In the concluding chapters of A Primer on Postmodernism, Stanley Grenz discusses the philosophies and philosophers that set up the stage for the postmodern mindset. A few key points that I observed are as follows:
a) our individual interpretations of the world and of truth are like language, socially constructed by our experiences, relations, and interactions with our environments
b) there is a response that can be made to postmodernism through the power of the Gospel
First, in regard to individual interpretations of the world, postmodernism asserts that because of “our differing places in the world, we naturally develop different perspectives on the world and different interpretations of the world” (p.110). A language is created in these environments, and this language can only carry meaning for the specific context. As far as church is concerned, in an article entitled, “God’s Transforming Presence: Spirit Empowered Worship and its Mediation", author Ian Stackhouse writes about the danger in becoming to far removed from the Scriptures and sacraments passed down through tradition. In the charismatic/evangelical circles, the tendency toward the immediacy of the Spirit and “Spirit-led” worship becomes an individual experience of the move and power of God. Thus, the move of the Spirit and the interpretation of God’s power becomes, in that context, a language that only the individual can relate to. What happens to this person when he/she encounters more communal, liturgical, or traditional practices? It would appear that all of a sudden this person is not able to understand the language being spoken (per se) in another context. Has their personal experience and differing perspective become a barrier? Are they able to understand the same God in a different context/language? (Any thoughts Dr. Clark?)
Secondly, the final chapter of Grenz’s book is an explanation of how the Gospel can respond to the postmodern view. In reading, I found the notion of “a post-dualistic Gospel” quite interesting. Grenz’s notes that the “Gospel we proclaim must speak to human beings in their entirety” (p.171). I am reminded of Luke Bretherton’s writing entitled Mundane Holiness: The Theology and Spirituality of Everyday Life. In this chapter, Bretherton notes that their is an element of our mundane and ordinary lives that is directly connected to our Creator. Speaking to the entire human being gives way to addressing the routine aspects of our lives and allows us to relate to the fully divine, fully human person of Jesus Christ. I believe that finding God in the ordinary corners of our lives helps us to become more holistic beings. Rather than try to identity parts or areas of our lives that “need more of God”, letting our entirety, our soul and body, become transformed by Christ, is more reflective of the Gospel that we have come to know. An appreciation for this viewpoint can illustrate to the postmodern that our concern is in the transforming of lives and beings into Christ, and not just in the saving of souls to get to heaven.
I appreciate Grenz’s thoroughly written passages concerning the history and development of postmodernism. I am, however, left wondering how we can best go about relating these topics to a generation of modern churches…
Is it by handing them this book, teaching on this book, or simply addressing postmodernism as it evolves into our society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
My initial thought, is that as you frame the question, what answer would you offer to your question? :-)
hey Jason...
This too was my question. I think that the primary way to do it is look for favorable opportunities to have conversations. There are some of those still out there, the hard thing is that we are so aware of the people who are not interested in a conversation but instead want only to point out how Postmodernism is the great evil.
This may be a cop out answer, but I remember Jesus talking about finding a man of peace when he sent out the disciples 2 by 2. If they found one Jesus said to stick around, but if not they were to keep moving. I wonder if this can be true for us too. It's probably not worth our time or energy to "fight" it out with people who's minds may never be changed but there are others who are looking for answers in this ever changing world.
Thoughts?
I'm going to try and do some corresponding on your question early in the post but I'm going to need you to help...
You say this about the post-modern view of language:
"A language is created in these environments, and this language can only carry meaning for the specific context."
And then you spoke about Stackhouse's idea that a "truth" separated from its created context loses (at least some of it) it's real meaning. The examples of liturgical services v. charismatic emotionalism is interesting--because I got the feeling that Stackhouse was saying the charismatic emotionalism IS an example of extracting certain parts of the apostolic faith and applying it in a sort of bricolage.
I think what it ultimately means is that those two things are so far apart that they aren't even the same faiths in some regards.
What do you think? I guess what I'm doing is re-directing your question to what I feel like is a more accurate reading of Stackhouse. So honestly I'm challenging your interpretation and application (but in a nice way of course) and asking for your feedback.
Post a Comment