Wes' Blog Cabin

Wow, good thoughts Wes. I think that the plea/challenge you make for us to live as Christ if we call ourselves Christians is just so radical it might be the answer. Fine, fine, scholarly writ Mr. Wes.

Yeah, yeah, good points and all, but movie clips in church are cool.

Loved your blog. I do believe that we need to make a few adjustments to our approach, but one of those adjustments needs to be that we're less concerned with how the world thinks of us. We "artists" keep saying that we need to create content that doesn't "turn people away", but look at the at the most successful CHristian entertainment of the last few years. The Left Behind series and The Passion of the Christ, the most explicit and "divisive" art pieces you can think of.

The Passion of the Christ moved me most when Christ was talking to His disciples and said that you WILL be persecuted. If we're not "turning people off," then we're probably not doing the right thing. John MacArthur has a book called "The Gospel According to Jesus" where he says that we're doing a disservice to non-Christians by constantly pointing them to the fun and love of Jesus without introducing them to the judgment and His call to die to self.

Therefore, we must be explicit, we must not hide from the Truth, and we must not tone it down to please the masses. But what's the key to reaching people? Love. Unconditional love and servanthood even to the worst of sinners. My Dad has actually been quoted a few teams in magazines lately as saying, "The truth that I believe from the Bible doesn't make me proud of myself, nor does it make me angry at those who disagree with me or who find the message offensive. It breaks my heart."

Tonight Amanda and I attended a play in which the lead actress was a non-Christian friend of ours. THe play was blatantly offensive to small-town Midwest Christians, it pretty much attacked them the whole time. So we tried to practice what we're preaching--we were IN the world, in that we attended the play and supported our friend, but when she asked us what we thought of the play afterward, I made a point to say, "Well, we're small-town Midwest Christians, so obviously we had some philosophical differences with the playwright, but we loved you." We made sure she knew that we had a problem with the message but that our love for her was to strong to keep us away. You could tell it meant an incredible amount to her.

I'm rambling as always.

Dallas

Great stuff, Dallas. Thanks for your input. Keep on rocking in the Free World.

Wes,

I'm not sure if all postmodernity and Christianity are mutually exclusive. You're right to say that "We, as Christians, do believe in that silly, arrogant little thing called Truth." And it's a one Truth, not many truths. However, this doesn't mean that we all see that Truth the same way. Using denominations as an example, I may practice my faith (favoring life over merely mind) as a Lutheran, while a Catholic might practice his or her faith differently. This doesn't mean that we worship different gods or different truths. We believe in the same God and even the same ("holy catholic") church, the same Truth, yet our religion, etc. (unprecise langugage, sorry) is very different. Is that not postmodernism?

Also, the pomo info you got from wikipedia says that pomo often favors ideals that were subordinate or inferior. It doesn't always. I don't think that it's possible to condemn all postmodernism at once. You have to say more, say which kind of postmodernism (in an academic setting--pomo according to Rorty, pomo ala' Foucault, etc.) in order to be able to critique it. (And yea, this last is a normative claim, but my own postmodern misadventures have run awry because of unnuanced generalizations, etc.)

I'm not arguing for all postmodernism, but I think that some aspects of pomo--getting multiple meanings from a single text, and an end to a modern false security that forces people to start searching for meaning (God) again--are very good things.

That said, it's really good that you and others are talking about these issues, because they definitely matter.

-Karl Aho, student, Valparaiso University
(referred to HFT via Isaac S.)

I was just wondering: what you are thinking about the "Emerging Church" seems very similar to a lot of thought that was running around Catholic literature following Vatican II. Have you looked at any of that? It may be helpful to your musings on cultural relevance. I especially recommend looking at James Hitchcock's _The Recovery of the Sacred_.

--Andy, Valpo Student, also referred via Isaac

PS - The only reason I know anything about that is because I just finished a paper on resistance to Vatican II, so it's not like I'm usually this knowledgable.

I'd like to give a shout out to The Freshmob. I'm down with CC. Thanks, Isaac, for hooking up the Valpo homies.

Karl, I really hope that it is clear from what I wrote that I'm not entirely opposed to every aspect of postmodernism. I was trying to say something more along the lines of "let's not toss modernity out with the bathwater." As far as addressing specific philosophers and their particular cut of pomo...I must confess that there is no way I could do that with any confidence in thinking I was adequately representing each philosopher’s system. There are two reasons for this. 1.) I can’t even adequately represent what I believe and 2.) Je ne parle pas Francais.

I do think that as believers, it would make the most sense for us to error on the side of saying, “Yeah, but let’s not forget; there is such a thing as Truth.” I think our humanity makes us short-sided, pendulum-swingers. We are reactionary. I don’t want us to say, “Geez, if we all stand on this side of the boat, we’re going to drown! Quick! Everyone stand on the other side of the boat!!”

And, Andy, I haven’t read Vatican II yet, but I sure did have so many unanswered questions at the end of Vatican I! What a cliff-hanger!

Let me begin by restating the obvious belief we all have (which is never really as obvious as we think it is when we get into these types of discussions - at least I speak for myself in this): We are followers of Christ, before we are adherents to any mode of thinking. By this I mean, Christianity is not bound to any single philosophy, such as modernism, or postmodernism, but is rather a relationship, subject to all of the wonderfully difficult issues that come with relationships (I am particularly keen on this fact, having just entered into a new "relationship recently myself).
Since it is first and foremost about dialog with the person you are relating to, philosophies, such as Pomo, must necessarily be picked over, and only what is useful used. Those who use philosophies wholesale as their way of life inevitably end up in legalism (modernity), lawlessness (postmodernity), or some mixture of the two (I know I just grossly generalized both philosophies, but work with me - the point I'm making is the important thing).
Our way of life as Christians (cleverly termed "the way" by our early brethren) is thankfully not about prinicples, but rather about action, reaction, reception and communication - in other words, not a system, but a dialog. Philosophies serve us only insofar as they aid in those things, thus, as you say Wes, we need to watch out for the dangers presented in Pomo, but I think from the perspective of people trying hard not to get caught up into systems, as much as people trying to make sure the correct systems are being used.
And this is far more off the cuff than I wanted, but I don't know how much more coherent it would be if I spent more time on it.

Isaac

I'll try to keep this brief because I realize this is a comment on a blog and not a real, live conversation I'm having with ya'll (even though that would be cool to have sometime, dontchya think?). First, let me say that it's pretty humbling to be even remotely implicated in this brainwarp of Wes' on postmodernism and the emerging church. Golly, shucks, and darn.

Second, I haven't read any of the French postmodern philosophers (Derrida, Foucault, etc.), so I won't even try to tangle with that. But from what I understand, a lot of what we are talking about is really two different things: postmodernism and postmodernity. Postmodernism is the way of thinking that, unfortunately, gets simply equated with (and derided as) moral relativism. Postmodernity, however, is the era we are living in -- an era of unprecedented change and knowledge-creation.

Much of what the emerging church is about is rethinking how we "do" church (or how we live AS The Church) in the context of postmodernity (not necessarily rethinking Christianity as a whole, as you suggest, Wes, but certainly rethinking parts of what we call "Christianity," e.g. our traditions, etc.). One key aspect of postmodernity, of course, is postmodernism -- that "relativistic" way of thinking. When it comes down to it, though, I agree whole-heartedly with Karl Aho who posted the comment earlier that said "some aspects of pomo ... are very good things." This is a key point of disagreement, because the current M.O. of conservative Christian commentators (e.g. Dobson, Colson, etc.) is to say "Postmodernism Bad" fullstop (and, assumably the corollary would also be true, "Modernism Good").

Wes, you say "let's not toss modernity out with the bathwater," but there are many who would argue that modernity is long gone and that we are way WAY into postmodernity (maybe even post-post-modernity -- which is really over my head, frankly). I hope you haven't "landed" on these topics, because there's much MUCH more to be wrestled with and thought through. The emerging church is FAR more than just making Jesus hip and RELEVANT™ (although I like reading their magazine, with many good columnists, although I won't bother to mention any names). My prescription is more conversation and more dialogue around these topics, and read LOTS of stuff (i.e. articles, books, warning labels, etc.).

I would argue that what God is doing in this emerging church movement (and I think it is a movement) is significant and not so easily poo-pooed.

OK maybe it is easily poo-pooed, but it shouldn't be ;-) Keep reading, keep blogging, keep thinking, and let's keep talking. I love this stuff, because it's meaningful stuff. Amen? Amen.

Amen.

in an earlier post, Steve K. wrote:
----"Wes, you say "let's not toss modernity out with the bathwater," but there are many who would argue that modernity is long gone and that we are way WAY into postmodernity (maybe even post-post-modernity -- which is really over my head, frankly). I hope you haven't "landed" on these topics, because there's much MUCH more to be wrestled with and thought through. The emerging church is FAR more than just making Jesus hip and RELEVANT™ (although I like reading their magazine, with many good columnists, although I won't bother to mention any names). My prescription is more conversation and more dialogue around these topics, and read LOTS of stuff (i.e. articles, books, warning labels, etc.)." ------

I think Steve's point that modernity may already be gone a good one. It gets at what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. We as Christians ought not to try and pick the "best" philosophy of current (or ancient) times to use and promote (which is what Wes was getting at), since Christianity isn't about philosophy, it's about a relationship (with God), and relationships (with others). Relationships can't be contained in a philosophy, though they often utilize them.

And I think the distinction between the words Postmodernism and Postmodernity is a good one, though I wonder if there are more precise terms, since there doesn't seem at first glance to be a difference between the two - though I guess that is precisely (heh) the point: at first glance it seems the same, but when you look closer it isn't. I, for one, like ambiguous terminology that takes an investment of time and brainpower to understand, since language is so gloriously ambiguous. And that, of course, reveals me to be the true postmodern (another meaning of the word) that I am.

Peace, and Postmodernity to all

Isaac

To Isaac, I say: Word to your mother.

i was forwarded this link/blog/thing from a dear friend of mine who attended your Youth Encounter bible study, and thus sent it (because it was exciting, stimilation, thought provoking) to my husband. i thought he had something different to add to your thoughts.

so here're his words...

I'm not trying to be a fuddy-duddy - but here's my brief thoughts (however uneducated and non-mainstream they may be) on that email - we can talk till we're blue in the face (and I'm not bashing talk - 'tis good to converse, digest, etc.) but when it comes down to it - it's all about the pragmatics of it. It's choices. If I'm selfish regarding a decision that I make that involves my wife, I'm sinning - regardless of justifications, rationales, or what school of thought I prescribe to or place my decision under. If I choose to pray for someone who cuts me off rather than swear about it and drive selfishly until I get there - that's a Christ-like choice. What I suppose I'm getting at is philosophy is good and has it's place, but it's not and probably shouldn't be a determining factor in how I live my life. My life may tend towards a particular philosophy, but I would bet that I could find certain things I disagree with pretty strongly in any system of beliefs. Same goes for denomination. I used to struggle A LOT with the fact that I grew up baptist, which is night and day from lutheran on some major issues. A wise man told me once, that you simply must find the denomination, philosophy, school of thought, whatever you're talking about at that time, that has the MOST things you can live with because ONLY Christ can suit you perfectly. It's to be expected isn't it - if we're mere shadows of what God created us to be, only to be perfected at the end, we're going to have a rather imperfect perception, especially of things of a spiritual nature. Don't hear me saying each of us should fine-tune his/her religion to fit their needs - negative. In the end we'll each be judged based on our choices, and whether they were Christ centered - if I believe Christ is "in the bread and the wine physically" wholeheartedly and participate in communion in good faith, that should (according to how I read scripture) by "counted to me as righteousness" no more or less than if I believe that it's purely symbolic. Definitely not going into denominational differences, merely citing an example of what I'm saying - it's important, it matters, it's worth discussing and formulating views on - but we're never going to all agree and that's ok - but if we're all focused on ultimately being Christ-centered in how we live, drive, interact, communicate, carry ourselves, respond, and come across - then agreeing to disagree on the finer points of philosophy won't seem such an insurmountable subject. Sorry for the dissertation.

So, Wes, you've touched on two of my favorite topics! =0)
On Pomo...Working with college students, I find that although I probably sway to the modern side of things...especially in faith issues, I see how postmodernity is really affecting the lives of those younger than I (i.e. the emerging church...well, actually, the emerging church or specifically the emerging generation is considered 18-35 in age).
For those of you who are interested, there's a great book called The Matrix of Meanings by Craig Dettweiler & Barry Taylor that deals with postmodernism and finding God in pop culture. Food for thought..."We are living in a post-national, post-rational, post-literal, post-scientific, post-technological, post-sexual, post-racial, post-human, post-traumatic, post-therapeutic, post-ethical, post institutional, and post-Christian era."...Yeah, just read the book. Although I don't agree with all of it, there are some really interesting things there.

On the "Emerging Church"...(OK, here I go. You shouldn't have gotten me started.) I don't believe that seeker friendly is at the heart of the emerging church...at least not the church I'm a part of. (Although the term "emerging church" may not be used to describe where I worship, our pastoral team certainly embraces those tenets that are close to the heart of the movement.) What I do believe is that the emerging generation is being called to a more authentic faith. A faith that looks more like Jesus than the American church does. A faith that counts the cost of being a disciple of Christ.
I don't believe that the goal there is to become post-modern. In fact, I think that could possibly be the farthest thing from the goal. But we do need to figure out how best to affect a post-modern society. How do we reach a generation who seems to have missed absolute truth? How do we reach a generation who is inundated with information and choices and stuff? From what I understand of the emerging church/the emerging generation, it's not about being post-modern...it's about being more Christ like than the American church has become.

The emerging church is focusing on developing stronger inter faith relationships...I'm not talking we embrace all other gods and become Universalists...but embracing the differences between denominations, evangelicalism, Catholicism, etc. The emerging church seeks to say, "We are of one faith. Wouldn't we be stronger if we were a family?" Now, that is post modern...believing that though we are different, we are the same!?

The emerging church is looking to end what sexism remains in the Church. Looking to raise up not only young men but young women who have a call of God on their lives to "change the world."

I don't believe that the emerging church (can I just call it e.c. from now on?) seeks to adapt the message to the world. I think it's a turning back to the opposite of that. At an emerging church convention I was recently at a speaker said about evangelism in a postmodern world, "We don't claim the gospel is helpful or interesting. We claim it's true."

The e.c. is doing it's best to both look to the generation before for guidance and to turn back to what we might call the "ancient paths." Looking to the ways of the church fathers and reinterpreting those things for ourselves. Turning back to the spiritual disciplines of fasting, study, prayer, meditation, etc. (If you haven't read Celebration of the Disciplines by Foster, dig in!) There is a trend in college students who are deciding to turn to Orthodoxy and Catholicism because they have become aware that the current evangelical church is missing the mark. They're sick of singing meaningless praise songs (no, they are not all that way...I love praise songs!), being somewhat irreverant Sunday Christians and living the average American Christian lifestyle. (Of course, I am way overgeneralizing the state of the American Church here...or at least somewhat overgeneralizing.)

The e.c. is searching for an authentic faith and it looks to find it in various forms of worship from drum circles to dj's to silence. One of the most interesting and touching worship experiences I have ever had was a dj from England spinning music without words and directing the congregation in prayer...just loud music which actually ended up creating a sort of silence in which God showed up. What a postmodern idea to think that God could show up at a club the same way that he shows up at a Billy Graham Crusade. The e.c. also wants to worship through art...painting, drawing, film...to reclaim the forms of beauty that orignally were a significant part of the Church. I've seen some beautiful pieces that come out of an artist in the midst of corporate worship.

It looks to find an authentic faith in reestablishing the importance of community and discipleship, lest we forget that the early church did not meet in structures geared to fit thousands...but instead, less that 50 people. It looks to social justice as a form of worship. It looks to accepting people on the basis of love, regardless of color, beliefs, sexual preference...the e.c. wants to love the way Jesus loved.

The emerging church philosophy is certainly not without faults but I refuse to poo-poo any of the things I've just talked about. What is at the heart of the emerging generation/emerging church may not be what's being passed down through all churches that consider themselves to be part of the movement. (In the same way that many Catholic churches may miss the mark in interpreting the heart of Catholicism...as happens in any denomination). I consider myself a part of the "emerging church"...(actually, I consider Wes part of the emerging church whether he likes it or not)...and as far as I'm concerned, it's much more about seeking to do church right than seeking to make everyone in church feel comfortable with everything that goes on.

Much to the chagrine of many, I could go on but instead I will shut up. You may choose to ban me from your blog if you care to. I will not be offended. Well I might be for a second but I'll get over it.

Peace.

higuys!What yourblog powered by?

viqevoc.cn;66.232.112.242;66.232.127.71;ns1.clubcolanews.com;ns2.clubcolanews.com

hesipot.cn;66.232.112.242;66.232.127.71;ns1.clubcolanews.com;ns2.clubcolanews.com

jifefuv.cn;66.232.112.242;66.232.127.71;ns1.clubcolanews.com;ns2.clubcolanews.com

xobeluq.cn;66.232.112.242;66.232.127.71;ns1.clubcolanews.com;ns2.clubcolanews.com