I want to summarize the dialectics and suggest one for the church, especially for adult Sunday School classes.
The first one is the Aristotelian Logic Dialectic. You probably recognize the name Aristotle. He developed a system of logic that is still used today, and was especially a foundation of the Rationalist Modern thinking in the period that we are now leaving. This is how it looks:
A = Truth
B = the opposite of the Truth
If A is true, then B isn't.
So, it looks like this in it's logic form:
If A, then not B
In most churches and adult Sunday Schools, this is the most common method used. And where some of it is useful and perhaps necessary at times, it can be very restricting, boring, and at times offer a wrong interpretation of Scripture.
The postmodern way of thinking is more in the Hegelian Dialectic after the 18th-19th century philosopher. Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). While Hegel taught this as how historic eras form, other disciplines have adopted the idea. In this form of thinking, A and B are sort of merged together to make a C. Here is how it looks:
Let's say we think A is the Truth and B is the opposite of that Truth. A and B will be meshed together to form a new Truth - C.
Hegel called A Thesis and B AntiThesis. The new Truth, C is called Synthesis. In other words, two truths (opposites of each other) are synthesized together. This is why I have written lately in previous posts about this synthesizing inclination of our younger adults, because it is the main way of thinking in these new postmodern times.
Here is how the Hegelian Dialectic looks:
Thesis<-------------->AntiThesis
.............Synthesis............
The Synthesis then becomes the new Thesis.
Synthesis (New Thesis)<------------->AntiThesis (the opposite of the Synthesis [new Thesis]
.......................................Synthesis
The reason I think this is so appealing to people, and especially today to our younger adults, is the freedom it offers to pick your Thesis. However, once it leaves the first Thesis, you really don't have much control over it. Since the new Synthesis always becomes the new Thesis (the new truth), you cannot control that much where the Truth is leading. In other words, it keeps leading you, instead of you deciding and researching the Truth for yourself. So, this can, and often does, take us away from the Scriptures, the cross and Christianity in general. That is one reason I think why the emergents are straying, because many of them tend to use this dialectic.
There is another dialectic that I really recommend for Adult Sunday School teachers to try. I would also suggest it for pastors, but at this point, most churches don't have a dialog in the church service, so you couldn't do it. I am in a SS class that uses this and it certainly is more interesting than any other I’ve been in. In fact, out class just keeps growing while sadly, the other classes keep shrinking. This type of dialectic is the one Socrates used. You are allowed to ask all sorts of questions to arrive at the Truth. You can think within the box, or outside of it. In Christianity, this dialectic must of course always lead back to the truth of Scripture. But the students find the Truth themselves, instead of being lectured to or at.
OK - here are three SS class examples where I will show you how each of the three dialecticd works:
Sunday School class #1-The Aristotelian Dialectic
Teacher: "What does [a certain verse] say?"
Class: (whoever answers puts it in his/own own words. In other words, the verse is just rehashed/rephrased.)
Teacher: "What do you think this verse means?"
Class: It means this, not that.
Sunday School class #2-The Hegelian Dialectic
Teacher: "Have any of you ever studied Buddhism?"
Class member: "I have."
Teacher: "Are there any elements you find in Buddhism that you also find in Christianity?"
Class Member: "Yes I have." [The class member then enumerates the similarities]
Teacher: "Well, when we tell Buddhists about Christ, we can tell them the similarities and leave out the offensive points of Christianity so they will be more comfortable with us and more responsive to getting into dialogue with us."
This sounds good, but eventually the synthesis begins to take us too far a field until we have a mishmashed religion that really no one recognizes anymore because we've invented out own through constant synthesis.
Sunday School class #3-The Socratic Dialectic
Teacher: "When reading this verse, what comes to your mind?"
Various class members respond, including Bob who had serious questions about the verse.
Teacher: "Bob said that this verse presented problems to him and told us what those problems are. Let's go with that and explore this some more. Can anyone think of other parts of Scripture that would answer Bob's dilemma with this verse? Or, does anyone else have this same dilemma?"
The teacher needs to always bring this dialectic back to Scripture but not necessarily the same day. The discussion could go on for weeks without any Scripture being mentioned. Also, discussions of concepts and topics could be done, not only Scriptural passages. For example,
Teacher: Why was Job sacrificing? Should we sacrifice? Why did God give Job twice as much as he lost. Will God do that for us?
This forces the class to really think these through deeply while helping them to tie Scripture together and also to learn difficult theological concepts more easily and have a more interesting time doing it. The teacher needs to help the class understand that they can offer various answers, not just the "Right" ones they've learned as children or even adults in Sunday School or church. Then later, hopefully, the teacher along with the class will find the Truth out of this process. If they don't, then at least the thinking and asking of God has begun to find the Truth at a later date.
I also believe that as churches start more nad more intergenerational Sunday School classes and groups, this is the dialectic they must use or they will lose the younger adults.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Who is Marketing Exactly?
The postmodern Christians often accuse churches of marketing the gospel. But aren't postmodern "progresive" churches marketing too? Why do I say that? Well, what is marketing exactly? It's trying to sell an agenda and everyone has an agenda, including the emergents. While the seeker-sensitives use a business-model marketing(and I agree with the emergents that it's nauseating) the postmoderns market in a countercultural-cultural kind of wrapper, but it's marketing nevertheless IMO.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Dress
Since the middle 1970's I have been saying that clothes and hair tell a lot about people. I haven't changed my mind. Christians accused me of being intolerant, horrible, elitist, narrow-minded and everything else. But it's interesting that almost every time, those who went on spiritually changed the way they looked (without people telling them to), and those who rebelled just stayed the same. That happened at least with 95% of the people I've known. If you look like a druggie or a rapper, or a gang banger or whatever, maybe that is who you are....inside. That is, rebellious. Once in a great while, I found others who would agree. Most finally agreed with me years later, thankfully, since by that time they had teen children. By the way, this isn't about how well off you are. People can go to the Salvation Army and get decent clothes. I'm talking about the in-your-face-I'm-going-to-wear-this-so-what're-you-gonna-do-about-it attitude? Back then it was the church young adults doing this, not the church youth.
Today, it's worse. Elders of churches allow their teen and even preteen daughters to look like hookers when going to church, not to mention when going elsewhere. Where in God's name are the fathers? Or even the mothers? And I do not wish to hear how your children will get upset when corrected, or you cannot handle them, or blah, blah, excuse, excuse. What do you think young guys will think of your "whore" daughter? Huh?
The reason I got on this kick today is I read a wonderful piece by a rare persons who actually agrees with this. You can find it here. Wait until you hear the lame excuses Christian parents told this guy as to why their daughters look like they do. Just unbelievable. How and where did we get so many Christian airhead parents???
Today, it's worse. Elders of churches allow their teen and even preteen daughters to look like hookers when going to church, not to mention when going elsewhere. Where in God's name are the fathers? Or even the mothers? And I do not wish to hear how your children will get upset when corrected, or you cannot handle them, or blah, blah, excuse, excuse. What do you think young guys will think of your "whore" daughter? Huh?
The reason I got on this kick today is I read a wonderful piece by a rare persons who actually agrees with this. You can find it here. Wait until you hear the lame excuses Christian parents told this guy as to why their daughters look like they do. Just unbelievable. How and where did we get so many Christian airhead parents???
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The One World Church?
The Christian Carnival this week is at Ignorant Historian.
Many people believe that the Bible teaches that in the last days there will be a One-World Religion. Whether that is true or not, and it depends on what last-times theological position you take as to whether you do believe it or not, it's apparent that we are headed for that. And how is this to be accomplished? 37 years ago when The Late Great Planet Earth was published by Hal Lindsey, it told us about the new World church/religion. I don't recall anyone explaining how this would happen. Perhaps that was because for us over 30 the Hegelian Dialectic was not too known. But today, not only in secular colleges and universities, but also in some evangelical colleges and seminaries, students are learning about it too. The Hegelian dialectic simply fuses, or synthesizes, two opposites together. Or, many opposing truths. So, when people adopt this method, Hinduism, Budhhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Islam and anything else can be fused together for the sake of peace. Many Christians today, especially the younger ones, like the "Rodney King"
school of theology - "Can't we just all get along?" Well, actually we can IF we take out elements objectionable to other religions and fuse together anything we might have in common. That will then make a common denominator of love, peace and joy. Oh, wasn't that the hippies' mantra in the '60's? And how did that all work out?
If this happens, then Christianity is no more since it is distinctive in Jesus going to the cross for us and then being Resurrected by God's Spirit. It is not simply a few teachings in mainly the gospels. Why many of our younger evangelicals don't get this is wht puzzles me. So, it is up to us older folks to hep them understand this. But first, we must understand how to talk to them in their mindset - or as they would say - dialogue with them.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Perfect Church
A lot has been said about what the doctrine of the perfect church should be. However, I find that even when churches are doctrinally fairly good, faulty organizational structure will bring them down.
The perfect church must be based on what we see in the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts. It also must reach and be pertinent to every generational group - the Carteisan Modernists (approximately 60 and older) as well as to the Postmoderns (approximately under 40) and the in-between-caught-in-the-middle-between-these-two-groups, the Baby Boomers. I Realize that the Boomers are turning between 45 and 63 this year, but I am basically including the younger Boomers and older Gen X in that group for this post's purposes. Here then is my conception of the perfect church.
*It must be very careful not to follow the postmodern's constant desire for synthesizing everything, but at least consider when synthesis is appropriate. It has to think outside the box more in the gray areas, although this may tend to drive the older members batty. The perfect church will try to explain and instruct why various age groups believe the way they do and how the church is trying to meet everyone.
*In the sermon time as well as in the Sunday School classes and other groups, the perfect church must have dialogue, not just lecture. If this doesn't happen the Postmoderns will simply leave the church. However, I believe it should be as Biblical and Cross-centered as possible. Leave the psyco-babble, self-esteem teaching, New Perspective on Paul, Ancient-Future medieval mysticism, occultic-Buddhist-contemplative-meditation techniques behind.
*The perfect church will have all age groups in fairly equal numbers. The church will work hard in understanding the philosophical differences between the two groups in the upper and lower age ends as well as the confusion of the Boomer group in the middle.
*The worship service will reach all age groups. For the Modernists there are hymns and 1,2,3; A,B,C sermons at times, while to the Postmoderns there are discussions at times within the service and plenty of graphics, drama and other right-brained elements. Various people participate on the "platform" from all age groups including children, youth, young adults, middle adults and seniors. This could include dramas, art, singing, playing of instruments, testimonies, reading of the Scripture for the day, etc.
*Singles and marrieds are treated as equals. People who come alone are greeted by someone who will sit with them in the service the first few times they come. The notion that newcomers always come with a church member is not true and the perfect church will dump that thinking and begin to take responsibility for any newcomer, whether they come with a church member or not. There will be an intake system for visitors.
*Adult (and perhaps even youth) Sunday School classes will cease to be boring. More of the Socratic Dialectic method will be used where open ended questions are asked and people are allowed to think outside the box. The teacher will then be skillful enough to bring it all together as Scripturally as possible.
*No more small home groups where people just join wherever they want. This perpetuates clicks as well as ethnic and socio-economic racism. The church will be brave and assign people to geographical homegroups where there will be much more diversity. Of course this will break some of the clicks up and will be opposed by the click leaders. These groups will then be able to pray for their neighborhoods, neearby schools and city councils and police/fire departments. At first the groups will be led by elders of the church and other spiritually AND emotionally mature people. Then near-elders can take new groups that form during the year.
*Begging for money will stop and the church will do what it is supposed to stand for - faithing it.
*Healing will be an everyday occurence both in the church and in the members' homes as healing is taught correctly and the elders begin to do what the Bible says to do in James 5:14,15 - pray the prayer of faith (instead of the usual prayer of unbelief that is prayed in most churches today).
*The perfect church will stop separating people. They will stop pitting marrieds against singles; and, young against old against middle aged. There will be intergenerational Sunday School classes and intergenerational small groups as described above as well as small intergenerational groups within the men's and women's ministries. The pefect church will refuse to segregate people by age or marital status or disability or previous sin(s).
*In the perfect church the Holy Spirit will finally be allowed back into church and that will change everything.
The perfect church must be based on what we see in the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts. It also must reach and be pertinent to every generational group - the Carteisan Modernists (approximately 60 and older) as well as to the Postmoderns (approximately under 40) and the in-between-caught-in-the-middle-between-these-two-groups, the Baby Boomers. I Realize that the Boomers are turning between 45 and 63 this year, but I am basically including the younger Boomers and older Gen X in that group for this post's purposes. Here then is my conception of the perfect church.
*It must be very careful not to follow the postmodern's constant desire for synthesizing everything, but at least consider when synthesis is appropriate. It has to think outside the box more in the gray areas, although this may tend to drive the older members batty. The perfect church will try to explain and instruct why various age groups believe the way they do and how the church is trying to meet everyone.
*In the sermon time as well as in the Sunday School classes and other groups, the perfect church must have dialogue, not just lecture. If this doesn't happen the Postmoderns will simply leave the church. However, I believe it should be as Biblical and Cross-centered as possible. Leave the psyco-babble, self-esteem teaching, New Perspective on Paul, Ancient-Future medieval mysticism, occultic-Buddhist-contemplative-meditation techniques behind.
*The perfect church will have all age groups in fairly equal numbers. The church will work hard in understanding the philosophical differences between the two groups in the upper and lower age ends as well as the confusion of the Boomer group in the middle.
*The worship service will reach all age groups. For the Modernists there are hymns and 1,2,3; A,B,C sermons at times, while to the Postmoderns there are discussions at times within the service and plenty of graphics, drama and other right-brained elements. Various people participate on the "platform" from all age groups including children, youth, young adults, middle adults and seniors. This could include dramas, art, singing, playing of instruments, testimonies, reading of the Scripture for the day, etc.
*Singles and marrieds are treated as equals. People who come alone are greeted by someone who will sit with them in the service the first few times they come. The notion that newcomers always come with a church member is not true and the perfect church will dump that thinking and begin to take responsibility for any newcomer, whether they come with a church member or not. There will be an intake system for visitors.
*Adult (and perhaps even youth) Sunday School classes will cease to be boring. More of the Socratic Dialectic method will be used where open ended questions are asked and people are allowed to think outside the box. The teacher will then be skillful enough to bring it all together as Scripturally as possible.
*No more small home groups where people just join wherever they want. This perpetuates clicks as well as ethnic and socio-economic racism. The church will be brave and assign people to geographical homegroups where there will be much more diversity. Of course this will break some of the clicks up and will be opposed by the click leaders. These groups will then be able to pray for their neighborhoods, neearby schools and city councils and police/fire departments. At first the groups will be led by elders of the church and other spiritually AND emotionally mature people. Then near-elders can take new groups that form during the year.
*Begging for money will stop and the church will do what it is supposed to stand for - faithing it.
*Healing will be an everyday occurence both in the church and in the members' homes as healing is taught correctly and the elders begin to do what the Bible says to do in James 5:14,15 - pray the prayer of faith (instead of the usual prayer of unbelief that is prayed in most churches today).
*The perfect church will stop separating people. They will stop pitting marrieds against singles; and, young against old against middle aged. There will be intergenerational Sunday School classes and intergenerational small groups as described above as well as small intergenerational groups within the men's and women's ministries. The pefect church will refuse to segregate people by age or marital status or disability or previous sin(s).
*In the perfect church the Holy Spirit will finally be allowed back into church and that will change everything.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A MUST Read!
This is absolutely a MUST READ. I don't think I've read anything that makes it clearer as to why the postmodern generation is so attracted to the emergent church. The article is written by a 26-year old which means he is in that generaton. To me that gives it more credibility. It really shows what the postmoderns (usually between 18 and 30, although some put them between 18 and 35) feel, how they think and why they do what they do. He tells what the emergents offer them and why so many take it.
The article, entitled The New Evangelical Scandal, is found here.
The article, entitled The New Evangelical Scandal, is found here.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Word -- "Progressive"
Everywhere I turn I run into this word, Progressive, or it's plural Progressives. It has mostly been associated with political or religious people and concepts. We are hearing about Progressives in the Democratic Party which usually refers to those are to the far left. We are hearing about the New Christian Left as a "Progressive Christian movement." We are hearing from some of the liberal Protestant leaders that they are Progressives. And most of all, more and more emergents are leaving that name behind and are now calling themselves Progressive Christians.
So, what is a Progressive? It seems to be someone with left leanings politically. And religiously, it seems to be someone who is leaving or has left the Protestant orthodox faith behind. So, now when you hear that term, pay careful attention and don't let anyone confuse you with the idea that this is something that will help us. If you buy into that, study what the liberal Protestants have done for us and ask if you want to go through that again.
So, what is a Progressive? It seems to be someone with left leanings politically. And religiously, it seems to be someone who is leaving or has left the Protestant orthodox faith behind. So, now when you hear that term, pay careful attention and don't let anyone confuse you with the idea that this is something that will help us. If you buy into that, study what the liberal Protestants have done for us and ask if you want to go through that again.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Synthesis and the Spiritual Realm
Continuing with this idea of [Hegelian] syntheses,where one takes a little of Christianity and mushes it with some tenets/beliefs of another religion or religions, I think the main problem has been a very poor theology of the Holy Spirit and practically no teaching on the spiritual realm in our evangelical churches. If people understood the spiritual realm better, I believe that they wouldn't be so quick to mesh other beliefs into Christianity.
Warren Smith was very much into the New Age which included Buddhist meditation and spiritual guides. He later became a Christian. Here is what he writes,
Today it is very sad to see so many believers falling under the influence of the same spirit that influenced me when I was in the "new age." This spirit says that it is a time for "breakthroughs" and for the fulfillment of our "destiny"; that there is something "new" and exciting in the wind. This teaching claims that we are in the midst of a great "transition" that will result in a "paradigm shift," and that through "new revelation" and "personal experience" God is in the process of taking the church to a "new dimension" and to a whole "new level." Many Christian leaders these days are so sure that what they are hearing and experiencing is from God, they are rarely testing the spirits, or even considering the possibility that they are being deceived.
He goes on to explain what we are seeing in much of the new "Progressive" Christianity (old name=emergent/liberal Protestantism) where Christ is not Saviour but something else and it is man who needs to do the deeds to bring in the new world order. He writes,
This "reinvented" Christ of the "new gospel" teaches that all of humanity is the body of Christ. He, as the "Christ," is the head. This "Christ" states humanity's dilemma is that we have forgotten who we are. We are not "sinners" separate from God. We are all part of the one body of Christ and the one body of God. Salvation does not come by grace from accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Rather it is achieved--when we accept ourselves as Christ and when we accept ourselves as God.
The "new gospel" teaches that when humanity collectively accepts and experiences itself as being a part of Christ and a part of God, we not only save ourselves, we save our world. The "Christ" of the "new gospel" warns that the hour is late. Peace must come. He will help. He has a plan. But everyone must play their part.
(quotes from Reinventing Jesus Christ by Warren Smith)
Source:http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1345&more=1&c=1
Warren Smith was very much into the New Age which included Buddhist meditation and spiritual guides. He later became a Christian. Here is what he writes,
Today it is very sad to see so many believers falling under the influence of the same spirit that influenced me when I was in the "new age." This spirit says that it is a time for "breakthroughs" and for the fulfillment of our "destiny"; that there is something "new" and exciting in the wind. This teaching claims that we are in the midst of a great "transition" that will result in a "paradigm shift," and that through "new revelation" and "personal experience" God is in the process of taking the church to a "new dimension" and to a whole "new level." Many Christian leaders these days are so sure that what they are hearing and experiencing is from God, they are rarely testing the spirits, or even considering the possibility that they are being deceived.
He goes on to explain what we are seeing in much of the new "Progressive" Christianity (old name=emergent/liberal Protestantism) where Christ is not Saviour but something else and it is man who needs to do the deeds to bring in the new world order. He writes,
This "reinvented" Christ of the "new gospel" teaches that all of humanity is the body of Christ. He, as the "Christ," is the head. This "Christ" states humanity's dilemma is that we have forgotten who we are. We are not "sinners" separate from God. We are all part of the one body of Christ and the one body of God. Salvation does not come by grace from accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Rather it is achieved--when we accept ourselves as Christ and when we accept ourselves as God.
The "new gospel" teaches that when humanity collectively accepts and experiences itself as being a part of Christ and a part of God, we not only save ourselves, we save our world. The "Christ" of the "new gospel" warns that the hour is late. Peace must come. He will help. He has a plan. But everyone must play their part.
(quotes from Reinventing Jesus Christ by Warren Smith)
Source:http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1345&more=1&c=1
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Will the Real Prophets Please Stand Up
I just do not think I can take seeing or reading one more false prophet. They are all over the place. Meanwhile, where are the true ones? I thought this quote really says it well,
There is nothing wrong with the command of God to 'stone the false prophet!' The problem is that the church has discerned wrongly and stoned the true prophet! That is why there are no more true prophets in our days, because as soon as they begin
their ministry, we rub them out. This is the reason that so many false prophets are running around, not just because it's the end of the age but because we have disobeyed God, His command, and killed off His prophets! We are like Herod, who in the midst of John the Baptist's ministry, chose a wrong time to listen to his
conscience instead of the Holy Spirit!
_____G.A. Jarquin
There is nothing wrong with the command of God to 'stone the false prophet!' The problem is that the church has discerned wrongly and stoned the true prophet! That is why there are no more true prophets in our days, because as soon as they begin
their ministry, we rub them out. This is the reason that so many false prophets are running around, not just because it's the end of the age but because we have disobeyed God, His command, and killed off His prophets! We are like Herod, who in the midst of John the Baptist's ministry, chose a wrong time to listen to his
conscience instead of the Holy Spirit!
_____G.A. Jarquin
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thoughts on the Inauguration
I am hearing more and more conservative Christian leaders say they are sensing that we are to pray mightily for President Obama. As a Goldwater Republican (not a Reagan-Bush neo-con!), I also sense this call from God upon me. For a great prayer from Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for the new president, here is the site.
And Dan at Cerulean Sanctum has rightly, IMO, called on the carpet World Net Daily for their shameful editorial calling for us to pray that Obama fails. These people have not a clue to God's mind. Wonder if our prayers cause Obama to be successful and a blessing to the country despite his policies. Wonder if he changes his policies due to our prayers. Wouldn't that be a surprise and wouldn't that show God's power more than OUR power putting a "Christian" president into the White House. Oh, we already did that didn't we? And how did that work out?
You can read WND's shameful editorial here. And do read Dan's blog today, Links for This Inauguration Day.
And Dan at Cerulean Sanctum has rightly, IMO, called on the carpet World Net Daily for their shameful editorial calling for us to pray that Obama fails. These people have not a clue to God's mind. Wonder if our prayers cause Obama to be successful and a blessing to the country despite his policies. Wonder if he changes his policies due to our prayers. Wouldn't that be a surprise and wouldn't that show God's power more than OUR power putting a "Christian" president into the White House. Oh, we already did that didn't we? And how did that work out?
You can read WND's shameful editorial here. And do read Dan's blog today, Links for This Inauguration Day.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Interesting Evangelistic Idea
In a previous post I told about my short-lived adventures with Facebook.
But more power to those who use it to reach people for Christ. I thought this was such a neat idea. At the Online Missions Trip site youths are signing up for the "Trip."
So far, nearly 2,000 teens have signed up for the “Online Missions Trip” to bombard popular social networking sites with stories about God.
“[T]his is a two-week opportunity for all of us to bombard Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, whatever social places you go to online, with the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” explains Tim Schomoyer, the organizer of the missions trip and youth pastor at Alexandria Covenant Church in Minnesota, in the missions trip’s promotional video.
From Feb. 1-14, students from the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Bermuda and elsewhere will use the power of the internet to share Christ with people not only on the other side of the world but across the street and with friends in their school.
Pre-“trip” training on how to effectively get messages about Christ out using social networks begins on Jan. 11 and will continue until Jan. 31.
During the “trip,” participants will upload videos and photos, post links, and use status updates to share what God is doing in their lives. Participants will also write notes, send messages, post blogs, create invitations to their youth group, and do other things that will help bring God up in a conversation online.
You can find out more at the Online Missions Trip site.
But more power to those who use it to reach people for Christ. I thought this was such a neat idea. At the Online Missions Trip site youths are signing up for the "Trip."
So far, nearly 2,000 teens have signed up for the “Online Missions Trip” to bombard popular social networking sites with stories about God.
“[T]his is a two-week opportunity for all of us to bombard Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, whatever social places you go to online, with the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” explains Tim Schomoyer, the organizer of the missions trip and youth pastor at Alexandria Covenant Church in Minnesota, in the missions trip’s promotional video.
From Feb. 1-14, students from the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Bermuda and elsewhere will use the power of the internet to share Christ with people not only on the other side of the world but across the street and with friends in their school.
Pre-“trip” training on how to effectively get messages about Christ out using social networks begins on Jan. 11 and will continue until Jan. 31.
During the “trip,” participants will upload videos and photos, post links, and use status updates to share what God is doing in their lives. Participants will also write notes, send messages, post blogs, create invitations to their youth group, and do other things that will help bring God up in a conversation online.
You can find out more at the Online Missions Trip site.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
More on this A and B Dilemma
I want to continue to explore this matter of A and B. In previous posts I explained that for those of us over 60 who were the last generations to grow up under Cartesian Rationalistic Modernism, the Aristotlian logic of:
If A; then not B
or,
If B; then not A
where A is what we believe is true and B is the opposite of A which we believe is not true, makes total sense to us and we see the Bible in those terms, especially the epistles.
But as I also wrote previously, the younger postmodern generations - those under about 40 - have adopted the Hegelian Dialectic/logic of A AND B. In other words, you take a truth which we will call A. Hegel called this the Thesis. The opposite, B, he called the Anti-thesis (Antithesis). You kind of mush these togehter; or, take some elements from A and some from B and put them together, and you get C or what he called the Synthesis.
I am finding that the younger adults just automatically synthesize. Many in my generation call this Political Correctnesss and ultra-tolerance. But to the younger people I do think it is automatic in their subconcious. They just do it. Now here is the problem. Let's say you have an intergenerational Bible study group and you are teaching John 14:6 where Jesus says, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
This presents no problem to the older modernistic generations. But what about the younger ones? With their mnds they may even be able to make a mental assent of agreement. But is something else happening in their subconscious? Are they sensing a problem to them of an intolerance toward other religions plus someone stating they have THE truth. In fact they are saying they ARE the Truth. I wonder if there is conflict going on in those cases and which must be resolved inside our younger adults. And perhaps, is that why they so easily get under the emergent churches? The emergent churches don't make them choose one or the other. They synthesize. Do the younger evagnelicals then give up what we believe is truth because of this need to synthesize?
I would love to know your comments on this, especially if you are under 40.
By the way, I didn't mean to leave out those between 41 and 59. Those are mainly the Boomers (actually their ages are 45-63 this year) and they are the Bridge generation between the two philosphies of Modernism and Postmodernism.
If A; then not B
or,
If B; then not A
where A is what we believe is true and B is the opposite of A which we believe is not true, makes total sense to us and we see the Bible in those terms, especially the epistles.
But as I also wrote previously, the younger postmodern generations - those under about 40 - have adopted the Hegelian Dialectic/logic of A AND B. In other words, you take a truth which we will call A. Hegel called this the Thesis. The opposite, B, he called the Anti-thesis (Antithesis). You kind of mush these togehter; or, take some elements from A and some from B and put them together, and you get C or what he called the Synthesis.
I am finding that the younger adults just automatically synthesize. Many in my generation call this Political Correctnesss and ultra-tolerance. But to the younger people I do think it is automatic in their subconcious. They just do it. Now here is the problem. Let's say you have an intergenerational Bible study group and you are teaching John 14:6 where Jesus says, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me.
This presents no problem to the older modernistic generations. But what about the younger ones? With their mnds they may even be able to make a mental assent of agreement. But is something else happening in their subconscious? Are they sensing a problem to them of an intolerance toward other religions plus someone stating they have THE truth. In fact they are saying they ARE the Truth. I wonder if there is conflict going on in those cases and which must be resolved inside our younger adults. And perhaps, is that why they so easily get under the emergent churches? The emergent churches don't make them choose one or the other. They synthesize. Do the younger evagnelicals then give up what we believe is truth because of this need to synthesize?
I would love to know your comments on this, especially if you are under 40.
By the way, I didn't mean to leave out those between 41 and 59. Those are mainly the Boomers (actually their ages are 45-63 this year) and they are the Bridge generation between the two philosphies of Modernism and Postmodernism.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Quote of the Week
With the evangelical churches sliding into liberal Protestantism, I thought this was a great quote.
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
_____Vance Havner
Source: Andrew Strom
If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.
_____Vance Havner
Source: Andrew Strom
Monday, January 12, 2009
Democracy Now? Or Not?
For almost 30 years I've had an unusual hobby. I became interested in the whole subject of control and codependency in the early 80's. Whle most people study this in one environment - i.e. the home or in business or in the church or in governments, I studied it in all four of those environments. I began to realize after studying pre-WWII Germany and modern Russia and Eastern Europe that trying to foist democracy on nations either unwilling or not ready is futile. For example, think Iraq. Here is an Op/Ed piece in today's New York Times by By Simon Sebag Montefiore that supports this view,
It was always presumptuous to expect Russia, an ancient nation-state and proud empire of distinct culture with a tradition of autocracy, to become an Anglo-American democracy overnight — just as it is naïve to expect it in other parts of the world. The unspoken contract between ruler and subject is that in return for safety, prosperity and prestige, the Russians entrust power and cede democratic freedoms to their leaders.
For more information on this topic including good reding lists, see my other website, The Faustian Covenant.
It was always presumptuous to expect Russia, an ancient nation-state and proud empire of distinct culture with a tradition of autocracy, to become an Anglo-American democracy overnight — just as it is naïve to expect it in other parts of the world. The unspoken contract between ruler and subject is that in return for safety, prosperity and prestige, the Russians entrust power and cede democratic freedoms to their leaders.
For more information on this topic including good reding lists, see my other website, The Faustian Covenant.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
What Should We Call Them?
The more I study postmodern philosophy and especially how the "progresssives" (emergents) are applying it to Christianity, the more I see shades of much modernism in what is called Epicurean Humanism. What could be more modernist, social Darwinian and rationalistic socially then Epicurean Humanism? So, maybe the term postmodern isn't what we need here. D. A. Carson suggests calling them late moderns. And if you throw in the "Progressive's" bent toward liberal Protestantism, we could use Chris Rosebrough's term for them - post-modern liberals. Or, we could combine both and call them "late modern liberals." I think I like that last one. But postmodern? Probably not, until every trace of modernism is squeezed out.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
A Fascinating Chart of Traditional and the "New" Christian Beliefs
There is a great chart by Berit Kjos showing, (1)the traditional evangelical views of major doctrinal beliefs, (2) compared to what emergents think about these beliefs, (3) and how this is morphing even now with the World Religion "Spirituality."
Do check out this chart, it's fascinating. You can find it here.
Do check out this chart, it's fascinating. You can find it here.
Friday, January 09, 2009
The REAL Agenda of the "Progressives"
Those of us who were around in the 1960's as adults, remember the president's Great Society program. We remember how the libearl Protestants, reformed Jews and radical Catholics climbed on board. Conversion was never mentioned by these religious folks--just the words, "social justice." Sound familiar? And how did the Great Society work out? Well, look around you today.
I see the current emerging "evangelicals" making the same mistake. So do other folks including the guy over at Herescope. In a post entitled Using Poverty to Build the Global 3-Legged Stool, he talks about government-business-NGO's partnerships to give hordes of money to poor peoples in poor countries. This sounds nice but what this system overlooks IMO is that people do not change without conversion. Therefore, if you even can get the money/supplies to them, what happens tomorrow? History shows us that they come tomrorow with their cup empty again, needing US again. And that is why I keep warning that the New Christian Left/Emergent conglomeration will gain control over the poor without really helping them, whether here at hime (USA) oir elsewhere. I do have to admit that Brian McLaren talks about empowering the poor in his book, Everything Must Change. And that is a refreshing change from most of the emergent social justice rhetoric I hear. But again, I bring up the important question, if unconverted people are empowered, then what? Can they sustain it? Many of their cultural and religious practices are the very thing that impoverishes them. This isn't about the merits of capitalism by the way. And, I know I am being "culturally insensitive and intolerant. But historical facts are historical facts no matter how you change them.
To those who say, "What about China and India," I would answer that most citizens are not living the good life in those countries. And, now during the recession watch how it will erode away from those who are. In countries where Christianity is flourishing, historically, since the Reformation we've seen better lives (although not perfect), at least in those countries that have been Protestant. When the church got off, the countries suffered, especially the poor. Going into the Christian Left is the absolutely wrong thing to do, just like going into the Christian Right was the wrong thing to do. Anything that takes the church's attention off of the cross and conversion as the center will do harm to the society around it. When this is put back into place, THEN as a RESULT, the social justice will come, but in the right way.
Footnote: Here is my prophetic word--watch in the future how the emergent/New Left/Progressives will control the poor without doing much to improve their lot in life. Watch how the "Progressives" will get fat grants and nice salaries "studying" the poor and the homeless. Then, as now, they won't be able to afford to not have the poor and homeless, because then they couldn't get their fat salaries by "studying" their plight. So, there will be no incentive to remedy the situation, even if they could. Also, they wouldn't be able to shout and complain against the evil "fundamentalists" who oppress these poor people.
I see the current emerging "evangelicals" making the same mistake. So do other folks including the guy over at Herescope. In a post entitled Using Poverty to Build the Global 3-Legged Stool, he talks about government-business-NGO's partnerships to give hordes of money to poor peoples in poor countries. This sounds nice but what this system overlooks IMO is that people do not change without conversion. Therefore, if you even can get the money/supplies to them, what happens tomorrow? History shows us that they come tomrorow with their cup empty again, needing US again. And that is why I keep warning that the New Christian Left/Emergent conglomeration will gain control over the poor without really helping them, whether here at hime (USA) oir elsewhere. I do have to admit that Brian McLaren talks about empowering the poor in his book, Everything Must Change. And that is a refreshing change from most of the emergent social justice rhetoric I hear. But again, I bring up the important question, if unconverted people are empowered, then what? Can they sustain it? Many of their cultural and religious practices are the very thing that impoverishes them. This isn't about the merits of capitalism by the way. And, I know I am being "culturally insensitive and intolerant. But historical facts are historical facts no matter how you change them.
To those who say, "What about China and India," I would answer that most citizens are not living the good life in those countries. And, now during the recession watch how it will erode away from those who are. In countries where Christianity is flourishing, historically, since the Reformation we've seen better lives (although not perfect), at least in those countries that have been Protestant. When the church got off, the countries suffered, especially the poor. Going into the Christian Left is the absolutely wrong thing to do, just like going into the Christian Right was the wrong thing to do. Anything that takes the church's attention off of the cross and conversion as the center will do harm to the society around it. When this is put back into place, THEN as a RESULT, the social justice will come, but in the right way.
Footnote: Here is my prophetic word--watch in the future how the emergent/New Left/Progressives will control the poor without doing much to improve their lot in life. Watch how the "Progressives" will get fat grants and nice salaries "studying" the poor and the homeless. Then, as now, they won't be able to afford to not have the poor and homeless, because then they couldn't get their fat salaries by "studying" their plight. So, there will be no incentive to remedy the situation, even if they could. Also, they wouldn't be able to shout and complain against the evil "fundamentalists" who oppress these poor people.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
How To Stay Safe Today
This is light but the message is so good.
How to stay safe in the world today
1. Avoid riding in automobiles because they are responsible for 20% of all fatal accidents.
2. Do not stay home because 17% of all accidents occur in the home.
3. Avoid walking on streets or sidewalks because 14% of all accidents occur to pedestrians.
4. Avoid traveling by air, rail, or water because 16% of all accidents involve these forms of transportation.
5. Of the remaining 33%, 32% of all deaths occur in Hospitals. So, above all else, avoid hospitals.
But,
You will be pleased to learn that only .001% of all deaths occur in worship services in church and these are usually related to previous physical disorders. Therefore, logic tells us that the safest place for you to be at any given point in time is at church!
And Bible study is safe too. The percentage of deaths during Bible study is even less.
So, Attend church, and read your Bible. It could save your life!
--Source Unknown
How to stay safe in the world today
1. Avoid riding in automobiles because they are responsible for 20% of all fatal accidents.
2. Do not stay home because 17% of all accidents occur in the home.
3. Avoid walking on streets or sidewalks because 14% of all accidents occur to pedestrians.
4. Avoid traveling by air, rail, or water because 16% of all accidents involve these forms of transportation.
5. Of the remaining 33%, 32% of all deaths occur in Hospitals. So, above all else, avoid hospitals.
But,
You will be pleased to learn that only .001% of all deaths occur in worship services in church and these are usually related to previous physical disorders. Therefore, logic tells us that the safest place for you to be at any given point in time is at church!
And Bible study is safe too. The percentage of deaths during Bible study is even less.
So, Attend church, and read your Bible. It could save your life!
--Source Unknown
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Facebook and Me
Be sure to catch up with David at The Jollyblogger as he gives an account of his cancer progress. His latest post is interesting as he tells what he was thinking theolologically in the weeks before he found out about his illness.
A younger friend persuaded me to try the (in)famous Facebook. I think if you have grandchildren or children far away, for someone my age it would be nice. But frankly, I ended up a nervous wreck. I think you have to spend a lot of time on Facebook unless you just have a few "friends."
First of all, I felt like I was in a goldfish bowl. Everyone can know what I am doing. Second, everyone was wanting me to do strange stuff all the time. People asked for "taps," and "hugs," and other stuff that I out. So I had to stop and find out where to read about how to do these things. I felt if I didn't do all of this stuff then the "friends" would feel rejected. People are writing stuff on my wall. I didn't know if I had control over my wall. What if someone gets mad at me and writes really bad stuff on my wall? I lost sleep over this. Then one of my "friends" wanted me to do some kind of King Arthur thingy. He wanted me to contact all my friends and ask them to do it too so he could get "points." I wondered how my "friends" would feel about that. Then someone I never heard of asked to be my "friend". I had to contact all my friends and ask if anyone knew her. No one did. I wondered what to do as I didn't want this new person to feel rejected by me. By this time I knew I had to get out of this nightmare.....
So, I deleted my account. I thought that would be the end of it as I assumed that Facebook would alert my friends that I deleted my account. I assumed wrong. A "friend" emailed me in a panic and asked why I dropped her as a "friend." I then realized that people thought I had dumped them. So before church last Sunday, I was madly at my computer early in the morning trying to remember all of my "friends," emailing them to explain what had happened.
I now understand why I read about high school girls attempting or even successfully completing suicide when someone they know on Facebook will not allow them to be their "friend." Or, when someone's "friends" stab them in the back with some kind of malicious gossip. This is serious business in the high school world (and I imagine somewhat in the college world too). I am sure there are positive things about Facebook, although I don't have a clue as to what they are. You could have a personal blog page and not be as exposed or risk so much rejection, or risk rejecting others. I will opt for this blog. Facebook will need to be the domain of others.
A younger friend persuaded me to try the (in)famous Facebook. I think if you have grandchildren or children far away, for someone my age it would be nice. But frankly, I ended up a nervous wreck. I think you have to spend a lot of time on Facebook unless you just have a few "friends."
First of all, I felt like I was in a goldfish bowl. Everyone can know what I am doing. Second, everyone was wanting me to do strange stuff all the time. People asked for "taps," and "hugs," and other stuff that I out. So I had to stop and find out where to read about how to do these things. I felt if I didn't do all of this stuff then the "friends" would feel rejected. People are writing stuff on my wall. I didn't know if I had control over my wall. What if someone gets mad at me and writes really bad stuff on my wall? I lost sleep over this. Then one of my "friends" wanted me to do some kind of King Arthur thingy. He wanted me to contact all my friends and ask them to do it too so he could get "points." I wondered how my "friends" would feel about that. Then someone I never heard of asked to be my "friend". I had to contact all my friends and ask if anyone knew her. No one did. I wondered what to do as I didn't want this new person to feel rejected by me. By this time I knew I had to get out of this nightmare.....
So, I deleted my account. I thought that would be the end of it as I assumed that Facebook would alert my friends that I deleted my account. I assumed wrong. A "friend" emailed me in a panic and asked why I dropped her as a "friend." I then realized that people thought I had dumped them. So before church last Sunday, I was madly at my computer early in the morning trying to remember all of my "friends," emailing them to explain what had happened.
I now understand why I read about high school girls attempting or even successfully completing suicide when someone they know on Facebook will not allow them to be their "friend." Or, when someone's "friends" stab them in the back with some kind of malicious gossip. This is serious business in the high school world (and I imagine somewhat in the college world too). I am sure there are positive things about Facebook, although I don't have a clue as to what they are. You could have a personal blog page and not be as exposed or risk so much rejection, or risk rejecting others. I will opt for this blog. Facebook will need to be the domain of others.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Three streams will begin shortly to converge together to make what I think will be one big mass "Christian" apostate movement. One stream is the emergent village and another is the politically-oriented New Christian Left. Already they are intertwining with more and more new books touching on their general theme - social and economic Marxism with a center of it being the social justice atonement instead of the substitutionary atonement for individuals. Brian McLaren touched slightly on this with his book, Everything Must Change. You can read my review of it by following the links below. For a anti-emergent, I felt was very fair in my review. And now Rob Bell seems to be following suit with his new book coming out in June. Oh, and have you heard that Doug Pagitt has announced he is running for his state legislature (Minnesota)? And, that is fine for a pastor to run for office. I have no problems with that. My problem is with the agenda he might be bringing. Will it too smack of Marxism? The third movement, and one that has been around a very long time (and one I grew up in) is of course the liberal Protestants. It's only a matter of time IMO that they will come begging the emergent/new left to allow them into the "game." Of course most of them will have to cede leadership to the younger emergents. But with the massive closures of liberal Protestant mainline churches, I feel they have no other way to go except to hold out a begging hand to the emergents and hope they will look upon them kindly.
Sometimes Rick Warren surprises all of us. He correctly says that the mainline churches are into the Social Gospel, which he says is "Marxism in Christian clothing." Unfortunately, Mr. Warren doesn't go on to speak about the social gospel of the emergent church, which by the way is the very same.
You can read about his interview with Beliefnet here.
My review fof Brian McLaren's book, Everything Must Change:
Part 1 - http://fcov.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-of-street-faith-and-everything.html
Part 2 - http://fcov.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-of-everything-must-change-part-3.html
Part 3 - http://fcov.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-of-everything-must-change-part-5.html
Sometimes Rick Warren surprises all of us. He correctly says that the mainline churches are into the Social Gospel, which he says is "Marxism in Christian clothing." Unfortunately, Mr. Warren doesn't go on to speak about the social gospel of the emergent church, which by the way is the very same.
You can read about his interview with Beliefnet here.
My review fof Brian McLaren's book, Everything Must Change:
Part 1 - http://fcov.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-of-street-faith-and-everything.html
Part 2 - http://fcov.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-of-everything-must-change-part-3.html
Part 3 - http://fcov.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-of-everything-must-change-part-5.html
Monday, January 05, 2009
Intergenerational Worship
I will continue my review of D. A. Carson's book, Becoming Conversant with Emergent in a about a week. You'll just have to wait to find out why the wait....:)
I am a HUGE fan of bringing the generations together,and also singles and marrieds, within churches. So, when I saw this in Ministry Today magazine (a magazine for Christian leaders), I was thrilled that maybe....just maybe.....others are sensing this same need too. And if that is true, then maybe...just maybe....some will begin to do something about it.
"For years, churches have catered their services to different worship styles, age groups and individual preferences. Yet lately many churches are discovering that intergenerational worship can be a connective point that reduces fragmentation and draws families back into relationships with one another.
Cedar Mill Bible Church started an intergenerational worship service where all the members worship together. Thatcher [Chris Thatcher, pastor of connections and small groups at the church] said his own spiritual experience was strengthened when, instead of his young son being in the children's program elsewhere on the campus, they celebrated communion together for the first time.
'I was thrilled, and it was a tangible example of supporting intergenerational unity,' he said. 'We're going to keep doing that--anything and everything we can do to support unity as it relates to families.'"
I am a HUGE fan of bringing the generations together,and also singles and marrieds, within churches. So, when I saw this in Ministry Today magazine (a magazine for Christian leaders), I was thrilled that maybe....just maybe.....others are sensing this same need too. And if that is true, then maybe...just maybe....some will begin to do something about it.
"For years, churches have catered their services to different worship styles, age groups and individual preferences. Yet lately many churches are discovering that intergenerational worship can be a connective point that reduces fragmentation and draws families back into relationships with one another.
Cedar Mill Bible Church started an intergenerational worship service where all the members worship together. Thatcher [Chris Thatcher, pastor of connections and small groups at the church] said his own spiritual experience was strengthened when, instead of his young son being in the children's program elsewhere on the campus, they celebrated communion together for the first time.
'I was thrilled, and it was a tangible example of supporting intergenerational unity,' he said. 'We're going to keep doing that--anything and everything we can do to support unity as it relates to families.'"
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church - Part 4
Contining my review of probably one of the best books I've read in years. It's by D. A. Carson and is about the Emergent church and in particular, postmodernism -- the philosophy.
Carson describes what he calls five 'correlatives" in our society today that is strengthening the postmodern position. I think as you read his list of five, you'll also begin to see the correlation between what is happening in the postmodern church. After each of Carson's points, I put in my two cents "commentary".
First, he lists syncretism. Here is how I describe this -- take a little from here and a little from there and a little from over there and mix them all together. What I see happening is each "ingredient" can lose it's distinctive "flavor" as it becomes enmeshed with the other ingredients. Now sometimes this is all right and neccessary, but at other times it isn't and can be a disaster. Often, we see this in baking. I make chocolate chip cookies a lot but I will be darned if I can ever taste that baking soda I put in. One time I accidently left it out. The cookie was edible but you could tell something was missing. So perhaps, this ingredient is important. But wonder if I put salsa into the cookie dough. I think you get my point. We need to be careful what we synthesize. And this is one of my concerns and gripes with the emergent trend. So the challenge here I think is to be careful in what you do synthesize when it comes to Christian belief/doctrine.
Second, he lists secularization. Carson points out that secularization has marginalized (pushed to the periphery, in other words), religion. Where religion in a society was very much in the middle, today it 's not, in the western world at least. This of course presents a great challenge for Christianity which is very used to being right smack in the center of things in the western world. The big question I see here is should we get it back into the middle, as the Christian Right tried to do? Or is there some other way we should be tackling this? Right now, I don't have a good answer to that question, but it's certainly something I want to work on.
Third, he lists Bibical illiteracy. His comments on this are very simple and should be echoed in every church in this land. He says that where Biblical literacy abounds, postmdoernism doesn't get a toehold in the church or in the land. But where Biblical illiteracy abounds......well, I'm sure you can finish his thought. I have no further comments to his as this is soooo right on.
Fourth, he lists ill-defined spirituality. He says that this is essentially the New Age influence and that even if Christians are tolerant of other religions, in this atmosphere, saying their way is the only way to God will still be considered intolerant. Throughout the book, Carson restates many times the intolerant stance of those who say they are the most tolerant. My comment here is simply that we see in the church today the New Age influence in things like contemplative spirituality, which IMO is ill-defined, vague "Christianity." And, it seems to me that this is caused by poor Bible preaching and teaching....in other words, going back to Biblical illiteracy again. Another issue is why this "new agey" stuff is coming into the church. That will be another blog post soon.
Fifth, he lists gobalization. At first I didn't quite understand why he would list this. But, his angle is the shrinking of the world and cultures so that we rethink our own culutre's values. In other words, I think what he is getting at is the notion that maybe Christian cultures aren't the best after all. Perhaps that guy over in whateverland who worships the tree has something that we don't have. In other words, the even-ing out of all cultural and religious beliefs and mores so that nothing is really THE truth because now there are many truths. I'm reminded that this began in the late 19th century and gained ground in the 20th among anthropologists and then the new field of anthropological sociology. Think Margaret Mead.
D. A. Carson is sooo great, especially to this left-brained Cartesian modernist........LOL.
Carson describes what he calls five 'correlatives" in our society today that is strengthening the postmodern position. I think as you read his list of five, you'll also begin to see the correlation between what is happening in the postmodern church. After each of Carson's points, I put in my two cents "commentary".
First, he lists syncretism. Here is how I describe this -- take a little from here and a little from there and a little from over there and mix them all together. What I see happening is each "ingredient" can lose it's distinctive "flavor" as it becomes enmeshed with the other ingredients. Now sometimes this is all right and neccessary, but at other times it isn't and can be a disaster. Often, we see this in baking. I make chocolate chip cookies a lot but I will be darned if I can ever taste that baking soda I put in. One time I accidently left it out. The cookie was edible but you could tell something was missing. So perhaps, this ingredient is important. But wonder if I put salsa into the cookie dough. I think you get my point. We need to be careful what we synthesize. And this is one of my concerns and gripes with the emergent trend. So the challenge here I think is to be careful in what you do synthesize when it comes to Christian belief/doctrine.
Second, he lists secularization. Carson points out that secularization has marginalized (pushed to the periphery, in other words), religion. Where religion in a society was very much in the middle, today it 's not, in the western world at least. This of course presents a great challenge for Christianity which is very used to being right smack in the center of things in the western world. The big question I see here is should we get it back into the middle, as the Christian Right tried to do? Or is there some other way we should be tackling this? Right now, I don't have a good answer to that question, but it's certainly something I want to work on.
Third, he lists Bibical illiteracy. His comments on this are very simple and should be echoed in every church in this land. He says that where Biblical literacy abounds, postmdoernism doesn't get a toehold in the church or in the land. But where Biblical illiteracy abounds......well, I'm sure you can finish his thought. I have no further comments to his as this is soooo right on.
Fourth, he lists ill-defined spirituality. He says that this is essentially the New Age influence and that even if Christians are tolerant of other religions, in this atmosphere, saying their way is the only way to God will still be considered intolerant. Throughout the book, Carson restates many times the intolerant stance of those who say they are the most tolerant. My comment here is simply that we see in the church today the New Age influence in things like contemplative spirituality, which IMO is ill-defined, vague "Christianity." And, it seems to me that this is caused by poor Bible preaching and teaching....in other words, going back to Biblical illiteracy again. Another issue is why this "new agey" stuff is coming into the church. That will be another blog post soon.
Fifth, he lists gobalization. At first I didn't quite understand why he would list this. But, his angle is the shrinking of the world and cultures so that we rethink our own culutre's values. In other words, I think what he is getting at is the notion that maybe Christian cultures aren't the best after all. Perhaps that guy over in whateverland who worships the tree has something that we don't have. In other words, the even-ing out of all cultural and religious beliefs and mores so that nothing is really THE truth because now there are many truths. I'm reminded that this began in the late 19th century and gained ground in the 20th among anthropologists and then the new field of anthropological sociology. Think Margaret Mead.
D. A. Carson is sooo great, especially to this left-brained Cartesian modernist........LOL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
