Monday, March 26, 2007
A Recent Visit
Becky, Miri, and I attended a Twin Cities postmodern or "emergent" church yesterday. We like our current church but occasionally we discuss looking for something a little different. So we figured we'd check it out. Those of you who know me well shouldn't be surprised that I encourage a "post" modern approach to theology/christian faith. Those who simply dismiss postmodernism or equate it with relativism are just not aware of philosophical history and the discipline of self critique. (Like putting on a worldviews seminar without looking at the problems with pressuppositionalism. Or, saying your taking the Bible literally from a surface reading while being unaware that your method of biblical interpretation comes straight from the commonsense realism of the Scottish Enlightenment.) I could go on and on... Well, back to yesterday..... Although I encourage fresh reconstructions of the christian faith I was a bit dissappointed with the service at this church. My fear prior to attending this church was that it would exemplify postmodernism culturally but in the process lose the substance of the faith needing fresh reconstructions- Emphasizing a new package while forgetting what got this thing called christianity started in the first place (in short, become relativistic). The service was different, people were friendly, discussion was encouraged, but the message was so fluffy I still don't really know the point of it. In fairness, I can't totally criticize a church based on one service yet I do think it can be dangerous if in the process of attempting to accept the trends of culture we lose sight of the message that is meant to transform culture. The christian hope of the already-not-yet kingdom of God must be what leads to the love, acceptance, and community that attracts others into fellowship. It can't be the other way around. I hope that christian churches can find a balance in the future of reconstructing beliefs and doctrines steeped in Modernist thinking and hold to the Gospel that claimed in the first century ,"Jesus is Lord and Ceasar is not!" This claim did not accept culture as is but radically challenged the culture and powers of the day. I pray that this claim, and the hope that is in it, is what defines us as christian communities rather then the trends (modern or postmodern) of the day. To be continued
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've had church experiences like that - ones where you felt like the church just missed the point, or got something wrong. I sometimes feel a litttle disturbed by my own reaction because I tend to view things more in terms of something akin to the way I evaluate a film or television show. I don't like this about me - acting as if I go to be entertained. I try to evaluate based on criteria more along those you describe and I do think that I can tell when a service is genuine, or just some sort of play-acting. I also tend to shrink from churches that seem to have become sucked into the corporate world and behave more like a business - I feel like I am at some ad convention more than church. Of course, no church is perfect, I just wish there were ones that could strip off all the trappings of other human organizations focus more on what you describe - the transformative message of the Gospel.
Sounds like an experience I had at a Unitarian church. Yeah, you never know if the church consistently has this fluffy feel after one visit, but if that's the church's modus operandi , that's really too bad for the people attending, some of whom are looking (maybe even desparately) for the hope that is the gospel (i.e. good news) message, and those complacent souls who need to be challenged by the radical, scandalous gospel. Becky can tell you all about aromatherapy (that was the message, right?, oh, and, by the way, I love the lavendar). You have to wonder, though, when the sermon message is on aromatherapy. Don't get me wrong, aromatherapy is a good thing, but in a certain context. Nonetheless, it sounds like the church is missing two pieces of that Wesleyan quadrilateral: the testimony of Scripture and church history. In both of these pieces, we learn how Jesus and later his body (Wycliffe's idea of the legitimate body being the invisible church, as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church of the time) was the conscience to the world, continually challenging the world of its need for redemption. I don't think the church is its conscience when people don't hate and persecute you, you know, in the same way as Jesus was hated (but people loved him so dearly, which caused their oppressors to hate him as passionately). I have to admit that describing the gospel as 'scandalous' is borrowed from a book title, which escapes me. Anyone, anyone...something oo-doo economics...voodoo economics...Bueller...Bueller...Bueller...Fryyye...Fryyyye. Anyhow, right now, I am stepping off my soap box.
P.S. Ken, I liked your succinct description of so-called biblical literalism being an aberrant, unbeknownst product of commonsense realism. I'd like to hear more about it, because I have difficulty sometimes explaining it, but I think it's so important to explain. I'm convinced a lot of Christians read the Bible this way, and by being so "God-fearingly" committed to it, they're actually robbing the Bible of its true power. Aarrgg, what some people do and think in the name of God. Oops, sorry I got back on the soap box.
Post a Comment