dangerous practices
Well, someone has tipped my attention toward this review of Emergent Manifesto, which is described as the emerging church’s “coming out of the closet tribute”:
There is another underlying theme that is permeating the pages of this book and many of the other emerging church books in print, including Dan Kimball’s. There is a continual hammering away and chiseling down of the image of Christians (the kind who take the Bible literally and stand by its authority). This effort to villainize Christians is reminiscent of Germany in the 30s when artists would draw distorted pictures of Jews with certain facial features making them look weird, and when rumors and stories would run amuck even suggesting that Jews would rape your daughters, so don’t trust them. This all out effort to get society to hate and mistrust the Jews worked. It was a campaign, not based on fact, but based on a demonic kingdom that hates anything that has to do with Jesus Christ. In the Manifesto, Brian McLaren boils down the world’s evils to the fault of Western Christians and suggests that these resisting Christians might even become militant against people one day. (Hitler was able to persuade people that the Jews were a threat so they better take them out before the Jews got them.)
There you go. Brian McLaren as Hitler. QED. To be fair, the publishers of this book have a bit of a stated position:
In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical church and was infiltrating youth groups, churches, seminaries, and Bible studies at an alarming rate.
Thus, in the spring of 2001, we began Lighthouse Trails Publishing with the hope of exposing this dangerous and pervasive paradigm?six months later we published our first release, A Time of Departing by Ray Yungen.
As we learned more about contemplative spirituality (also known as the spiritual formation movement), we came to realize it had infected the church in a wide variety of aspects. Models like Willow Creek, Purpose Driven, and the emerging church had become avenues through which contemplative was entering Christendom.
I am reminded of my dear father who, upon hearing about “this postmodernism thing” decided he ought to research it, and later told me that he knew all about it because he had purchased and read a book from a prominent Melbourne Christian bookstore entitled something like “Why postmodernism is the divisive work of the devil”.
Anyway, I must admit that I am easily tired of the “the emerging church/liberal theology/alt worship/monastic thinking is the beginning of a slippery slope to a place where people wail and gnash their teeth in outer darkness” debate. I know plenty of people who I disagree with about a whole range of things but I am perfectly proud to call my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I know plenty of Christian people that I would like to put on the other side of a large brick wall labelled with a sign saying “These people don’t speak for the rest of us”.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
We should fear the day that Christians contemplate anything.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Obviously it is far too risky to let Christians pray! Who knows what could happen?
“Models like Willow Creek, Purpose Driven, and the emerging church had become avenues through which contemplative(sic) was entering Christendom.”
Yeah and models of things like the Psalms. Wouldn’t want them influencing Christian worship now would we?!
May 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
a rather devasting review.
I can now understand why Don Carson wrote his book.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Do you think they have even the teensy weensiest notion of the hypocrisy in such a vicious attack on their fellow Christians? You know, the ones who are “demonically” criticising fundamentalists?
I suspect not.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
vicious as defined by what. I merely noted a rather strong attack on several doctrinal fronts where McLaren is anywhere but the bible.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Vicious in likening McLaren and other writers to Nazis… a la the following:
“This effort to villainize Christians is reminiscent of Germany in the 30s when artists would draw distorted pictures of Jews with certain facial features making them look weird, and when rumors and stories would run amuck even suggesting that Jews would rape your daughters, so don’t trust them. This all out effort to get society to hate and mistrust the Jews worked. It was a campaign, not based on fact, but based on a demonic kingdom that hates anything that has to do with Jesus Christ. “
May 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Seems to me he is merely giving an analogy not portraying said person as a nazi but a person using a paintbrush the same way.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“using a paintbrush the same way.”
This is my point… it’s hypocrisy to criticise a practice that you indulge in yourself.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
In fact… he not only fails to maintain the high moral ground, but gets far, far nastier than McLaren ever does in his critique of fundamentalism.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
i actually think the analogy works logically but the two are at the opposite extremes of severity and was ill concieved as a rational starting point for debate on postmodernism - rather playing to the crowd that are on his side.
i have no doubt that there is an effort to marginalise those who believe in absolutes and this can be demonstrated by the redefining of the word tolerance. tolerance now means ‘endorsing’ .. as opposed to disagreeing with but with respect for…
****
“In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical church”
i would also be concerned with this.. one person in our church tried to introduce it… “after you meditate with your mantra the spirit eventually comes in… its the best spiritual experience”
this sort of thing is neo paganism which is rife through the pentecostal church…
look at the prosperity gospel - if you pray this .. you will get this..
the healing gospel - if you have enough faith or pray (and pay!) this prayer, God will surely heal you
the concept is that if we do something God will (has to) respond in our favour ie we have the power not God
so i see it as the subtle lie that redirects our attention from God to ourselves
its not just simple meditation or contemplation - the above writer though doesn’t seem to know how to express it without coming across as Fred Nile, but that is more a problem with Christianese
May 24th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I’ve always thought that it was the sign of a poor imagination when one compares anything/anyone to the Nazis. It’s too easy. Perhaps one can compare McLaren to Luther? Both were reformers, both spoke bluntly - too bluntly for the liking of some - and both tended to blame the previous era for all the ills of the current one.
Hitler…come on…so anyone who writes an opposing viewpoint or critiques an institution is suddenly a ravenous Jew hating Nazi? Purleeeease…we can do better than that, surely?
May 24th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Sure, its never a good idea to run straight to the Hitler analogy.
But if you throw stones, you shouldn’t be surprised when your opponents throw boulders back. Labeling yourself post-modern, post-colonial, post- whatever seems to be a clever way of labeling your opponents as being stuck in some dead-end exploitative world-view. Just like calling yourself pro-life seems to imply that your opponent is pro-death.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
good point
also just testing out the html tag thingys
May 24th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical church”
One must ask… what particular form of meditation are they having a hissy fit over?
Christianity has an old and rich contemplative tradition from the time of the desert fathers, certain monastic orders, etc. etc. Are “daily offices” the work of the devil? How about the Jesus prayer? How about the examen? What about spiritual direction? What about contemplative prayer?
I’d be a little suspicious that the form of meditation they’re concerned about is really as terrible as they suggest… after all, they summarise Brian McLaren thus:
“Brian McLaren boils down the world’s evils to the fault of Western Christians”
I’d regard it as a bare minimum that one take the effort to thoroughly understand what someone is saying (or doing) before engaging in uncharitable attacks.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“My attacker is an idiotic hot-head who demonstrates his pathetic immaturity in his childish personal attacks. Why can’t he stick to simple logic? Nah, nah, nah.”
This kind of argument is shooting yourself in the foot. You obviously DO think childish personal attacks are legitimate.
If you think you’ve been attacked unfairly… be better than that.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
um janet
what string are you on?
May 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
When Christianity meets postmodernism, and attempts are made to reconcile the two, then something will give. The two philosophies (I will call them that for the sake of simplicity) are fundamentally different and are incapable of integration, just as oil and water will never form anything other than an emulsion.
Christianity stands on absolute truth, one which requires wholehearted acceptance or rejection, if, of course truth is accepted as absolute. By comparison, postmodernism is founded on relativity and the belief that perception is truth, experience is validation, and there is no external point of reference. Consequently, postmodernism can accommodate all beliefs on the basis that there are merely variants of the same desire to seek meaning and justification for our existence. The external workings of the post-modern approach to faith is called syncretism.
Therefore, if Christianity is approached with a post-modern philosophy, it is easy to de-construct the bible into a personal insight into God. We would read the Gospels as an experiential account and decide for ourselves if Jesus was really the “way truth and light”. We could read Paul’s letters as his personal struggle and take from them some lessons about life, leadership and remaining cheerful through adversity.
In this case, when post-modernism meets Christianity, it is Christianity that loses and it becomes a nice philosophy on an equal footing with other religions and beliefs. Therefore, everything from Voodoo to Catholicism has equal merit.
If Christianity is your foundational belief then post-modernism cannot be embraced, because it is the antithesis of the core principles of Christianity. The emerging church attempts to achieve the impossible, but only ends up with the proverbial emulsion. To take the analogy further, as any good painter and decorator will know, the illusion that the emulsion is, can only be maintained by continual stirring.
Jesus exhorted us to be in the World and I respect that part of the emerging church that encourages us to live with a missional aspect. However, He also exhorted for us not to be “of the World”. He wants us to be a light, a light of truth and understanding, not one of conformity to the values and pseudo-tolerance of the world.
When read with this in mind, it becomes apparent that this article is actually fair and reasonable in its critique of the Manifesto. I agree the “Hitler” insinuation is shallow, but the process by which a group can be villified is real. I hope the emerging church can learn to accept that, and to make sure that its choices and philosophies do not contribute to the ongoing erosion of Christianity by continuing to stir against the “established” religions that millions of people worship God through.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hi Roger,
A very well argued, thoughtful and articulate post.
At this stage I would like to pose the following questions for your consideration.
1. Postmodern embraces the notion of fluid identities; if our Christianity is relational- a personal relationship with Christ- then why cannot postmodern metaphors be applied to the spiritual journey that is Christianity? I do not think the two are mutually exclusive.
2. If Christianity is a solid positivist bedrock, should not it be able to withstand vigourous debate? Truth will out in the end will it not, if a person is truely seeking Truth. The journey to Truth may be arduous - perhaps individuals may need to explore many truths to find Truth- this could be a postmodern proposition and grounds for compatability.
3. I would contend that much of “established” religion could withstand and indeed could benefit from a ‘continuing to stir’- much of what is established religion is a dim shadow of loving community.
What are your thoughts?
Kind regards
Daisy
May 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
roger you wrote “By comparison, postmodernism is founded on relativity and the belief that perception is truth, experience is validation, and there is no external point of reference”. I used to think that was true of postmodernism but as I have had more to do with postmodern Christians I have found this is not the case. They believe there is absolute truth, but that God is in essence mystery, unknowable. Therefore, we have access to that truth, but our understanding is limited, we see “through a glass darkly”. Thus at its core I don’t think Christianity and postmodernists do cancel each other out. Throughout the age of moderism, Christians had two choices - either accept sceintific advancement etc and throw Christianity out - like if you accept the world wasn’t created in seven days literally or you don’t believe in slavery or the subjection of women then you can’t believe in Christianity at the same time. Or you completelt reject knowledge and you cling to Christianity. The way I see it, postmodernism doesn’t reject knowledge or truth. Do I think the world was created in a literal seven days? I’m not a sceintist or a creationist, I honestly don’t know. But for me that question has little relevance to the fact I follow Jesus. Do I believe slavery is okay just because the Bible never implicity accepted it? No, i believe our understanding has grown beyond what it was BC. Both these views are “postmodernist” and yet they make sense in our world today, and I’m guessing a lot of fundamentalists would hold similar views to this without realising that they are in fact postmodern.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I find discussions about postmodernism really difficult to engage with, because I am so much a product of postmodernity - for example, the films I watch and the books I read are usually labelled “postmodern”, and I was exposed to various postmodern theories all through my university studies.
Posts like Roger’s frustrate me. Why? Because I’ve heard them time and time again, and because they’re misunderstanding postmodernism in such basic ways. Talking about “postmodernism” is about as useful a label as talking about “modernism” - are we talking about art? architecture? films? literature? theories? If theory, then which one? The label “postmodern” can refer to such an enormous range of things that I find it nonsensical to say that “postmodernism is incompatible with Christianity” - it’s like saying “the West is incompatible with Christianity” or “the Renaissance was incompatible with Christianity”. What specifically are we talking about? What do we MEAN when we say “postmodernism”? Are we talking about a specific theory? Are we talking about a type of film or literature?
More importantly, to say that “postmodernism is incompatible with Christianity” is also theologically flawed. Postmodernism is a cultural wave, a shift, a movement. Saying that it’s incompatible with Christianity is tantamount to saying that an entire culture, and entire generation, is irredeemable. I do hope we are beyond the days when people believed that certain cultures were irredeemable and had to be irrevocably changed in order to fit in with their perception of the Gospel - which, of course, was not at all shaped by culture.
So…leaving that all behind. Roger, people who identify as “postmodern Christians” can level some pretty serious criticisms as “modernist Christians” too. I agree with your post entirely if you are talking about the extremes of postmodernism - but I don’t know many postmodernists, religious or otherwise, that wouldn’t agree with you. The rejection of any form of truth whatsoever is now widely regarded as fairly destructive and also pretty unhelpful. This is particularly so in my area of research, which is human rights!! However the extreme forms of modernism are just as destructive, and perhaps even more incompatible with Christianity, being grounded as they are in a belief in the supremacy of Western, rationalist, empirical science above everything else. However this is just one form of modernism, and a pretty extreme one at that - and for this reason I’d never suggest that “modernism” was incompatible with Christianity.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hi Daisy
It is at this point that the limitations of a blog become apparent. It’s a bit like trying to have a discussion through a keyhole. However:
1. Post-modernism is essentially the principle of assessing nothing as absolute. Therefore, the problem with applying post-modern metaphors to a Christian journey is that nothing can ever be nailed down (no pun intended, for it would be a sick one). For example, part of the Christian journey involves accepting, believing and acting on a foundation that cannot be proven, such as Christ as Son of God, his death by crucifixion, and His resurrection. Having this as a foundation allows us to have faith in the things we cannot see, hear or reason with. This is essentially the “Rock” on which we build our Christian journey. The problem here is, if we embrace post-modernism, then this foundation can be challenged at any point in time. This would bring us back to the beginning of our journey. Not knowing from where to start, having no point of reference, and not really knowing what it is you are seeking leads to a life that is empty and a journey of false starts and multiple deviations. In essence this is the Buddist route that leads through Nirvana.
2. I agree, as solid bedrock, Christianity can withstand the analysis. It is also true, that the path to finding “Truth” may be littered with “other truths” that may have been part of the process. However, how can you define “many truths”, for that would suggest there are “truths other than truth?” Here, you could insert “gods” instead of “truths” and come up against the same log jam. If my journey passed through many gods to find God, and I accept God as the one God, then that would have to make the other “gods” false ones. Either that, or “God” is just another “god”. (I’ll think I’ll go and lie down now!)
3. I agree with point 3, established religion needs a lot of scrutiny and change. However, I don’t believe that villification and activism is the key here. Stirring is good at the right time. However, if the separate components are never allowed to settle out, then the analysis of what is being stirred will always be cloudy. Maybe we need to seek first to understand and that can only be achieved by seeing clearly.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Roger
Re: No 1, that is a very narrow, very extreme interpretation of postmodernism.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Yeah, and modernism was soooooo good for the church…let’s go back to that! I agree with Bec: what on earth do we mean by post-modernism? We throw this vague term around like it’s a fluffy white seal that we can bang on the head with the club of “absolute truth”.
If Christendom is in a state of “ongoing erosion” as Roger claims, then modernism needs to take a fair whack of the blame.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
So what are we talking about here Roger? Foucault? Derrida? Heidegger? Baudrillard? The Dada movement? Jackson Pollock’s art? John Cage’s music? Samuel Beckett’s books? Italo Calvino’s books? Douglas Coupland’s books? … ‘Life After God’ was a much-read book among my Christian friends - read it, right to the end, before you assume that the title means it’s incompatible with Christianity.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Ooops…I meant Christianity, NOT Christendom…
May 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Thanks Emma
The reality is though, it is not possible to accept (absolutely) the core foundations of both post-modernism and Christianity. However, if you are a post-modernist, it is possible to accept the bible, on the basis that is revealed to us in a relative manner. It really depends where you start. I agree however, that our understanding is limited, which is why I choose to base my bedrock on something that is bigger than me.
The literal interpretation thing is a straw man argument. I believe in a literal bible, but there is nothing written in Genesis, for example, that is at contradiction with our current understanding of the age of the universe, mode of creation etc. Seven (literal) day creation is not “an absolute truth” so therefore the integrity of the bible does not rise or fall on scientific discoveries.
The issue of slavery of subjection of women is also a smokescreen. Jesus in fact was the first “womens libber” and exhorted us to treat women, children and slaves with respective honour, dignity, fairness etc. Whilst an issue for debate, it too cannot be used as an “absolute truth” demolition example.
Therefore, if you are to apply post –modernism properly, then it cannot be selectively used. Instead, it must be applied to all of Christianity, including foundational core beliefs. Post-modernism would challenge Jesus as “Son of God” as being something that Jesus believed, but as not necessarily true. Accept that PM critique and you lose the Christian foundation. It really does lead you in circles.
Thank you for indulging me, now I must go and board my plane. I enjoyed visiting.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Now, now Bluth - referring to fluffy white seals is more than a little emotive and manipulative.
*sigh* My deconstruction of your posts isn’t at all compatible with my faith…
May 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I’m interested in finding out more about this - to try to understand what exactly people mean by post-modernism.
Emma, beliefs such as that the world was not literally created in 7 days - and that slavery is not OK despite being condoned in the Bible - I see as being modernist in a Christian sense - part of Liberal Theology.
Both post-modernism and fundamentalism were reactions to modernism, going in different directions. I really don’t understand what exactly people mean by post-modernism - it seems by its nature to be an undefinable term due to its rejection of certain types of knowledge and reliance on “narratives” etc. From the outside it seems to be relativism, although many post-moderns would argue against that - the trouble is no one can understand their arguments unless they are a post-modernist.
It could be a revolutionary way of looking at the world, or it might be a case of the Emporer’s new clothes, who knows? But it does seem to be a departure from many of the things that have allowed us to progress in the past. I would count among the things that it is a departure from as : The ancient Hebrew’s idea of God, the Law, Jesus, the Enlightenment and Science.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Warren,
I think Wikipedia actually has an ok summary of postmodernism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
However that said, I don’t find the label particularly helpful, as it refers to a huge range of things. My primary discipline is law, specifically human rights, and I firmly reject Roger’s assertion that a core foundation is the rejection of truth (which is what he seems to be suggesting). If I were to regard postmodernism in the manner that Roger does, I’d basically be too frightened to touch any theory that could even be remotely labelled as “postmodern”, because it would undermine basically everything I do!!
I see postmodernism as an entire culture, and postmodern theories as offering me a set of tools by which to view the world around me. The idea of having a “tool box” of theories rather than being firmly rooted in one is in itself quite a postmodern approach!!
May 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
At uni, they mostly described PM as being a critique of modernity, not a flat out ‘rejection’. Wik uses the term ‘reaction’ - not a bad one, compared with ‘rejection’.
From what I understood, PM thinkers held up modernistic values, and simply critiqued them; something that many others had not done, or were not prepared to do.
SP is a bit like this. It holds up the values of dominant church groups, and critiques them; exposing ‘truths’ as simply being a notion that has been accepted as ‘truth’ because of who has said it, and the number of times it has been said.
My understanding has been that PM is part of the cultural ‘journey’ (I HATE that word!) rather than a point of cultural ‘arrival’.
Bec, you’ve obviously looked at PM in a heck of a lot more depth than I have, so I wouldn’t mind (if you have time) you showing me where I’m on the wrong track in the 1st couple of paragrahs… I know it’s fairly simplistic, but am I on the right track?
Roger - you sound like my dad used to sound! (Eventually, I actually convinced Dad that Jesus was the 1st PMer, based on a uni paper I wrote!)