My friend Tim wrote these words to me in response to my summary post on chapter 2 of Brian McLaren's book: a New Kind of Christian…
“Just finished reading your article - there must be some way of combining all the stuff together and form a single cohesive thread. I still get the feeling we're missing the point though - we talk about being post-modern, but approach it in a modern way. I guess our generation is the last of the moderns; which is why we struggle to get the point, and our parents even more so…but really, its all missing the point. So I continue to feel guilty for not getting it (the point that is)….”
Summary chapter 3
In many ways these thoughts echo those of McLaren in chapter 3 as he reflects on how much the character of Dan has assimilated a modern mindset in which to read the bible. For instance, Dan highlights the statement that God is control, to him that creates the idea of a divine engineer, in charge of a switch room of machinery, turning things on and off at will. It is that mindset then that makes it hard to struggle with the Q of evil, why does such a divine engineer leave the evil switch on? However, Dan thinks what if I go back to think of this through ancient eyes when control would maybe be similar to a farmer growing his crops or a parent raising their children. Maybe God’s control is that sort of sense – instead of blaming the driver of the vehicle maybe it is more the case of parents raising their child who grows up, rejects their influence and does their own thing – would we still blame these parents if their child commits a crime?
Dan reflects how much of the church we know (both protestant and to a slightly lesser extant catholic) has been shaped by modernity from its institutions to its love of systematic theologies (cathedrals of modernity). None of them are wrong in and of themselves but maybe post modern forms of Christian and expression will be very different from those of the modern age such that they will look like back sliding or even maybe heresy?
Dan suggests that maybe the modern period could be called post-medieval and that would highlight some of the major differences in thought, form and function of the Christian church that took place. In other words we should not be surprised of the changes that form over time and it is only from our historical view point we can see how the church made the transition from medieval to modern.
The final thought is whether people’s hunger for mystery and spirituality means that they are looking to Christianity + to fill that gap, in the book the example of seeing someone with a cross and a dream catcher both hung from their car mirror is used.
Or another illustration taken from my play list selection from this chapter, is the U2 song ‘I still haven’t found what I am looking for.’ When the song first came out at the end of the 80s there was a lot of discussions I took part in about how it showed how U2 were not a Christian band – they haven’t found what they want, what more is there. Now, however, with post-modern eyes, I think it shows the hunger, that we have not found all that there is, that it is ok to be restless, to see life as a journey rather than arriving at that one destination – now I think it reflects my faith more than ever.
What is reflected in this chapter is the reprogramming (a modern illustration) that is going on with Dan, the deconstruction and reconstruction that is beginning to take place. The struggle between what he has always believed and what feels like the truth/reality and should he follow that? What if it leads him away from his faith? On the other hand what if it leads him not to fall away but to fall into Jesus…
Play list for chapter 3:
Do it again (Nada Surf)
I still haven’t found what I am looking for (U2)
I love (Athlete)
Paul, Faith isn't based on feeling. I feel that is where people lose "the point". The answer to the "evil light" is that God doesn't leave the "evil light on" we do or did by our sin. However, we know that Grace is made available throught the death of His Son entered into by receiving the Grace by Faith in His death and resurrection.
I reread your quote from Tim as he is stating what I would call a post-post modern thought. That the attitude of the modern iswrong and that post-moderns need to find the point because the "point" isevident from God's Word. We mustn't be Thomas's or even worse believers of false doctrine that the Apostle Paul rebukes the churches for having. We must strive to have everything under the Lordship of Christ in our lives which begins when we accept Him as our Savior. Receiving Salvation is just the start toward Sanctification; the concept of "being the best we can be for Christ". If we look at the journey as not being the beginning when we accept Christ as our Savior we run therick of opening ourselves to false doctrine and the Apostle Paul rebuke therein. As you can see this isn't a "modern thing" but a transcultural thing. Even Jesus was definitive and lacked the subjectivity that post-modern desire when saying "If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven." If people truly understood Jesus people would strive to change their post-modern mindset to a Christ ordained midset.
Posted by: dh | 22 November 2006 at 05:20 PM
I said "If people truly understood Jesus people would strive to change their post-modern mindset to a Christ ordained midset."
and I would add that if people truly understood Jesus modern Christians wouldn't have an in general "harsh attitude". Thus both would move toward post-post modern.
Posted by: dh | 22 November 2006 at 06:59 PM
DH thanks for the clarifying comment. I think there is nothing wrong with the postmodern mindset or indeed modern, medieval or even ancient... I think we can not be objective and step outside of our culture no matter how much we would like to. The question then becomes how do we follow Christ as postmoderns or moderns? How do we follow the Holy Spirt's leading? How do we make change the structures, forms, expressions, questions of christianity?
In 2000 yrs of church history we have had many expressions and many ways the church has engaged in what ever age it has lived - i do not think we should fear our mindset but be aware that being postmodern will give us our own set of blindspots - it is not that one is better than the other just that the people in both are the same but different.
I would therefore suggest that is why we need good theology which as far as possible will steer us and enable us to influence culture but at the same time even the way we interact with theology will be shaped by the philosphies of the age - it is no bad thing, i like medieval cathedrals and i like systematic theologies - but we should not kid ourselves that we are somehow detached from culture...
Posted by: Paul | 23 November 2006 at 02:09 PM
Lol, DH to say:
"faith is not based on feelings"
and then say...
"I feel this is where..."
made me laugh. I think faith is based on many things including experience and feelings - love for instance is a feeling as well as an attitude...
I would suggest that some of what we are seeing is the shifting away from foundationalism - it was adopted from science in the first place and now science is lurching away from it too...
I am not sure where you are getting so concerned with belief in false doctrines my friend - you're right we shouldn't believe in them but I don't see the link with the post? It strikes me as more postmodern bogeymanism - be good or he'll get ya - than something that arose out of the post?
Or are you saying there is something you see as false doctrine in there? If so please feel free to be spefic and highlight it for me as I do value constructive criticism highly and your insights on these things are always welcome.
I also wonder whether you are not putting some limits on Christ - is he not Lord of all ages? Is the Holy Spirt not still blowing through a postmodern world? Why do we get so scared and run behind terms that even we can't begin to fully explain - have a mind of Christ, what does that mean? Does that not mean that our postmodern thoughts are subject to Christ? That the way our minds are shaped to enquire, to search, to express not able to be influenced by Christ?
I think Christ is able to walk in the postmodern as much as the modern, that christianity may look as different as it did from medieval to modern but we should not worry about the form, or expression - such things are only are attempts to follow Christ and as such are reflections of Christ as seen in the dark mirror of this age...
Posted by: Paul | 23 November 2006 at 02:21 PM
I think it is weird to laugh at me when I was tryin to be generous with the "feel thing" okay I'll rephrase it to believe. Is that better?
I think when you say scienceismoving away from it it isonly being referred to certain majority group within science. I wouldargue that much of science "creation science and biblical scientists" is rejected by certain scientists before it is even looked at.
I believe that muchof Christianity IS beyond the culture. That is not to say we can present the Gospel to make it more attractive to the culture we live in but not in such a way that it attempts to tear down the foundations that God has in His Word.
I think the move beyond foundationalism is where a perpetuating of false doctrine occurs. I see more postmodern Christians not believing in innerancy of Scripture, overemphesize so much this life that the afterlife is rejected, notbelieving in a literal heaven/hell, overemphesis of the human of Jesus and stating limitations that are not actually there while on earth, diminishing the foundational Grace through Faith message where individuals need to have a personal relationship with Christ "confess with your mouth and Believe in your heart..", diminish the purpose of Sanctification and discipleship to missional/praxis stuff that do nothing with regard to personal responsibility, penal substitution, Sola Scriptora, etc.
For me when it says "Be in the world and not of it." It means just that. I Believe strongly that when the Word of God is presented correctly with right hearts that whether a person is any midset they WILL accept Christ as Savior and escape judgement and receive eternal life. The fact remains that postmodern Christians don't address the fact that without us as individuals accepting Christ we are "dead in our tresspass of sins." and like Jesus says "condemned already." I think this "postmodern world" can only be influenced as people move beyond being postmodern. In the sense that once Thomas saw without a shadow of doubt Jesus in the flesh he believed by saying "My Lord and my God." He went from being postmodern "questioning everything" to Believing Jesus for what He is and was. Modern Christianity is the definitive part of Christianity. If postmodern Christians give half answers I believe strongly it will lead to half responses and lives won't be changed when the answers are there to those questions. I believe people want answers to their questions and those that are postmodern who ask questions ask with flatery and/or a false motive. Not all are that way but many are and we must decern the heart behind the quetsion of people who question. If there goal is to ridicule, put on the spot and nitpick Christianity, demean, argue, etc. then giving the difinitive answer in love is what the writers of Scripture did and we should do the same.
Posted by: dh | 27 November 2006 at 03:02 PM
To me to say have this mind in Christ means move beyond the questions to the answers by Faith. I may not fully understand but by golly I can Believe it fully by Faith.
Posted by: dh | 27 November 2006 at 03:04 PM
and that isn't a blind Faith because my Faith is in God and His Word.
Posted by: dh | 27 November 2006 at 03:05 PM
Oh DH, i am a strange man, and I am sorry for the offense. I'm one of these strange people that laugh for no apparent reason and then can never explain what exactly struck me as funny...
Foundationalism is a modern construct and most scientists are moving away from it - the whole post relatively scientific world is one big mess where all foundational theories do not apply at the sub atomic level - it's like the scientist said, if you're not shocked by the theory than you don't fully understand it, lol.
The doctrine of inerrancy is not something that the bible supports in/of itself, nor indeed is it something that either the reformers or the early church fathers recognised either - they talked about infalibility, meaning the scriptures would not lead you away from God rather than being free of all error. I heartedly suggest this post I did of my recent lecture notes on Deep church on just this subject http://www.jasonclark.ws/2006/11/24/notes-from-deep-church-conversation-series-no-3-living-with-ambiguity-facing-up-to-difficulties-in-scripture-and-christian-doctrine/
I don't mind folk having a doctrine on inerrancy but i think we go wrong when we make it a dogma - personally i think we can agree on a high view of scripture that this is a story of God and his interactions and it is a story of God's people and their interactions...
All those things that you write about could well be differences of interpretation, for instance you and I have had a most interesting and welcome conversation on our respective views of heaven and hell - something which I think has been most encouraging even if do not agree in every detail/particular view of each other.
I do not think that a person nescarily has to believe in a literal heaven/hell to be a christian, afterall Jesus does not ask people to believe in hell but to believe in him...
Personally I agree with the credal beliefs of the church, particularly the Nicene creed http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
I have to say that I found your post quite sweeping and generalising, I think that neither you nor I have had interactions with every enough post modern christians to make that sort of call, it just ends up in repeating caracitures that are unhelpful and to be honest unengaging.
Rather than picking on the faults of the great out their, whether modern or postmodern can we reflect in here? If you have a concern with a thought as posted then please do post it, i want to have a meaningful conversation with you, not all this posturing and blustering.
It is fine for you and I to disagree, to own our disagreements, to ask each other Qs and to challenge/spur each other on, i find that v helpful, so let's keep it personal - what do you say?
Posted by: Paul | 27 November 2006 at 10:51 PM
I believe that the doctrine IS supported in Scripture. Also, Martin Luther DID believe in inerrancy. I see people ARE being led away from Godby way of Scripture because of the growing nature of false doctrines being believed. With regard to your view of hell. It just isn't supported in Scripture. If I understood your view, correct me if I'm wrong, you believe in the possibility that all people will escape that or that it is not a literal place. In light of the resurrection of the physical body with the soul in the last days and at the Great White Throne of Judgement where non-believers will be raised body and soul for judgement, it doesn't make sense that the casting into hell not be literal. Even more not supported is the concept that all will escape hell when that is not even in Scripture. (I'm referring to redemption after death which is never in Scripture in light of "It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement") The only reason I brought up the "out there" is that many of your posts refer to the "out there" whether it be "modern Christians", Ted Haggard, etc. It seems to me pointing out obvious concerns of not adhering to Scripture or downplaying the consistency found in Scripture has tragic reprocusions on how we live and how we view God and can lead people astray. When I read Brian McLarens books and observethese things I can't help, with him being somewhat a leader, concerned about those who come from Christianity from a post-modern mindset.
On your science bit, I believe foundationalism is important with regard to Creation Science. Many scientists reject not based on evidence but based on predispositions of Creation.
I read your post on innerancy and every one of those Scriptures, when you look at Scripture in light of Scripture, can be explained fully and satisfactorily. I personally believe that those who don't believe in innerancy do so because of a predisposition and with a self-fullfilling prophesy interpret Scripture as not being innerent rather than looking at the explaination that is consistent and believing it or at least say I believe by Faith that there is an explaination because Scripture is consistent.
Posted by: dh | 28 November 2006 at 02:55 PM
Hi DH, I'm glad you believe in inerrancy, I don't have a problem with inerrancy just when it becomes a dogma. You and I are gonna have to disagree on this one, we're not talking a credal disagreement - then again since their are several versions of inerrancy I am not sure which one you are advocating. I choose not to believe in it nd i think that is a fine position as well, certainly there is no text in the cannon which says the bible is inerrant.
Personally I think the bible is human/divine in the same way jesus is human/divine - that means Genesis 1 & 2 for instance for me can be creation myth rather than literally what happened - it doesn't mean that its not inspired by God and doesn't reveal powerful truths about him and us...
Did Luther believe in inerrancy - not as we understand the term and of course if he did why did he strongly advocate getting rid of that piss and straw gospel of James?
I used to believe in the inerrancy of scripture and found it a hinderance to my faith - so now I am more relaxed and my faith is stronger - a good thing perhaps? Afterall my faith is in Jesus not whether the bible accurately details histroy and science as understood by a 21st century person...
For those who are interested in the hell conversation this is the post we are referring too:
http://www.jasonclark.ws/2006/10/05/joining-jesus-on-one-hell-of-a-mission-to-bring-heaven-to-earth/
I think we can agree that there is a hell, we just disagree over the substance of it - again I don't have a problem with a literalist view and I know we agreed at the time on the missional dynamic that it encourages us to pursue. So my Q is does it fundamentally matter whether we agree/disagree over the exact nature of a place which even the bible describes in different ways? I think not, but I respect your right tp disagree...
I don' think there is anything wrong with referring to a wider context, what I think is sloppy is making sweeping generalisations and using labels like postmodern to cast doubt on people's faith. It would be like me taking the Ted Haggard situation and saying oh well most modern christians are repressed hypocrites - it would be grossly unfair and far from the truth, so in which case I'll try and make comments about me/my feelings in reaction to the situ...
Posted by: Paul | 28 November 2006 at 06:19 PM
I think what you are advocating with regard to myth as opposed to literal is a generalization statement of the Bible and a bigger concern. I believe it changes the nature of faith as opposed to Faith. I also don't see the bible explaining hell in different ways. With regard to hell, there is hell and Hell and to project hell onto Hell is inconsistent with Scripture. Hell is afterlife of those who failed to accept Christ and hell are trials and tribulations we face as humans. There is a huge difference. I believe there are many dogmatic Truths that shouldn't be watered down. To me the view you have with regard to innerancy, hell etc. are what many postmodern Christians believe and it is a very big concern of mine and it isn't a 21st century interpretation as you prescribe but looking for Scripture for what it is. To say it there is not a text in the canon when you misinterpret inspired. Also, you seem to disregard, downplay or all of the many explainations for the so-called inconsistencies. I would put much of the problems I addressed as false doctrine but that doesn't mean that those who adhere to false doctrine are not Christians. Heck, the Corinthians were Christians but that didn't change the concerns the apostle Paul had with their particular doctrine. I hope you don't take this as being harsh but as an admonishment like Paul with the Body of Christ. Paul at least cared for the people as I do the same or at least try. :) All in all, I enjoy our discussions. DH :)
Posted by: dh | 28 November 2006 at 08:57 PM
Thanks DH, nah I don't take it personally. I appreciate what you say. Then again I'd argue that my beliefs are credal by nature and therefore held across the church for 2000 yrs - we might disagree on how we interpret these things and that's fine - i don't know all the answers, ins/outs about everything and i'm happy to say so...
I think I am less concerned with people who are passionate about Jesus, who want to learn and who hold to the credal statements of faith - i don't have to agree or disagree with particular interpretations to recognise family travellers on the way...
It's one of the great things I appreciate about you DH, we do not always agree but you provide great insight and an alternative view which is welcome...
Posted by: Paul | 29 November 2006 at 07:00 PM
I hope I can someday have the influence that Paul had with the corinthians. I would hope that my statements would be looked at with merit and would help people to "change" from the "false doctrine" that "tickles the ears" of so many with questions. Oh well, I guess I need to leave the results with the Holy Spirit and hopefully under the Spirit state what I'm saying in love like I try with heart, soul and mind to do. It is hard because I care about people and hense don't want to see people decieved by false doctrine. Hense my strong interest in apologetics.
Posted by: dh | 29 November 2006 at 07:45 PM