i believe in absolute truth and seek it and think about it more than the modernists i know.