Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Christianity and PostmodernismGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Christianity and Postmodernism | Login/Join |
Phil, I guess I am lost. I don’t know what you are driving at, really. Sorry. When you write:* “….Europe, which eventually lost all interest in being governed by pre-modernish institutions, of which the Catholic Church is still a prime example.” * I think: who’s talking about being governed or of governing? Who introduced the word ‘governed’? To me evangelizing is not governing; and being evangelized is not being governed. Who introduced the word ‘governed’? When you write: *“the formative influence of culture is rather significant”*. I think: Yes, it certainly is significant; but the church is to be influencing the culture significantly and not the culture influencing the church – not in ways that contradict the teachings and the wisdom within the teachings of our Lord; nor the authority of our Lord and the church He indwells and heads via the Holy Spirit. The church is NOT to lose its saltiness, not to abandon its truth no matter what the SIGNIFICANT influence of culture brings its way. The church is to be countercultural when it needs be. In America, alas, the church has been losing its salt and the culture has been salting the church. In America these days, folk are lobbying for Freedom FROM religion not Freedom of Religion. So, I don’t understand where you are coming from and where you are going. As for explaining “in a way that connects to the mindset of the age” – of course, of course. But perhaps -- as in OT times, the Lord endeavors to make Himself heard to a stiff-necked people. And perhaps it IS true that there is nothing new under the sun – in this regard. You mention Renaissance and Enlightenment in your opening sentence – the teachings of our Lord are the ultimate in enlightening man and bring the possibility of renaissance. Christ came to enlighten not to govern. He is not looking for slaves. He is looking for lovers. His Spirit is a spirit of freedom – NOT domination. Love freely given and NOT coerced is His desire, His plea. He who misses Me…TRULY…harms himself. LOL…and He is NOT an operant-conditioner despite what mon amie, Ms. Shady, thinks. (Nor of course, am I merely an old (albeit, well-meaning) feist -- as she on occasion bemoans. We will have to work this out in case perchance in heaven we get seated at the same table together and need the pepper passed). Anyway, Phil, I am lost relative to what you are saying or proposing. Sincerely. Pop-pop | ||||
|
The Pennsy Chick, here, mon amie-- As a start towards mutual comprehension between you and I in our neighboring states, I will think about your post as I head out to water plants. (Hey, are you hogging all my rain? As I was driving east towards the border on Friday I saw the lawns were getting greener.) As a short reply, I wouldn't quite agree that "being evangelized is not being governed". I'm sure you would agree that accepting the "good message"--being evangelized-- isn't simply about "just me and Jesus". Some acceptance of authority and governance by the messengers would seem to come with the package of necessity, since the messengers (originally the apostles who were with Christ for years) were the ones who knew Him. | ||||
|
Shady, First off, mon amie, LOL …. Happy to see you at our Cabaret. Vilkome and bienvenue! Secondly, relative to your rain – I will share (in all sincerity) with you that I have actually been praying consistently and soberly this past year for my county for its protection from environmental / ecological disasters, since I observe that many are occurring worldwide and the Lord is permitting it. Silly Pop-pop. So in a sense, I am asking, as did Lot, that God will spare my county such disasters. Scripture says material creation is affected by the sins of mankind – which is why in the truly last of the end times there will be accompanying signs in the heavens and earth as part of the ‘labor pains’. Silly Pop-pop. Why should He spare my county? Are Jerseyans any better than others? No. Certainly not. But, maybe …. maybe because I am (i.e. because someone is) asking. Maybe that will be enough. Maybe that is pleasing to the Lord. It’s my hope anyway. Silly Pop-pop. I have also been praying that the parishes in my county will remain a citadel of faithful Christian witness (salty as can be) and countercultural as can be, against the tide of secular and saltless Christian pressures. Silly Pop-pop. God seems to be allowing man to learn the hard way about the consequences of his sin in the hope man will wake up and fly right. Anyway, though, be assured that I have in no way prayed that Pennsy be abandoned from His Providential care, of course. After all, I have a turtle friend menacing a pond there. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to Snappy. Waxing serious though .. I agree with your comment about ‘some acceptance of authority’ coming with the package. But that’s so ‘in the noise’ as electrical engineers and signal processing folk are wont to say. What the church teaches is Christ’s teaching. Certainly in the OT it is written that God desires obedience more than sacrifice. Modern man hates that word – obedience. That’s a major issue with people today. It is not the church’s doing. No justification to sting the church. NT Scripture says “Son though He was He learned obedience…and so God saw fit to raise Him up.” “My mother and brother are those who hear the word of God and keep it”. “He who loves me keeps my commandments”. Why sting the church? Obedience is an OT & NT reality. This had nothing to do with governance (imo) but everything to do with man’s rebelliousness and pride unfortunately. You might say…it’s kind of an ‘I will not serve’ mentality. Obedience is a premodern, modern, postmodern, and emergent mandate: from the Lord firstly and His church echoing. You write that it’s not a ‘just me and Jesus’ thing. But in a certain sense it really is. Personal responsibility is where the rubber meets the road. The whole is the sum of its parts; and so, the church needs be constituted by individuals committed to Him. And committed to Him means committed to the Bride He is committed to – indeed has covenanted Himself to. Obedience plays a key role. Rebelliousness plays an anti-role. I don’t see ‘governance’ as a good term. I like ‘fidelity’. The Lord said He came that we might be free – not governed. How much rain do you want, btw? The pond hasn’t dried up has it? Save our Snappy! Sunnyboy. | ||||
|
 |
Yes, that seems to be the case, Pop. If you can't see the reality of worldviews in the first place (which seems to be part of the problem, here), then it really won't make sense to try to explore ways the Gospel can be preached to people of different worldviews. I'm certainly not suggesting that we change the Gospel message nor that we compromise our core beliefs. Re. "governing," that's one of the roles of the Magisterium -- to govern the faith and life of the Christian community. People with predominantly postmodern worldviews are generally resistant to this idea, preferring a more collaborative and democratic approach. Attempting to impose pre-modern approaches to Church governance of Christian communities on postmodern cultures such as we find in Europe, Canada, and the east and west coast of the U.S. won't work; they reject it. But maybe it's not the Gospel they're rejecting, only the way the Church has "packaged" it, and maybe there are aspects of the "packaging" that aren't really essential. That's part of what I'm saying, but, again, if you don't recognize "worldviews" in the first place, the discussion won't make much sense. | |||
|
Couldn't agree more with everything you've said regarding postmodernism and it's relationship with Christianity Phil. Pop Pop, I think you may me confusing postmodern expressions of Christianity with postmodernism in general. Postmodern Christians are not trying to change the gospel, they are trying to expand our understanding and communication of the gospel so that it can reach people living in a postmodern world. To give a few easy examples, from Protestant postmodern Christianity, postmodern/emergent protestants no longer think the pope is the antichrist and actively engage in catholic and eastern orthodox mystical prayer practices to deepen their relationship with God - all good it seems to me. Postmoderns are not trying to dismiss sin, but rather they are trying to understand sin in new ways that help them understand why God doesn't want them to do something. They often see sin as a relational issue, that something is sinful because it damages relationships between people and between people and God. Something isn't sinful because it just happens to be on a long list of "no-nos" that God decided wouldn't be allowed, but rather sin is anything that hinders true communion between people and God. It is true that postmoderns sometimes question cherished "truths" about Christianity and the church, but their intention is not to change the gospel, but to sift and see whether non-essentials have been proclaimed as fundamentals. At times this may mean that actual fundamentals are questioned, but if their intention is Spirit led they will reaffirm the gospel truth once the period of questioning has run it's course. At a stage I seriously questioned the deity of Christ, it was an expression of postmodern questioning of my own faith, but in the end I re-affirmed the truth of the incarnation of the Son of God...I don't believe the questioning was wrong or sinful...I believe God used it to strengthen my faith. I would say more, but I'm still short of time and have limited internet connection. | ||||
|
Jacques, Thanks. Your response was well delivered. I have no problem at all with what you have written. I guess I just don’t understand why everybody’s bowels seem to be in such an uproar. That’s all. All these separate factions that seem to stem from worldviews. Not only do we have denominational differences we have worldview agitas on top of all that. Wow. Pop-pop p.s. Made it home and settled in, I take it. | ||||
|
|
Yes, Pop and Jacques, we absolutely DO have worldview issues (aka "culture wars") in the Church itself. In many ways, postmodern Christians are more like secularist postmoderners than they are like pre-modern Christians, even though, as Christians, they share common beliefs. But postmodern Christians and secular postmodernists share the same value emphases: tolerance, inclusivity, relationships, community and social justice, to name a few. Premodern Christians are more concerned about issues like Truth and salvation, while modern Christians value individual experience, freedom, and the reasonableness of the faith in dialogue with science. There is a way these Christian worldviews can live together, of course, but that doesn't usually come until one can value what's good and helpful in all of them. They all do resonate with different aspects of the Gospel, and the secular expressions of all three are seriously at odds with the Gospel in a number of ways. Perhaps, for those who are more inclined to a visual approach, Spiral Dynamics® would be a better way to talk about these issues: Blue = Pre-modernity; Orange = Modernity; Green = Post-modernity, and Yellow is an integration of them. - see http://shalomplace.com/ubb/ult...f=15;t=000051#000000 and https://shalomplace.org/eve/for.../96610285?r=36710285 | |||
|
Phil, Thanks for the links regarding spirals and memes and worldviews. I’ve read through them. Certainly, I have a better understanding now of where you and others are coming from as regards all of this stuff. That said, there is much that leaves me cold, I have to admit. (Old feist? Old dog? Quite likely. Some in pennsysuits say so anyway). To me, there’s a lot of fandangle in it all, but not much bottom line. My dibs: 1. I disagree (as a Christian ) with this extraction from Don Beck’s article: *There is no final state, no ultimate destination, no utopian paradise. It's a never-ending upward quest, with each stage but a prelude to the next, and the next, and the next.* That bespeaks a complete absence of the eschatology of the Christian Gospel. 2. When I read through the colors, and I think about ‘putting on the mind of Christ’ as St. Paul advises Christians should do, or I think about ‘the imitation of Christ’ as Thomas A Kempis advises, the color that most typifies Christ and His stance before the Father is blue. I don’t see Christ as green or yellow or whatever etc in his worldview. I don’t see Christ’s gospel in the other colors – not essentially. 3. I think too that the word of God has power and when spoken does not return empty. That it can and does penetrate worldviews and memes. It needs to be spoken. We are commissioned to speak and live it – no matter our colors. We are to be spiritual men and women not natural men and women. This spiral dynamics stuff that I read in the Don Beck article makes no mention at all of God in it. It is all man and man’s evolution, as if God is not a player – merely man and his ever evolving culture. As such, insightful to some degree that it is, it is essentially meringue (imo). Sweet but insubstantial. As an aside, since I had recommended that CR read your book on Kundalini I went back and re-read it again myself. Was worthwhile, and I saw a thing or two that I might have missed in earlier readings and maybe some emphasis shifts based on where I am these days. I noted that we had some initial similarity in darkness in church and the lit candles and the intimacy of that in growing up. I also noted that you mentioned that you had been asked to pray over people and was surprised by them being slain in the spirit. Pretty neat. Do you still minister in that way? Do you believe that the fall of all those folk you laid hands on, and your glossalalia, and your kundalini awakening are a consequence of your worldview – are a consequence of which color you are? I don’t think so. God is present and active and intervening. He cares little for man’s worldview and the contemporary culture of man. And unfortunately, some in every contemporary culture care little for Him. Of course He plays in it (culture) and has a part in its ever evolving form. And while He is eternally creating, He is nevertheless constant and unchanging. His gospel and its eschatology endure. And the ‘stumbling block’ endures. And the reality of Paul’s statement that if Christ is not risen, than he and we are the dumbest of men endures. Ulitimately, for each of us He asks: ‘Who do YOU say I am’? And as for what color meme we identify with ….. I doubt He cares. Pop-pop | ||||
|
|
Pop, you surely have hung in there through this discussion!  First, about the K book and your comments: I haven't been to a prayer meeting in years as there aren't many around any more. Strange how that came and went! And, no, of course spiritual gifts and the like are not a "consequence" of one's worldview. One's openness to them is influenced by one's worldview, however, and the Blue, pre-modern culture I was raised in had no problem with any of that. Through my college years and the immersion in modernist and then postmodern thinking, I struggled to clarify for myself a theology that could affirm and even encourage the traditional doctrines and values in a language that would resonate, and much of my writing and publishing is the expression of that. You write: Ulitimately, for each of us He asks: ‘Who do YOU say I am’? And as for what color meme we identify with ….. I doubt He cares. Of course he doesn't, but one's worldview significantly influences one's receptivity to the Gospel. Listed below are some of the challenges and pitfalls for people raised in modern/postmodern cultures (e.g., most of the West). Difficulties for Modernists - miracles, including the resurrection - revelation beyond what human reason can affirm - doctrines that seem to go against scientific explanations - divine inspiration of the bible - magisterial teachings that seem to go against the freedom of conscience and what natural law can affirm (e.g., birth control) - Original Sin The whole emphasis in modernity is individual freedom and rational truth, so you can see how that is challenged by the above. The branch of theology we call apologetics was developed largely to respond to modernist concerns -- e.g., C.S. Lewis, Bishop Sheen, Malcolm Muggeridge and many others. Their mission was to demonstrate how the teachings of the Church were not irrational, nor did they go against reason. Of course, there are still some churches that pit religion against science, especially regarding evolution. They are destined to the backwaters of Christian history, however. Difficulties for Postmodernists - Christ as decisive revelation of God - Christianity as the "most correct" religion - authoritative teaching in general - hierarchical leadership - over-emphasis on male leadership in the Church - the whole idea of absolute truth - condemnation of homosexuality This isn't all simply a consequence of human sinfulness and a resistance to obedience, but is a natural outcome of postmodernity's egalitarian emphases. To put it bluntly, people seeped in postmodern values (as is increasingly the case in the West) are not much interested in premodern expressions of Christianity such as we still find in Catholicism, Orthodox traditions, nor evangelical and fundamentalistic Protestants. What would be a mistake, however, would be to conclude that they are closed to the Gospel. They aren't! The emerging Church movement is a clear indication to the contrary, though some aspects of it will offend premodernish Christians. We are early in dealing with postmodernism, but at this time I have no hope that Catholicism as we know it now will be effective in doing so. Our leadership is viewed as infested with sexual perverts who have the audacity to tell married couples how they should practice birth control, and who condemn homosexuals, all the while closing the door to women and Holy Orders without convincing theological justification for doing so. The ranks of the young are thinning, and in four decades our parishes will be like those of Europe, where church attendance and involvement is minimal. People will still be hungering for Christ and the Gospel, of course, but Catholicism as we see it today will be too counter-symbolic. Insisting that we are right and they are wrong won't work; it's implicit in their worldview that such positions are question-beggars, at best. There is a dark, nasty side to postmodernity, just as there is to modernity and pre-modernity. So we need to learn about all that, not with an intent of accommodating the Gospel to postmodernity, but to finding a language that resonates. Seen through the lenses of postmodernity, Jesus still does compel, with his mystical life, his inclusion of women in ministry, his compassion to all, his standing up against the powers-that-be, etc. So there really is a Green streak in the Gospels, not just Blue, as you maintain. Of course, that Gospel Green challenges us to look at our own practices, and not just our sense of the Truth, and that is the hard part -- much more difficult than articulating an effective apologetic. | |||
|
Phil, THANKS for taking the time. Your recent post was the clearest of all the posts and linked articles, in focusing on those differences. I see it better. It all saddens me, though …… really. Where is scripture and its authority for folk who discount the resurrection, who are uncertain as to Christ as the decisive revelation of God, of authoritative teaching, of absolute truth, divine inspiration, miracles etc. Has the soul been scientifically explained, or immortality, grace, love, sin etc. etc? And for these groups … just what would heresy be for them (how far can one drift before being a heretic)……what is false teaching then for them; and what can an antichrist be? Why retain the term Christian at all? Lots of cockle…and cockle doodle do. No wonder I’m blue. Can it be that the time of the gentiles is drawing to a close? Perhaps you remember from your charismatic renewal days….I forget if it was a national conference in Kansas City or at Notre Dame (maybe Rome and I read of it), but there was at one of those, a prophecy about the doors of the churches being closed and boarded up in the days ahead. I remember a single trumpet and the stadium singing ‘Resuscito’. Was poignant. Late 70s maybe early 80s. Seems to be coming to pass. That’s what you’ve written in your post about church attendance vanishing here, as in Europe. Frances Hogan, btw, an Irish scripture scholar seen on EWTN (premodern of course—for those who wouldn’t already guess) in a series titled *Quo Vadis Europa* posits and provides her supporting rationale for a coming WWIII in Europe. Among her substantiation, but by no means the fullness of it, she mentions a vision of Pius XII (circa 1948 as I recall) of a decimated war-savaged Europe. ‘Poor poor Europe’ he was quoted as saying. I understand your thoughts about trying to ‘find a language that resonates’. I hope that’s possible. But too, scripture says a time will come when people will not heed sound teaching, and a time when the love of most will grow cold, and a time when the age of the gentiles will end and Jews be grafted back in. Personally, I don’t think it’s an issue at all of our ‘insisting that WE are right and that they are wrong’ as you’ve written. I see it as maintaining (that is continuing to maintain) that the gospel of Jesus Christ is truth, absolute truth, truth in its most perfect form. When I was a 7th grader, our nun and principal, quite angry with Pop-pop and having just sent my mother home in tears, refused to acknowledge my raised hand concerning a lesson question she then asked. She went through the entire class before she allowed for my answer (so angry was she). Feisty Pop-pop had the correct answer – I forget now if it was Vasco DaGama or Bartholomew Diaz. But … my having the correct answer had nothing to do with arrogance -- or intelligence on my part -- versus the rest of the class. I simply had recalled what sister had revealed to us in her lesson of the day before (her revelation). So this whole sense of 'who do Christians or premodern Christians think they are' – how arrogant of us – is simply flawed and a misconstrued understanding and accusation. Sorry, but that’s precisely how I see this issue. [Vasco was non self-evident revelation, not something you could arrive at by analysis or deduction]. But with no attendance at church, can church pass on anything to a future generation? What meme color might a faithful remnant be? What meme color will be praying constantly in order to survive? Lol … and to whom will that meme color be praying? The Holy Spirit will be with that remnant, certainly. Question is: will we? Pop | ||||
|
Hi Pop Pop, Yes, home safe and just about settled in, thanks for asking. I still think you are making a false connection between postmoderns and liberal christians. Not all postmoderns are liberals. Not all postmoderns have given up on the fundamental of the Christian faith. I'd say I'm postmodern, but i still believe in the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, Christ's death and resurrection that provided the means by which my sins were forgiven and access gained to a new life in relation with God. What I do question, as Phil's list reveals, is Church structure and hierarchy (I question but do not necessarily reject), non-essential doctrines that are sometimes held to be necessary for salvation (though I don't therefore hold to a form of univeralism realising that some will ultimately be lost), how to define sin (again, not rejecting the reality of sin, but trying to understand it in a postmodern context), how Christ can be understood to relate to the whole human race without loosing the uniqueness of the gospel (inclusive rather than exclusive soteriology). Bottom line is that most postmodern Christians are wholeheartedly committed to Christ and to the Kingdom of God. Most do not compartmentalize their faith and secular lives into separate realities but are seeking to immerse their whole reality in the gospel of Jesus Christ and to fully integrate the Kingdom with the fullness of life experienced on this planet. Postmoderns are often quite critical of the EVACUATION GOSPEL that leads people to believe that Christ came to secure them a ticket off this hell forsaken planet and that all we need to do is pass out as many tickets to heaven as we can before we die - to the exclusion of everything else, like addressing economic, health, environmental, labor, political and religious injustices. Postmodernism is NOT the new liberalism. But when pet doctrines or practices are criticized or rethought it may appear to the modern or premodern Christian that postmoderns are going soft on the Gospel. The truth is that they are actually challenging people to open their eyes to the wider implications of the message of Jesus for the world he came to save and renew. | ||||
|
Pop-pop, I'm smiling at the thought of you as a seventh-grader. So you were called Pop-pop even in 7th grade?--that's funny. I admire that you've stuck with this discussion. I have to agree with Jacques' post in its entirety; and as both Phil and Jacques have thoughtfully said, postmodernist-leaning Christians can be fully orthodox. Snappy is well--I'll tell him you asked about him. | ||||
|
Jacques & Ariel, Well! If you two postmodernist-leaning Christians can be fully orhtodox -- I CAN LIKE THAT! Gives this geezer 'glory bumps' just thinking about it! And yes, mon amie, I was Pop-pop even in the 7th grade. I have to cowboy-up and confess I GREW UP in Stodge City. Ever ancient, Pop-pop | ||||
|
|
I think I've mentioned it before, but the ideal, here, would be to be post-post-modern, or, what some might call "integral" (Yellow in Spiral Dynamics). This would mean to affirm what is good in all the various worldviews (we've just been talking about three, here, but there are more), and point out the negative or shadow side of each. E.g., for the pre-modern, one could affirm the value of dogma as a way of expressing core beliefs while pointing out the danger of a dogmatism used to judge and reject people. For modernity, we could affirm the good things that science, technology and the use of reason have brought us while also professing that there are realms of mystery that transcend what science can understand. For postmodernity, we can affirm the emphasis on social justice, tolerance and inclusivity while rejecting the unhealthy relativism and pluralism that often comes with it. And so forth. If we don't do this kind of work, then our worldview actually limits what we can know and experience, and places us in an adversarial relationship with people who have other worldviews. That's part of what's going on in the culture wars in society and the church today. | |||
|
Yes, couldn't agree more. While I call myself postmodern, I certainly strive towards integration, attempting to see how all these worldviews highlight different aspects of God's creation and mission. Of course as a postmodern I'm trying to integrate all that has come before me as well as what is going on around me today. The advantage of being postmodern is that I'm grappling with a familiar reality and then trying to integrate it with what has come before. The premodern and modern Christian may have a more difficult task of coming to grips with postmodernism but atleast they are more able to understand the precursors to the current reality. I suppose we all have our crosses to bear | ||||
|
|
Pop, I came across this quote when putting Daily Spiritual Seed together this week and thought of you:
| |||
|
Phil, Yes, I like that. I guess based upon his timeframe that most would think I would like that piece. Lol, he was blue-meme clan -- from the days when folk were clueless about which meme they belonged to -- when folk simply believed we belonged to Christ who had paid the ransom for us. Pop | ||||
|
|
I agree with the quote, too, and the author did live very much during the Modern period with the beginning of post-modernity (we were very much aware of modernity at that time). I suspect Jacques would go along with it as well. So the important thing (even for pre-moderners  ) is to distinguish what is the essential religious message and what is inessential. All of the world views have inessential elements, but they also help to highlight certain emphases that do have roots in the Gospel.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil, | |||
|
I certainly do agree Phil Thanks for the quote and the short commentary, I throw my hat in with you on this one too. | ||||
|
Jacques, & Ms Ariel, Hey, how about a little ‘worldview clash-a-rama’ then? Maybe you two can bring a geezer into the light (the light of postmodernity – that’s a green light, right; or is it yellow). Pop-pop is always looking for the blue light special. ************************************************* Jacques: 4 Aug 3:26 AM Postmoderns are often quite critical of the EVACUATION GOSPEL that leads people to believe that Christ came to secure them a ticket off this hell forsaken planet and that all we need to do is pass out as many tickets to heaven as we can before we die - to the exclusion of everything else, like addressing economic, health, environmental, labor, political and religious injustices. Postmodernism is NOT the new liberalism. But when pet doctrines or practices are criticized or rethought it may appear to the modern or premodern Christian that postmoderns are going soft on the Gospel. The truth is that they are actually challenging people to open their eyes to the wider implications of the message of Jesus for the world he came to save and renew. Ariel 4 Aug 7:23 AM I have to agree with Jacques' post in its entirety; *********************************************************** Now I admit to never having seen the term ‘EVACUATION GOSPEL’ prior to your post, Jacques. I surmise by your stating that ‘postmoderns often are quite critical’ of it, that there are a good number of articles existent in the green fields that postmoderns now roam (Gone are the greenfields that we [premoderns] used to roam). So then, picking up with that Jesus fella, the one premoderns (RC premoderns anyway) state formally in their creed is ‘the ONLY Son of God’ – though nowadays a good number of more ‘modern’ and ‘more more moderns’ (i.e. postmodern) claim (though not including you two I realize) is NOT REALLY the ONLY Son of God, just the ‘Christ-guru’ of western civilization, and there were Christ-gurus of equal value in mideastern and eastern civilization as well. Hey, come to think of it, who knows, perhaps a new Christ-guru will be showing up in the future as well – in the southern hemisphere possibly. Why not, right? Surely there will be post-postmoderns one day (I think Phil mentioned them in a post of his) -- more sophisticated perhaps and most certainly more ‘up to date’ (‘modern-wise’) than we mere blue, green, and yellow-memers. Anyway, could it be that perhaps the roots of all that EVACUATION GOSPEL silliness that postmoderns are quite critical of, stems from that Jesus fella somehow? I mean, any of the memes [given they accept scripture as having a value beyond ‘interesting’] could read JN 17:9 where Jesus is quoted as having prayed: “For these I pray – NOT for the world, but for these you have given me, for they are REALLY yours.” In 17:11: “Protect THEM”. In 17:6 “These men you gave me were YOURS; they have KEPT your word.” In 18:36 “My kingdom does not belong to this world….my kingdom is NOT HERE.” In 15:19 “I chose you OUT of the world”. In 14:27 “my peace is my gift to you; I do not give it to you as the world gives peace.” In 14:30 “the Prince of this world is at hand.” In 14:17 Jesus speaks of sending the H.S. “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept since it neither sees him nor recognizes him” (‘sees’ like via scientific proof or rationalist argument). And there’s some ‘evacuation-like’ flavor to 14:3 “I shall come back to take you with me.” and to Matt 24:30 “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the clans of the earth (this of course includes the blue-meme clan) will strike their breasts as they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” And more evacuation-like thought appears also in Lk 21:28 “When these things begin to happen stand erect and hold your heads high for your deliverance (evacuation) is at hand.” St. Peter being a disciple of that Jesus fella expressed similar thought regarding this world that postmoderns are in some sense rightly but perhaps more wrongly concerned about. In 2 Pet 3:7 “The present heavens and earth are reserved by God’s word for fire; they are kept for the day of judgment”. I won’t bore readers with juicy extractions from St.Paul whose focus was always the community of believers and not the world, and who really loved and believed in that Jesus fella despite having gotten knocked off his high horse by him – Him whose name he said was above every other name. Relative to “addressing economic, health, environmental, labor, political and religious injustices” as you’ve written: most certainly the Lord’s teachings call for our being just, wise and responsible, and good stewards of all the resources and gifts He has given us (not the least of which is each other, and not the least of which is the church, and not the least of which is Himself). Blue-memes agree. Certainly these issues are not to be excluded from Christian attention and regard. However, while not being excluded by us, neither should a Christian’s attentiveness to the issues you mention, ever outweigh or diminish the more fundamental reality that Christ came to testify to the truth and NOT to turn stones into bread. The gospel is about conversion not progress. This world is not so much Christ’s concern, as much as we are Christ’s concern. The gospel is about spiritual realities more than material realities – though it addresses those of course. Secular humanity’s focus and concern is essentially what you have listed: economics, health, environment, political justice etc. Your meme has been very much influenced by secular concerns. They are valid concerns but NOT gospel issues per se – they do not address God, sin, conversion, salvation, supernature, the soul, etc with the requisite focus. Those concerns are those of the natural man, not the spiritual man. No faith required. Not the life of the Spirit. 1 Cor 2:14 – “The natural man does not accept what is taught by the Spirit of God. For him, that is absurdity.” *************** Teilhard had an interesting slant btw: he postulated in his book, Matter, that the Christosphere (that portion of mankind that will qualify as ‘wheat’) is itself a PLANET made from matter (a subset from the established periodic table of elements) that has evolved in such a form over the eons as to now possess both consciousness and the power of reflection; and will spin off at the Parousia from the remaining less loving, less sensitive, less compassionate members of the Noosphere which will be left behind – reserved for fire. (The hell forsaken planet you alluded to, Jacques). In evolution, it is not the strongest, but the more sensitive (social, loving, compassionate) of homo sapiens who survive he said. Teilhard isn’t the gospel of course, but he was definitely an interesting and imaginative thinker, Jesuit, geologist, paleontologist, anthropologist and mystic. He was always endeavoring to understand the science he loved and understood through the insight of the revelation he understood of the Lord and church he loved. In the end though, he was dual and not nondual -- despite being a very ‘cosmic’ thinker. He strongly advocated that Christians pray assiduously for the Parousia --- LOL, when the EVACUATION will occur. As for your mention “of the message of Jesus for the world he came to save and renew”, I would say He didn’t come to save the world, but to save those who are His own in the world; and He extended the invitation to become His own, the invitation to His wedding feast -- to all. The material world He has revealed to us will not be saved. (If one accepts scripture of course, in the first place. Like the quote from St. Peter above.) Clashingly yours, Pop-pop (blue-meme clan) | ||||
|
Hi Pop-pop-- Did you feel the East Coast earthquake today? I did. I'm interested in responding, but I still have alot of family stuff going on...I have to head back to help my mom with something this evening. Maybe Jacques will write something that I can just say "Yeah, what he said" to.  Actually, I do want to add my own two cents when I'm less pre-occupied with other stuff...this is an important subject for me because I started out a much more blue-ish Christian and only changed my way of thinking due to unsettling experiences; and it's still for me an area where I question my assumptions. | ||||
|
|
Pop, you make some good points and put your finger on one of the difficulties of postmoderners, even many postmodern Christians: the exclusive claims for Christ made by traditional Christianity. My response to this has been to point out that none of the other great founders of the world religions are considered divine incarnations by their followers, so it's not as though one has to choose between them and Jesus on that account. Another common postmodern adjustment is to say that's what's important about Christianity is Jesus' message, which they can totally go along with, especially those values that point to social justice. My response to this is equally deflating -- that Christianity doesn't proclaim Jesus' message, we proclaim Jesus crucified and risen. His message, when you get right down to it, isn't especially unique; it's all there in the Jewish tradition and others as well. It's the resurrection that is the point of departure between Christianity and the other world religions. No resurrection, no Christianity. So one has to take a stand with regard to that central mystery. This is, to me, where we get down to the religious core and cut across all the worldviews. The modern worldview has the most difficult time affirming miracles in general, much less something like the resurrection. But premodernity struggles with it as well. The resurrection calls us beyond any worldview to the core of the good news. Once one loses touch with that because of worldview influences, then one is off the Gospel path, imo. | |||
|
Hi Pop Pop, I'll start by saying that I agree and affirm most of what you've said. I wouldn't want to take away from the important points you raise. Rather than take away, I'd like to add...using that great book we all believe is authoritative for our Christian Faith. I find that the Bible is far wider in scope than a simple evacuation plan. In fact, it seems that time and again God is reminding His people that religion is quite meaningless if it doesn't impact the world and it's people. (I believe it is also important to distinguish between the world as God's creation, including all the people of the earth, and the more negative use of the term to designate the fallen or broken aspects of that creation - For God so loved THE WORLD [kosmos] that He gave His only Son vs. THE WORLD [kosmos] and it's desires pass away). God loves the world and it's people and desires good things for all of them. He desires that all be saved and expects us to join Him in His task of establishing His will and kingdom "On earth as it is in Heaven". The gospel, while dealing with spiritual realities never neglects the fact that we live in a flesh and blood world.
In fact, throughout the Old Testament the prophets reprove the people for the related sins of Idolatry (forsaking the True God) AND social justice issues - it was never meant to be One OR The Other.
And unless we think that this same message is not preached throughout the New Testament:
Let's not forget that a Samaritan was technically a heretic who had corrupted the Jewish scriptures adding to and taking away from the divine revelation. Moving on...:
These all seem to be issues that relate to both spirituality AND social, economic, political, occupational realities that the Lord cares deeply about. | ||||
|
That's a good point. | ||||
|
Hi there Pop-pop--Are you ready for Hurricane Irene? I thought Jacques' post was well written. I'll briefly add my one cent's worth... I've certainly had times of confusion, uncertainty, and bewilderment as a Christian. My big spiritual Achilles' heel is the question of why does God seem to sit on His hands and allow His creation to sometimes experience horrific suffering---I have personally known family friends who died in terrible, traumatic manners; manners that none of us would stand idly by and let happen to our children, spouses, loved ones, if we had the power to help them. Yet God allows this, and we can do nothing but trust His goodness and live with the mystery. The above--the questions that theodicy tries to address---is an area where doctrine fails to give me as clear of an answer as I would like to have. So meanwhile, in living with a certain amount of confusion and lack of clarity, I do know I can walk on in obedience, carrying out what I do know for sure---all that stuff that Jacques quoted from the prophets and the NT, plus what Phil said about the death and resurrection of Christ as our message and our hope. I'm trying to use my small amount of faith in an obedient manner, while hoping someday all this beautiful mess of creation will cease groaning and sing an unmistakeable song of praise...and hoping too that I will hear that song and see His face and be ashamed, in a good way, that I ever doubted His care. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Christianity and Postmodernism