I agree...Donald Miller should read this and respond but sign it under B Mart because I'm never good at responding to these articles...at least my name appears with Cabe and Matt - I miss you guys.
My initial thought is that I would want to be considered a person who is defined by his freedom in Christ , to the believer and non believer alike, if such is feasible. I've typed like a billion things and then backspaced...when the helter skelter in my mind clears, I'll complete my thoughts. I like your posts, Cabe.
Girl on the Moon by Foreigner is a great song that I listened to tonight,
I have a bit more time now, so I'll comment a bit more on Shermer's article. I am totally on board with him on his "three threats to science and freedom" (evolution education, separation of church and state, fundamentalist terrorism). I also believe that theology should not exist counter to reason, which is a view I share with Thomas Aquinas who borrowed from the pop-Aristoteleanism of his day to inform his faith. I think that science and reason can enhance and further inform our faith, and I think that a Christianity that makes room for evolution (for instance) is an improvement, whereas a Christianity that fights evolution is: 1) on its way to being culturally and intellectually irrelevant, 2) ignorant, and 3) is fighting for something that has nothing to do with what we're really about. In this postmodern age we shouldn't be fighting for such a heavily modernist interpretation of one chapter of the Bible that is highly stylized and poetic, therefore not unreasonably declared to be potentially metaphorical. Plus don't we have bigger fish to fry? Like world hunger or actually living some of the crazy things that Jesus taught?
I also find this article intriguing because in my opinion the five points he makes about what atheism needs to do I absolutely agree with. Read them and apply them to the church. I think we've got a lot to learn here. Christianity has a lot of money and power in this world, and we use it poorly on all of those points. In cases of abuse, a victim who gains power often becomes an abuser himself. This is what the church has done. We were abused by Rome, but once we gained power we have done no better. Now in western culture for the first time in maybe a millennium voices counter to the Christian faith have room to exist, and Shermer is counseling them not to become abusers themselves, though for so long they have been abused by us (see the Inquisition, European colonialism, the Crusades, Galileo, etc.). I think we have a lot to think about in this area now that we live in a culture that is increasingly non-Christian. It has been said (I don't remember by who) that we are just now entering a post Constantine era, where the Church isn't the most powerful force in the culture. How will we handle our shifting role? Will we handle it with grace and step down from a worldly thrown that maybe never should have been ours, or will we whine and try to hold on tightly to it like a small child with another child's stolen toy?
I have rambled, and my thoughts aren't completely organized, but I'm interested in all of your thoughts on these matters.
Cabe - interesting thoughts. I have one clarifying question in response to your last thread; you mentioned 'fighting evolution' to be 'culturally and intellectually irrelevant' - can you clarify what you mean by that? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I initially interpreted such a response one way and after re-reading it, changed my thoughts on what you might have meant specifically. Just curious,
just that evolution is pretty much the consensus best explanation for the origin of life that the scientific community (as well as the rest of the intellectual world), and I think we have to roll with that. It doesn't have to be an idea that is counter to God.
and more on irrelevance, if we ignore evolution, it would be comparable to if we had ignored the fact of a round earth, or a heliocentric solar system. the negative reaction of the Church to those discoveries, as well as the continuing resistance against scientific advances destroys our credibility. knowledge and the world and the culture are moving, and if we don't move with them (or toward them), and instead try to ignore the movement, then we will get left behind and can have no effect on the world. evolution is just an example of this. Rock and Roll and postmodernism are probably others.
Got ya - I won't go much into the issue of evolution, because I would venture debating evolution is not the purpose of your post. I will briefly mention that I do not feel evolution has been scientifically proven, whereas the idea of adaptation has, and adaptation is not the same as evolution. There are scientists who fully ascribe to evolution as the basis for life's existence that admit it is taught as fact though not proven fact. But even then, I would agree fighting it is irrelevant within the context that we should not be fighting against evolution (which , in and of itself, is not a 'bad' concept, though, many Christians unfortunately have taken the initially good intent of seeking to emphasize the existence and majesty of the Supernatural, i.e. God, and thus, I feel, unnecessarily taken an extreme view with negative connotation towards evolution); we should be championing the good, as Shermer says, and that good, is the incomparable character of Christ. One could debate evolution all day without even remotely touching on the Gospel...which is, indeed, the most relevant message and truth in history.
Thus, in an age where Christians seem to polarize to the point where such polarization is only damaging our credibility, as Cabe mentioned, I agree that Shermer's principles are at the bear minimum of interest to atheists and theists alike. I'm really glad Cabe posted this because I, too, have a question somewhat in line with this topic that I've been wrestling with; I do not mean to even change the subject with a tangent, but I'd be curious to hear from the those better spoken than I. In a postmodern society, how do we deal with the tension of being culturally relevant AND biblical? These forces seem to oppose each other at times, and I'll confess, I feel the Church sometimes tries to be culturally relevant AT THE EXPENSE of being biblical.
"Scientifically proven" is a difficult claim to make for anything, especially in a postmodern context. Take for example quantum physics and relativity. Are they true? Yeah. Everything we can observe seems to indicate that they are. But there is still a lot we don't understand, like dark matter and the fact that those two theories don't make sense together. So what is "scientifically proven" except the best that we've got from the scientific data? My faith, similarly, is not "proven" per say, and yet I believe it. Why? Because it's the best I've got. I've had experiences that have confirmed it, but do I really know that it is true in a hard, modernist sort of way? Absolutely not. And that's one place where I think postmodernity can help Christianity - it legitimizes our faith in a way that modernism never could.
Postmodernism is a hermeneutical shift. It changes the way culture looks at things, shifting from an Enlightenment mindset that puts all hope in Reason, to a more moderate one that understands the limits of Reason, and the ways in which Reason doesn't satisfy, falls short. The way you talk about evolution as not a fact isn't even really a question to the postmodern mind. But unless we have a better theory that fits the data in a way that is satisfactory to the scientific dialog, it doesn't make any sense to worry about "fact"; evolution is the best game in town when it comes to the questions it is answering.
As for postmodernism itself, it is possible to be both postmodern and biblical because it changes what it means to be biblical, much like modernism did a few hundred years ago. I'm not advocating a purely postmodern church necessarily, but certainly a church that allows itself to be affected by postmodernism. Jesus wasn't a modern by any stretch of the imagination (nor was he postmodern), and neither should we be. But I modern mind doesn't very easily understand the gospel until it is placed in a modern context like the four spiritual laws. Likewise, it requires a lot more than a remixing of those laws to be able to make any sense to the postmodern mind.
And the postmodern would wonder what it means to be "biblical"? If you got 300 Christians in a room together, they would likely have 300 different conceptions of what that means. So is it your definition of "biblical", or mine, or is it something else. The bible certainly has things to say, but how do they apply to today? I think postmodernism gives a fair critique of modern interpretive frameworks, and questions the worth of labels like "literal" interpretation and "inerrency" (a very modern idea). The bible has things to say that are of paramount importance, but it is not an easy book with simple rules and doctrinal statements that you either follow or you don't. That would be way too easy. We are trying to have a relationship with a personal being (YHWH God), we are not members of a secret club or mystery cult.
I would maybe frame the predicament that we are in as one in which we are trying to balance relevance and holiness. As Christians, we rightfully yearn for a pure spirituality, but we also have a great responsibility to be relevant. We were talking about this in my Church History class when I read your post earlier, and so that is definitely affecting my thoughts on the matter, but it seems like this is more or less what you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong). The Church has struggled with this since 312 when Constantine was converted. We became the establishment, persecution stopped and all of a sudden the Church was adopted by an Empire and it became ambiguous what its relationship to that empire should be. Now that just about 1700 years later we are beginning to live in a society where Christianity is not the societal expectation of every individual, it becomes in some ways more complicated. We don't have the power that we used to, but we aren't being martyred or really marginalized either. This is a totally new age for the church, and I think your question might be THE most important one that our generation will struggle with in the Church. And I think postmodernism might give us the room to imagine a way to do both relevance and holiness. Or maybe not. But either way, unless you want to throw relevance out the window I think you have to be in conversation with postmodern ideas and hermeneutics.
I don't feel like proofreading this, so if any clarification is necessary I will provide it. Otherwise, I am really interested to hear what others think about these things.
Also, I'm taking a class this semester called "theories of culture and the engagement of postmodernity" and one of our books is called "How Postmodernism Serves My Faith", which may be an awesome book which would be helpful, or maybe not. I'll let you know my opinion when I get to that point in the syllabus when I have to read it.
The relevance and holiness question is, indeed, what I'm getting at. And do let me know about the postmodernism and faith book - I'd be interested in reading it. I'm pulling for the Mariners to play in October - I need to give you a call. And I agree with Cabe...more people should chime in and give their thoughts.
Cabe - I liked your thoughts on post modernism. It's an interesting outlook, and one I don't get too much in law school.
With a post modern mind set it will likely change the way we view the gospel entirely. Do you think this is necessarily good? or perhaps safe? Is it wrong to look at the gospel with a narrow modernistic light?
It seems like there is a line. On one side are the Christians that believe in creationism that subscribe to modernism, but on the other side, there are agnostics that subscribe to nothing.
Thoughts?
p.s. Michigan losing has convinced me to stop playing fantasy sports forever.
On Cabe's comment "I think postmodernity can help Christianity - it legitimizes our faith in a way that modernism never could. "
This is the paradim that most anti-postmodern evangelicals seem to miss. This is a great meeting ground for the debate (if we even want to invite that term, I probably don't) between whether or not postmodernity is a threat to the Kingdom of God.
What Cabe points out here is the space that postmodern thought leaves for Faith, in a way that modernist boundaries do not. I've been discovering the contradictions that my evangelical roots dug me into: like the focus being so much on just having faith and a relationship with Jesus, and yet the message came across so strongly that if I wasn't doing daily devotions and praying every morning and night, and witnessing to friends and bringing people to church, than I should wonder if I'm really saved or at least if I have any fruit of the Spirit. Those aren't the words directly from the pulpit, but it's certainly where the focus was placed. In effect, the modernist appraoch to Christianity draws lines, structures and formats things in such a way that it actually pushes faith out to the sidelines. It's all about knowing things in a definate, provable, action-oriented way. This is not a biblical defintion of faith.
Postmodernism's ability to grant space for uncertainty and risk seems much more in line with what Christ calls us to in following him. Jesus did not say "Take up your 'Purpose Driven Journal' and follow me". We've made things to easy for ourselves. We no longer have to engage the complexity and gray areas of living day to day on earth in the midst of glory and depravity. The lines between sin and evil have been painted so thickly, that most churches today would probably object if they actually saw a woman washing Jesus' feet with her hair.
But, my arguent could be flipped again in the other direction, so I guess I can't really go on too long with the debate of how we are to look like Christ in the world or the world in Christ, but I think there's a lot of irony in the anti-post-modernism debate in regards to faith, and I have seen my faith grow as a result of having more space to be confused, rather than having 4-point answers Post-It-ed all over my questions.
I think that there are good qualities to both modernity and post modernity. I think it's picking the most beneficial of the two, or, perhaps, the most beneficial combination of the two (a lot of post modernity with a little modernity or vice versa)
I don't think they are necessarily at odds with one another. I think it's very obvious that the Bible and God has gray areas, but at the same time, if the 4 spiritual laws help you conceptualize Christ, I say more power to you.
Your approach to modernity is very postmodern. You allow the four spiritual laws when they are helpful, but also acknowledge gray areas. Postmodernity is largely a realization of the limitations of modernist systems like the four spiritual laws. If you thought that God could be contained in four simple propositional statements of truth then you would be a modernist.
What I'm saying is your ability to hold modernism and postmodernism is very postmodern. The moment you have a mix you are by definition postmodern, because a true modernist would claim that reality is simpler than that.
If the 4 spiritual laws help you conceptualize Christ, them I'm totally behind them. But I would claim that the 4 spiritual laws have limitations, and can't be taken as the sum of Christianity; there is a lot that is left out. So they are great to the degree that they are helpful, but should be chucked the moment they cease to be.
I understand where you are getting at, but now you have left me more confused. Maybe this argument will boil down to semantics, but you have to clarify a few things.
I think everyone agrees that there is definitely mystery in the world, and every Christian believes there are gray area's and mysterious in God. However, if those two statements are true, then by your definition of modernism, it would be impossible to be a pure modernist. Furthermore, by your definition, everyone would have to be a post modernist. And if those latter two statements are true, there is no point in having this discussion, because you are arguing more people should be post modern, and why would you need to argue that if everyone was post modern. Now, if you look at that from a scale it would make more sense. Modernist would have elements of post modernism, but would still be modernist because they find the modernist way of intellectually grasping a certain idea opposed to post modernism.
And I have no problem with this modernist approach, do you?
From my short life experiences, life is always more complicated that it appears, but life is always more simple than I want to make it out to be.
Are you making the argument we should be MORE post modern?
If that's the case, I would go back to ask Is it wrong for a modernist to think in black and white terms? What if it's easier? What if the grey area only brings unnecessary doubt and confusion?
The way Jesus taught in parables, seems to show he had no problem with confusing people. Sometimes he was starightforward with instruction, but most of the time he revealed things in a way that left it open for people to connect the dots themselves- being forced to engage, not just check off an answer box. I don't think that "easier" was what Jesus was going for.
But yes, not everyone has the same comfort level with ambiguity, complexity, or abstract thought. But much of the church has swung too far in favor of trying to reach the lowest common denominator as far as comprehension goes, instead of drawing people deeper in and encouraging true growth through authentic pursuit and questioning of our faith. There's always the risk of doubt and confusion when it comes to learning anything- streching our minds and challenging our preconceptions as well as our own perspective of what we can and cannot understand. It's the reaching through obstacles that builds faith, not avoiding obstacles. If we stopped short every time we met something we didn't understand, we'd never leave first grade. (And yes, this is my thinly veiled criticism of my modernist church upbringing).
I'd rather be confused and doubtful at the feet of Jesus than be confidently assuming I've figured God out.
18 comments:
Oh, solidarity.
haha.
Seriously though, I think the principles apply to Christianity, because we (myself included) often define ourselves by what we are against.
I agree...Donald Miller should read this and respond but sign it under B Mart because I'm never good at responding to these articles...at least my name appears with Cabe and
Matt - I miss you guys.
My initial thought is that I would want to be considered a person who is defined by his freedom in Christ , to the believer and non believer alike, if such is feasible. I've typed like a billion things and then backspaced...when the helter skelter in my mind clears, I'll complete my thoughts. I like your posts, Cabe.
Girl on the Moon by Foreigner is a great song that I listened to tonight,
B Mart
I have a bit more time now, so I'll comment a bit more on Shermer's article. I am totally on board with him on his "three threats to science and freedom" (evolution education, separation of church and state, fundamentalist terrorism). I also believe that theology should not exist counter to reason, which is a view I share with Thomas Aquinas who borrowed from the pop-Aristoteleanism of his day to inform his faith. I think that science and reason can enhance and further inform our faith, and I think that a Christianity that makes room for evolution (for instance) is an improvement, whereas a Christianity that fights evolution is: 1) on its way to being culturally and intellectually irrelevant, 2) ignorant, and 3) is fighting for something that has nothing to do with what we're really about. In this postmodern age we shouldn't be fighting for such a heavily modernist interpretation of one chapter of the Bible that is highly stylized and poetic, therefore not unreasonably declared to be potentially metaphorical. Plus don't we have bigger fish to fry? Like world hunger or actually living some of the crazy things that Jesus taught?
I also find this article intriguing because in my opinion the five points he makes about what atheism needs to do I absolutely agree with. Read them and apply them to the church. I think we've got a lot to learn here. Christianity has a lot of money and power in this world, and we use it poorly on all of those points. In cases of abuse, a victim who gains power often becomes an abuser himself. This is what the church has done. We were abused by Rome, but once we gained power we have done no better. Now in western culture for the first time in maybe a millennium voices counter to the Christian faith have room to exist, and Shermer is counseling them not to become abusers themselves, though for so long they have been abused by us (see the Inquisition, European colonialism, the Crusades, Galileo, etc.). I think we have a lot to think about in this area now that we live in a culture that is increasingly non-Christian. It has been said (I don't remember by who) that we are just now entering a post Constantine era, where the Church isn't the most powerful force in the culture. How will we handle our shifting role? Will we handle it with grace and step down from a worldly thrown that maybe never should have been ours, or will we whine and try to hold on tightly to it like a small child with another child's stolen toy?
I have rambled, and my thoughts aren't completely organized, but I'm interested in all of your thoughts on these matters.
Cabe -
interesting thoughts. I have one clarifying question in response to your last thread; you mentioned 'fighting evolution' to be 'culturally and intellectually irrelevant' - can you clarify what you mean by that? I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I initially interpreted such a response one way and after re-reading it, changed my thoughts on what you might have meant specifically. Just curious,
B Mart
just that evolution is pretty much the consensus best explanation for the origin of life that the scientific community (as well as the rest of the intellectual world), and I think we have to roll with that. It doesn't have to be an idea that is counter to God.
Feel free to disagree.
and more on irrelevance, if we ignore evolution, it would be comparable to if we had ignored the fact of a round earth, or a heliocentric solar system. the negative reaction of the Church to those discoveries, as well as the continuing resistance against scientific advances destroys our credibility. knowledge and the world and the culture are moving, and if we don't move with them (or toward them), and instead try to ignore the movement, then we will get left behind and can have no effect on the world. evolution is just an example of this. Rock and Roll and postmodernism are probably others.
Got ya - I won't go much into the issue of evolution, because I would venture debating evolution is not the purpose of your post. I will briefly mention that I do not feel evolution has been scientifically proven, whereas the idea of adaptation has, and adaptation is not the same as evolution. There are scientists who fully ascribe to evolution as the basis for life's existence that admit it is taught as fact though not proven fact. But even then, I would agree fighting it is irrelevant within the context that we should not be fighting against evolution (which , in and of itself, is not a 'bad' concept, though, many Christians unfortunately have taken the initially good intent of seeking to emphasize the existence and majesty of the Supernatural, i.e. God, and thus, I feel, unnecessarily taken an extreme view with negative connotation towards evolution); we should be championing the good, as Shermer says, and that good, is the incomparable character of Christ. One could debate evolution all day without even remotely touching on the Gospel...which is, indeed, the most relevant message and truth in history.
Thus, in an age where Christians seem to polarize to the point where such polarization is only damaging our credibility, as Cabe mentioned, I agree that Shermer's principles are at the bear minimum of interest to atheists and theists alike. I'm really glad Cabe posted this because I, too, have a question somewhat in line with this topic that I've been wrestling with; I do not mean to even change the subject with a tangent, but I'd be curious to hear from the those better spoken than I. In a postmodern society, how do we deal with the tension of being culturally relevant AND biblical? These forces seem to oppose each other at times, and I'll confess, I feel the Church sometimes tries to be culturally relevant AT THE EXPENSE of being biblical.
"Scientifically proven" is a difficult claim to make for anything, especially in a postmodern context. Take for example quantum physics and relativity. Are they true? Yeah. Everything we can observe seems to indicate that they are. But there is still a lot we don't understand, like dark matter and the fact that those two theories don't make sense together. So what is "scientifically proven" except the best that we've got from the scientific data? My faith, similarly, is not "proven" per say, and yet I believe it. Why? Because it's the best I've got. I've had experiences that have confirmed it, but do I really know that it is true in a hard, modernist sort of way? Absolutely not. And that's one place where I think postmodernity can help Christianity - it legitimizes our faith in a way that modernism never could.
Postmodernism is a hermeneutical shift. It changes the way culture looks at things, shifting from an Enlightenment mindset that puts all hope in Reason, to a more moderate one that understands the limits of Reason, and the ways in which Reason doesn't satisfy, falls short. The way you talk about evolution as not a fact isn't even really a question to the postmodern mind. But unless we have a better theory that fits the data in a way that is satisfactory to the scientific dialog, it doesn't make any sense to worry about "fact"; evolution is the best game in town when it comes to the questions it is answering.
As for postmodernism itself, it is possible to be both postmodern and biblical because it changes what it means to be biblical, much like modernism did a few hundred years ago. I'm not advocating a purely postmodern church necessarily, but certainly a church that allows itself to be affected by postmodernism. Jesus wasn't a modern by any stretch of the imagination (nor was he postmodern), and neither should we be. But I modern mind doesn't very easily understand the gospel until it is placed in a modern context like the four spiritual laws. Likewise, it requires a lot more than a remixing of those laws to be able to make any sense to the postmodern mind.
And the postmodern would wonder what it means to be "biblical"? If you got 300 Christians in a room together, they would likely have 300 different conceptions of what that means. So is it your definition of "biblical", or mine, or is it something else. The bible certainly has things to say, but how do they apply to today? I think postmodernism gives a fair critique of modern interpretive frameworks, and questions the worth of labels like "literal" interpretation and "inerrency" (a very modern idea). The bible has things to say that are of paramount importance, but it is not an easy book with simple rules and doctrinal statements that you either follow or you don't. That would be way too easy. We are trying to have a relationship with a personal being (YHWH God), we are not members of a secret club or mystery cult.
I would maybe frame the predicament that we are in as one in which we are trying to balance relevance and holiness. As Christians, we rightfully yearn for a pure spirituality, but we also have a great responsibility to be relevant. We were talking about this in my Church History class when I read your post earlier, and so that is definitely affecting my thoughts on the matter, but it seems like this is more or less what you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong). The Church has struggled with this since 312 when Constantine was converted. We became the establishment, persecution stopped and all of a sudden the Church was adopted by an Empire and it became ambiguous what its relationship to that empire should be. Now that just about 1700 years later we are beginning to live in a society where Christianity is not the societal expectation of every individual, it becomes in some ways more complicated. We don't have the power that we used to, but we aren't being martyred or really marginalized either. This is a totally new age for the church, and I think your question might be THE most important one that our generation will struggle with in the Church. And I think postmodernism might give us the room to imagine a way to do both relevance and holiness. Or maybe not. But either way, unless you want to throw relevance out the window I think you have to be in conversation with postmodern ideas and hermeneutics.
I don't feel like proofreading this, so if any clarification is necessary I will provide it. Otherwise, I am really interested to hear what others think about these things.
Also, I'm taking a class this semester called "theories of culture and the engagement of postmodernity" and one of our books is called "How Postmodernism Serves My Faith", which may be an awesome book which would be helpful, or maybe not. I'll let you know my opinion when I get to that point in the syllabus when I have to read it.
The relevance and holiness question is, indeed, what I'm getting at. And do let me know about the postmodernism and faith book - I'd be interested in reading it. I'm pulling for the Mariners to play in October - I need to give you a call. And I agree with Cabe...more people should chime in and give their thoughts.
B Mart
Cabe - I liked your thoughts on post modernism. It's an interesting outlook, and one I don't get too much in law school.
With a post modern mind set it will likely change the way we view the gospel entirely. Do you think this is necessarily good? or perhaps safe? Is it wrong to look at the gospel with a narrow modernistic light?
It seems like there is a line. On one side are the Christians that believe in creationism that subscribe to modernism, but on the other side, there are agnostics that subscribe to nothing.
Thoughts?
p.s. Michigan losing has convinced me to stop playing fantasy sports forever.
What outlook do you get in law school?
How do you think postmodernism will change the way we view the gospel?
On Cabe's comment "I think postmodernity can help Christianity - it legitimizes our faith in a way that modernism never could. "
This is the paradim that most anti-postmodern evangelicals seem to miss. This is a great meeting ground for the debate (if we even want to invite that term, I probably don't) between whether or not postmodernity is a threat to the Kingdom of God.
What Cabe points out here is the space that postmodern thought leaves for Faith, in a way that modernist boundaries do not. I've been discovering the contradictions that my evangelical roots dug me into: like the focus being so much on just having faith and a relationship with Jesus, and yet the message came across so strongly that if I wasn't doing daily devotions and praying every morning and night, and witnessing to friends and bringing people to church, than I should wonder if I'm really saved or at least if I have any fruit of the Spirit. Those aren't the words directly from the pulpit, but it's certainly where the focus was placed. In effect, the modernist appraoch to Christianity draws lines, structures and formats things in such a way that it actually pushes faith out to the sidelines. It's all about knowing things in a definate, provable, action-oriented way. This is not a biblical defintion of faith.
Postmodernism's ability to grant space for uncertainty and risk seems much more in line with what Christ calls us to in following him. Jesus did not say "Take up your 'Purpose Driven Journal' and follow me". We've made things to easy for ourselves. We no longer have to engage the complexity and gray areas of living day to day on earth in the midst of glory and depravity. The lines between sin and evil have been painted so thickly, that most churches today would probably object if they actually saw a woman washing Jesus' feet with her hair.
But, my arguent could be flipped again in the other direction, so I guess I can't really go on too long with the debate of how we are to look like Christ in the world or the world in Christ, but I think there's a lot of irony in the anti-post-modernism debate in regards to faith, and I have seen my faith grow as a result of having more space to be confused, rather than having 4-point answers Post-It-ed all over my questions.
KJ - I liked what you said.
I think that there are good qualities to both modernity and post modernity. I think it's picking the most beneficial of the two, or, perhaps, the most beneficial combination of the two (a lot of post modernity with a little modernity or vice versa)
I don't think they are necessarily at odds with one another. I think it's very obvious that the Bible and God has gray areas, but at the same time, if the 4 spiritual laws help you conceptualize Christ, I say more power to you.
Matt-
Your approach to modernity is very postmodern. You allow the four spiritual laws when they are helpful, but also acknowledge gray areas. Postmodernity is largely a realization of the limitations of modernist systems like the four spiritual laws. If you thought that God could be contained in four simple propositional statements of truth then you would be a modernist.
What I'm saying is your ability to hold modernism and postmodernism is very postmodern. The moment you have a mix you are by definition postmodern, because a true modernist would claim that reality is simpler than that.
If the 4 spiritual laws help you conceptualize Christ, them I'm totally behind them. But I would claim that the 4 spiritual laws have limitations, and can't be taken as the sum of Christianity; there is a lot that is left out. So they are great to the degree that they are helpful, but should be chucked the moment they cease to be.
I understand where you are getting at, but now you have left me more confused. Maybe this argument will boil down to semantics, but you have to clarify a few things.
I think everyone agrees that there is definitely mystery in the world, and every Christian believes there are gray area's and mysterious in God. However, if those two statements are true, then by your definition of modernism, it would be impossible to be a pure modernist. Furthermore, by your definition, everyone would have to be a post modernist. And if those latter two statements are true, there is no point in having this discussion, because you are arguing more people should be post modern, and why would you need to argue that if everyone was post modern.
Now, if you look at that from a scale it would make more sense. Modernist would have elements of post modernism, but would still be modernist because they find the modernist way of intellectually grasping a certain idea opposed to post modernism.
And I have no problem with this modernist approach, do you?
From my short life experiences, life is always more complicated that it appears, but life is always more simple than I want to make it out to be.
I thought about it a little more.
Are you making the argument we should be MORE post modern?
If that's the case, I would go back to ask Is it wrong for a modernist to think in black and white terms? What if it's easier? What if the grey area only brings unnecessary doubt and confusion?
The way Jesus taught in parables, seems to show he had no problem with confusing people. Sometimes he was starightforward with instruction, but most of the time he revealed things in a way that left it open for people to connect the dots themselves- being forced to engage, not just check off an answer box. I don't think that "easier" was what Jesus was going for.
But yes, not everyone has the same comfort level with ambiguity, complexity, or abstract thought. But much of the church has swung too far in favor of trying to reach the lowest common denominator as far as comprehension goes, instead of drawing people deeper in and encouraging true growth through authentic pursuit and questioning of our faith. There's always the risk of doubt and confusion when it comes to learning anything- streching our minds and challenging our preconceptions as well as our own perspective of what we can and cannot understand. It's the reaching through obstacles that builds faith, not avoiding obstacles. If we stopped short every time we met something we didn't understand, we'd never leave first grade. (And yes, this is my thinly veiled criticism of my modernist church upbringing).
I'd rather be confused and doubtful at the feet of Jesus than be confidently assuming I've figured God out.
Post a Comment