So I was listening to some podcasts from Emergent Podcast the other day. These particular episodes were from a conference where two of the worlds top philosophers, Jack Caputo and Richard Kearney, were discussing some of the history of philosophy and more particularly the progression and the characteristics of modernism, and post-modernism. Both Jack and Richard should be thought of as "post-modern" philosophers.
There was about 5 hours of material, and on the whole I greatly benifited from their discussion. However at the end they talked about something that to be honest made me shiver for a moment, because I was so surprised by it. One of the most notebale qualities of post-modern thinking is a deep rooted suspicion and often abandonment of metanarratives of any kind, and I can understand why. Now these two men are deeply Christian, and are trying to find Christian truth mind you. But at the end they made this comment,
"I want to be absolutely clear, we are saying the Christianity is unique and there is nothing else like it, but it is not the only way to God, there are many other ways. .... If Jesus and Buddah met, Jesus wouldnt have told him to follow, but instead would have asked to follow Buddah to learn from him. It is arrogance to think that the Christian Faith is the only way!"
Wow....what do you do with that? I think that this illustrates something that I have noticed recently amoung those who have reacted to Modernism, and are pursueing something different.
It seem to be that many of us have idealized post-modernism, and have made it into a God-send. Now I'm all for reactions, and the emotions that go along with it. But It seems to me that many of the reactions that I have seen are simply swirving to the other side of the road. It seems that we define ourselves as anything that modernism is not, as long as we arent like that then we are good. As opposed to defineing ourselves by Christ and his teachings.
I dont know I guesss that Im just scared when I see my fellow followers reacting so strongly that they throw out everything modern with anything and any one that might have something to do with it.
Have we been controlled by reactionism? Do we really Think this new culture is a God-send? Have we jumped into bed with Post-modernism??
Am I the only one that sees the great danger that is coming with this new culture shift??????
Does anyone else feel caught in the middle, fighting a two-front war???? (its a lonely place to be)
Sunday, December 16, 2007
///////////Caught in the Middle////////////
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I understand your feelings here. It does seem that modernism has been stigmatised. It is dangerous for anyone, especially a Christian, to blindly accept a worldview or way of thinking without researching it,which is what I feel has happened with our embrace of post-modernism.
There are definite pro's and con's to both modernism and postmodernism. We would benefit greatly if we sought to integrate all the best aspects of several different ways of thinking so as to be effective consumers of culture and well rounded Christians.
I'm right there with you. So here's the deal: you fight one front, I'll get the other. Back-to-back so neither of us gets blindsided.
More seriously, I've been thinking quite a bit over the past who-knows-how-long about post-modernity and the church, about the so-called emergent church, modernity, culture, etc etc. The thoughts just bounce around my mind. I actually sorta jotted down a few thoughts last night, thinking about making a blog out of it, but I'm not sure I know enough about any of it to comment on it. That said, I am currently of the opinion that if postmodernity is accepted as the operating philosophy (if that's what you want to call it; who knows how many ways its been termed; maybe I'll just say the set of things that order how meaning and value is determined)(I hate long parenthetical things, cause now I'm going to restate myself:) Ok, so I am currently of the opinion that the church ought not to accept postmodernity as its operating philosophy. I might even go so far to say that any segment of the church that accepts postmodernity as such does so to its own demise.
I'm thinking about putting the thoughts that sorta clarify why I have those opinions, what the church should do with culture, etc. But what I said are pretty harsh statements, and I'm rethinking blogging on them b/c honestly my knowledge lacks depth on a lot of these topics.
But we'll see. I can be convinced otherwise :D So long as you promise to call me out on any ambiguity, whether seemingly heretical or otherwise :D
Peace out brother. Thanks for being you. Thanks to God for making you.
Oh, PS. My url is
So I don't know why it did that. But again, my url....
tocomehome.blogspot.com
Yeah.
Hmmm...I'm not sure how deeply Christian you can be and believe the statement the statement that you quoted the two philosophers as saying. That is definitely a heretical statement. I know I will be told not to judge, but I have to seriously question someone's faith who does not believe in the exclusivity and supremacy of Christ as the way to God. By the way Steb I have a blog now! www.achristianonfoot.blogspot.com
I think you have stumbled onto one of the great fallacies of the emergent church and, more specifically, post-modern a/theology. When deconstructionism is the order of the day, you will soon find that there is nothing left to tear down and the foundations upon which faith is built has no more validity than the sand upon which society builds its kingdoms. The idea that to find the true "Gospel" we must throw out the gospel and start from scratch leaves us wondering if we can trust even the words of Christ when he says, "I am the way and the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me."
Also, I get nervous (as we all should) whenever anyone presumes to speak for Christ or say what Christ would or would not have done. We need to let the words and actions of Christ as recorded in our most reliable sources speak for themselves and not try to role-play all of the what-ifs. The presumption in the if-Jesus-met-Buddah comment is that the speaker has a better understanding of who Jesus is than the gospel writers of the first century. Who is he that he should speak for Jesus. If the speaker was honest here, he would recognize that his attempt to shape Jesus is no less dangerous than the centuries of shaping that has taken place by reformation thinkers and gnostic heretics alike.
Lastly, it is easy enough to accuse arrogance of those who say Jesus is the only way, unless of course Christ IS the only way to the Father. Then it is not arrogance but instead it is good news. Post-modernity is afraid to accept scripture as authoritative, and as such there can be no certainty in faith. But if we accept that the Bible is in fact the word of God, it becomes for us a foundation that is solid and unshakeable for building faith. "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
BTW, on the title, has someone been listening to the new casting crowns CD?
Post a Comment