The Surprising Results of Postmodernism

Part of me is baffled by the overwhelmingly negative and fearful accounts of postmodernism in general that come from the conservative church sector. It makes no sense to me because the same sector that labels postmodernism the refuge of secular liberals labels the post-enlightenment liberal Christianity (e.g. Bultmann and his ilk) that postmoderns are (rightly) incredulous toward as secular humanists in Christian's clothing.

In other words, postmoderns and conservative Christians have 'enemies' in common. Or at least targets of incredulity in common.

---

What I personally have found is that the further I gravitate toward postmodern understandings (i.e. stories of understanding), the further I have gravitated away from Protestant liberalism (my implicit assumptions coming into all of this) and toward a comfortably conservative theology.

For instance, in a postmodern schema, a text has to be approached on its own terms. Unlike in liberal Protestantism, the Bible does not need to be dismantled and made to resemble Rationalist or Enlightenment ideals. Old-Testament narratives stand on their own - though by no means divorced in meaning from other books of the Bible or the Bible as a whole (or, for that matter, from the history of Biblical understanding and the way that that history and those narratives themselves have informed our own lives: intertextuality) - without a need to draw abstract propositional truths from them, or excise the 'Jewish' elements, or any other misguided Enlightenment project.

This is only one example, but my point is that postmodern studies always lead me back to a position that I think most conservative opponents of postmodernism itself and of the emerging church movement in general would be quite comfortable with. Hence my bafflement.

Comments? Ideas? Critiques? Thank you.

Peace is the great venture

Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness and pride of power and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear rather than [doing] too much. Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sermon on II Cor. 12:9

A thought experiment

This is how it works: You read a statement, a paragraph, an essay, a chapter, a book, a play, a movie*, or what-have-you. And then, no matter what it says, no matter how mundane or how preposterous, you say this:

"If this is true, then what?"

For instance, I just came across the line "Christian spirituality has developed as six traditions, each emphasizing certain themes: Contemplative, Holiness, Charismatic, Social Justice, Evangelical, and Incarnational," in the book Are You Sure You're Right?: Evangelicals and the Church of God.**

If this is true, then what tradition wd. I fall in? If this is true, then what am I missing from the other five? If this is true, then what shd. I do about it?

-ND

* Yes, this is proper terminology. You read a movie if you do more than watch it at the surface level, for sheer entertainment.

** Yes, it is interesting reading, and no, it is not for class. It is a criticism of the Church of God (Anderson) for falling away from its theological, political and other roots, and becoming simply another Evangelical group. Interestingly enough, it was published by Warner Press, official publisher for the Church of God (Anderson). This speaks volumes about the integrity of those there. As the acknowledgement puts it, "Publication of such a work is an act of courage on their part."

Jesus' teaching

What is the central teaching of Christ and the New Testament?

Well, it really depends on whom you ask.

I hear two main answers in the circles I run.

1. "Justification by grace through faith as a result of the death of Christ on the cross," usually accompanied by a lot of legal and monetary language.

2. "The announcement of the Kingdom of God," usually accompanied by a lot of narrative and ethical language.

---

The answer to this question seems pretty important to understanding what Christianity is, or at least what it is supposed to be.

So what do you think? Which one is it, if either, and why do you think that?

My thoughts coming soon.

-ND

Orthopraxy revisited

"The church is not the custodian of the culture - of any culture. The church is the custodian of her own narrative."

Orthopraxy is acting and living in ways that are true (or appropriate) to the ongoing story of the Kingdom of God.

In Pauline terms, it is putting off the old humanity and putting on the new one, living as a new creation, living in light of the resurrection.

In light of this, the duty of the church is not to support any political agenda (any agenda at all!), but to act and live in ways that sustain its central and self-defining story.

(It is true that at the moment I am not discussing either the acts/lifestyle, or the story. It is also true that at the moment I am not discussing how we come to an understanding of the story, or in what ways that again establishes belief over action. All to come.)

Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.

Thinking about the emerging church

The emerging church is often characterized solely on its rethinking of Christian story (which is taken as an affront to orthodox Christan belief, to the Bible as God's word, etc.) and on its hesitance to state its beliefs definitively. From those speaking within the church existing, all doubts, fears, concerns and attacks toward the church emerging focus around "belief-issues." Common accusations are:

• They want to "redefine" Christianity
• They redefine certain elements as being "non-literal
• They question scripture
• They question absolute/propositional truth
• They value emotion over logic

Every avenue of attack centers around belief, and especially around the difficulty of naming what exactly 'emerging belief' is.

I think that this is categorically unfair, insofar as the emerging church itself is not chiefly concerned with these theological statements (or lack of statements). What the church existing seems unwilling to do is look beyond these red flags into the real issues that the emerging churches are addressing.

Where Evangelical churches can look at emerging churches and protest, "You don't take the Bible seriously," and mean that they don't support a doctrine of inerrancy, emerging churches can look at Evangelical churches and protest, "You don't take the Bible seriously," and mean that they support a never-ending war in Iraq, that they ignore the 2,000 or so verses concerning the poor, that they equate Christianity with the NRA.

These are, if not the central issues of the emerging churches, at least more central than supposed statement of heresy - or the nonexistence of heresy.

And, no, Mark Driscoll isn't helping.

Ideas? Comments? Critiques? Thank you.