Part 3 Post Modernism.

If we were to consider a mission trip, one of the first things we would do would be to investigate and try to understand the culture, so as to evaluate how we must talk and act in order for our message to be received. It’s not trickery, its realism. Paul understood this when he said, “I have become all things to all men…for the sake of the gospel”. And so, as it did with the modern age, the church's task is to sort through each new group of ideas to determine what to oppose, what to embrace and what to modify. It is I think a Holy Spirit directed task, where we must be willing to be convicted and change, or stand firm and take the consequences. It is not solely about changing with the times (although in some matters I think change would be welcome). It is not about dressing up the old to make it look like something it is not. Rather we seek to understand the culture, to respect it and respond to it, to communicate meaningfully with its people with the intention that some will inquire about those things we believe.

So let’s look at the way post-moderns think, and then we can consider what changes a church which wants to influence a post-modern culture might make.

In the 1970’s, French philosophers began to question the claims of modernism that science, reason, etc. would emancipate the world from poverty, ignorance, insecurity and violence. Two world wars, Nazism and Stalinism, racism, 3rd world poverty, the threat of nuclear war and other such events suggested that the enlightenment was not imminent. The premises of modernism had proven to be false. Its grand ideologies were not proving to be true. Some had been, and were, perhaps dangerous. An analysis of western culture indicated that it was moving beyond modernism and new thinking related to or even underlay culture. Subesquently the movement from modernism was named post-modernism (pomo).

Pomo has proven to be difficult to define and is usually understood by contrasting its principles to those of modernism in various areas.

Modernism elevated the human thinking self to the centre of reality, seeing the world as a machine whose laws and workings could be discerned and mastered for the benefit of the world. Postmodernism holds that there are no universal truths “There is nothing behind the text” is the post modern response to truth claims, ie. that claims of truth are no more than one interpretation of events among many. Reality is fragmented and plural. Post moderns see society transitioning to a new order where there is a respect for diversity, flexibility, mobility, decentralization. Truth is found in ideas that work for certain groups at certain times and thus “truth” is a shifting concept. What works at one time may not work for a different group at a different time. It is said that post-modernity “does not seek to substitute one truth for another, one life ideal for another … It braces itself for a life without truths, standards and ideals”.

Furthermore, post modernists suspect theories and the all-encompassing universal stories (meta-narratives) which were meant to explain life. They have proved to be meaningless. Rather post-modern people celebrate the local and particular at the expense of the universal. Diverse perspectives are welcomed and difference is celebrated.
Pomo doubts there are clear organizing principles to life. It avoids systems, categories, conclusions and closure and sees itself as unbounded, and concerned with process and "becoming". There is acceptance that there is complexity, contradiction, diversity, ambiguity and interconnectedness. No longer is there a need or a belief that all things can be explained logically or fit into a system. At its worst postmodernism is “nihilistic”, holding that all values are baseless, nothing is knowable and that life is meaningless, though some post-moderns think that a revision of modern notions with new ideas of social thought, science and religion (including pre-modern notions of divinely wrought reality, cosmic meaning, an enchanted nature, non-sensory perception, ancient truth), will still give rise to a “new age”. Overall, post-moderns are more open to the supernatural, mystery and the unexplained than were modernists.

Knowledge is not good and certain as claimed by modernists. Rather it is a means to control and deny power to those without the knowledge. "Power is knowledge" said philosopher Michel Foucault. Post moderns are suspicious of institutions and leadership. Claims to knowledge are meant to serve the powerful, and so post-moderns are becoming less engaged with such things as politics, the goals of institutions. At the same time there is a rejection of radical individualism in favor of a more communitarian understanding of existence. Uniformity is however rejected and difference celebrated. Pomo leadership models respect diversity and seek the help of the community in decision-making.

So there it is. A mixed bag, and presently combined with modernist and even some pre-modern thinking. And if you have concluded that the church is thoroughly modern, then the challenge for the church is obvious. Can it adjust, and if so what changes might be called for? What changes are acceptable? In particular if post-moderns deny that there is “truth”, how shall the church respond?


* None of the above is original thinking by me. I have stolen ideas shamelessly from the internet and condensed them in order to provide an overview for my purposes. In particular however I want to credit Stanley Grenz talks about modernism and postmodernism @ http://www.sonlifeafrica.com/model/pomo2.htm

Part 2 And the Church.

Having described modernism in the previous post, we’re now ready to consider whether the church is stuck in a modernist mentality.

Fundamentalism arose in the 20th century – supposedly a reaction to the splintering of Protestantism into various groups It attempted to find common ground in the fundamentals of the faith. As a result the modernist approach to life influenced the approach of the fundamentalist churches. Its leaders were and are steeped in modernist thinking and attitudes. Again, this is not to say that they accept all of the modernist ideologies. Obviously they reject propositions such as evolution, secular determinism and some other modernist proposals. But they think, organize and communicate in thoroughly modern ways. And moreso, they responded to the threats of modernist ideologies, in modernist ways.

Fundamentalism responds to the scientific metanarative with its own scientific argument – creationism. Apologetics, an appeal to reason becomes an important tool for building a foundation of faith. It is rational argument believed to lead to an inescapable conclusion and hence faith. Dispensationalism explains away the supernatural, (somehow simultaneously holding that God is active in people’s lives but no longer reveals it miraculously). Spiritual gifts are dismissed under this doctrine (except in charismatic churches, which of course are heavy on emotion and less inclined to intellect). Church meetings are carefully controlled to virtually eliminate supernatural intervention. The pastor leader is presumed to be the knowledgeable expert. He teaches. Laypeople are taught. The 45 minute sermon (which predates even modernity and ignores our attention deficit issue) continues to be the communicative means of choice. Bullet points and overheads (corporate teaching tools)help us do without imagination. It's knowledge that matters. Tradition and mystery are generally rejected. Presumably the early church fathers and other more mystical types were too Catholic to have left practice that is valuable. Much of Church theology (Calvinism in particular) is essentially deterministic – God is in control of every aspect of a person’s life, including one’s “election” to salvation. Beliefs have been highly organized in thought systems called Systematic Theology. We are encouraged to study the Bible, and of course we use guides and study tools which tell us what is being said. It is impossible (for me in any event) to read most of the Bible without immediately having a preconceived interpretation come to mind. If we study this way we learn truth which we then can use to undestand and live life better. The grand story of God’s creative and redeeming begun in eternity past has been reduced to 4 spiritual laws. If you believe these propositions you are “saved”. Faith is thereafter a private (individual) matter – a personal relationship with God. There is little sense that we might be engaged in a divine dance or encounter with our creator. Rather the goal is personal achievement in morality and self-discipline. Christian counselling is made available to help individuals deal with moral and personal issues. There is no need to abandon personal agendas, enter into community and work as a body to reveal God to others. You are invited however to join the organization, be involved in a program or study, and exhorted to contribute to its maintenance – essentially to meet your personal needs and provide for your personal enjoyment. The church corporation is run by professionals, offers professional programs, uses a modern management approaches and corporate organization systems. Church staff are involved mainly in administration. The church positions and markets itself like any other corporation, offering programs, services and often coffee and other merchandise to would-be consumers. Hmm? Do you see what I see?

I’m going to end with what I think is a great question: "If we subtracted modernity from our Christianity, how much would we have left?" * Tell me what you think? Have I overstated the influence of modernism on the church?

*From Brad Cecil in Stories of Emergence

Modernism

Is the church stuck in a cultural past? My discussion of this question is unfortunately a little lengthy, and so I’ve addressed it in a number of parts. Relax. Pretend your reading a book. Take your time. I think in the end you'll find this discussion thoughtprovoking.
.
For about 500 years, until around 20 years ago, western Europe and North America was influenced by various sources that shaped its citizen’s worldview, i.e. the way people respond to ideas, facts, others, the world around them. The "systems of thought and attitudes of mind" of that time are now what is called modernism. If you lived during the modern age, your thinking has been affected by modernist ideals. This does not mean that you hold to all of the ideas offered by the science, artists, politicians and others whose thinking influenced the age, but rather that you have modernist ways of thinking or approaching subjects. The church and its people (they) were not immune from the influence of modernism. Again, athough they held to some different facts and ideas as compared to many in their society, their organization, presentation, and response to the world they lived in was modernist. It could hardly have been otherwise. Since they lived in a modern world, their thinking could not have been anything other than modern in style, even if the substance may have differed, and as well, since their audience approached ideas from a modernist frame of reference it was natural for them to present their views in a modernist way in order to be heard.

Generally speaking modernism affirmed the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation. It encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was "holding back" progress, and replacing it with new and better ways of reaching the desired ends. The modernist movement embraced the industrial and mechanized age. They believed that reason, organization, and science and technology would lead to enlightenment and freedom in all areas of life. Modern thinkers were rationalists, believing there was an order or system to all things which could be discovered by objective study. Modernists rebelled against tradition, believing the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life were becoming outdated and not in step with the new economic, social and political aspects of an emerging, industrialized world. Scientific disciplines (particularly in the field of physics and mathematics) asserted that it was necessary to break entirely with previous norms. The social sciences began to play an increased role in public policy. Literature, the visual arts and music began to radically change. No longer did artists attempt to reproduce nature, but rather they proceeded from the notion that the nature of reality was itself in question and so they too would shed historical restrictions. In the result, Modernists fashioned a complete worldview that encompassed every aspect of life.

Science gained prestige in this time and offered grand unifying metanarratives (ideological stories) purporting to determine the meaning of life – what we are and our place in the cosmos – said to be supported by objective scientific fact. Economic and social ideologies were proposed, all of which undermined religious certainty and the uniqueness of man. Humans were evolved animals said Darwin. Freud and Jung claimed that the impulse to defy social norms was essential to the animal’s development. Freud offered a view of the mind that excluded the influence of an external and absolute reality. Rationalism rejected the unexplainable. That which could not be explained and placed within a thought system was unacceptable, thus excluding mystery, the supernatural and the divine. Further rationalism rejected faith and emotions as credible means to discern truth or upon which to base one’s actions. Determinism claimed that we were shaped by forces beyond our control a consequence of cause and effect. Materialism became the ideology by which many found meaning for their lives.

Finally, in line with the philosophy of the age, broad social trends emerged. A few are notable. Progress in industry and agriculture and increased production shifted workers from production to administration and services, their efforts being to maintain production and increase consumption. Rural workers, attracted by jobs moved first to the city, then later to the suburbs. There was a corresponding desire for and respect of privacy , which later led to an affirmation of rights to privacy and individual rights. Faith was seen as a personal and private matter. In this climate it was natural that the individual and his/her achievements was celebrated. One’s position gave him a unquestioned right to lead. Later in the age a variety of social and scientific factors along with world events led to women entering the workforce, a subsequent factor in the disintegration of family life and a loss of protection for children. Early in the modern age books were popular and reading increased, but subsequently there was a decrease in quality of the contents while at the same time newspapers became popular with an increase in pictures, followed by moving pictures, then TV and films. All of which led to a decrease in imagination, people becoming pictorial rather than verbal, and attention spans decreasing.

It's vital, to understand the influence of modernism, if you are to understand how the church acts today. It's also vital to understand modernism, if you want to understand our present time, the post-modern age, which is anti-modern in many ways. The concern is, if the church is modernist in its structure and presentation it will not reach the post modernist. But, next, consider whether modern ways of thinking and attitudes are integral to the fundamentalist/ evangelical church of today.

Boring and simple?

As you know, I have wanted to try to understand some of the reasons why I am so unhappy with the institution we call church. Others, including Christian academics, pastors and sincere laypeople, knowledgeable people, are also concerned. Some are equally unhappy. Some are angry. Many have been considering the matter for some time and are rethinking old ways, discussing new ideas about theology, ecclesiology and practice (praxis), and moving on with new forms of “church”. These people love the the Lord Jesus and the “body” but are disillusioned with the institution, the tired formulas and agendas, the predictable simplistic responses to so many issues, the hypocrisy, lack of grace and understanding, the absence of real love to one another and to all people in our communities, the unwillingness to really sacrifice, so little change in those who attend, the laity/clergy divide, highly structured and performance driven Sunday gatherings, and so many other things. In the end I and others have no sense that the institution as it exists presently is the radical and dynamic community that can impact our present world. And so we are emerging – reconsidering where we’ve been and where we want to go, trying to determine what the body known as “the church” should look like and how it should act in this new, post modern time. In particular there is the movement known as the emergent church. They point out the cultural shift from modern to postmodern thinking and the failure of the church to appreciate the shift and transform itself to meet the new paradigm.

My interest is in understanding some basics of the conversation about modern/post-modern thinking. I want to take the ideas (deconstruction, determinism, rationalism, etc.) and simplify them so I can understand the concepts. Then I want to consider the argument and the changes being suggested, so I can be involved and relevant.

I am acutely aware that others have said the same things I will say, at an earlier time, and in a more profound way. Since I have no background in philosophy or history, I wonder if my simplistic summary of what I read and think will be helpful. Recently a friend from the church I previously attended, trying to be kind, suggested that my conversation about the church was discouraging. Many people didn’t want this kind of conversation and it might be preferable to carry on smiling, acting as if nothing was wrong, and occasionally seek change by writing the odd letter to the church board or asking a pointed question at a general meeting. Well like everybody, I want to be liked and so to be both discouraging and boring is a pretty tough label to wear. But I think that attempting to be involved in the critical discussion about the institution which Jesus left to carry on His work is more important than worrying about being foolish, and so I’m going to set out my simplistic thoughts regardless. As well, it’s personal. I’m looking for that abundant satisfying life of adventure that’s been promised, and I need to believe there is a better future, and if so pursue it.