Postmodern Love?

Postmodernism has been a key part of conversation in the Church in the past few years. For many of us, it has taken shape in the "emerging church" movement (or "conversation"). While much of the "emerging conversation" appeals to me, I have concerns as well. I detailed some aspects of "emerging Christianity" in this post from March 2007.

Some aspects of emerging postmodern Christianity with which I agree are:

* the embrace of current technology as a means to live and communicate;

* the reduction of dogmatics to an essential core;

* an awareness of popular culture and the rejection of what has become a very bizarre evangelical Christian subculture, with its own books, music, and discourse;

* an emphasis on covenant community and, thus, on the sacramental life.

I have concerns about postmodern Christianity as well, such as:

* a rejection of symbol and meaningful tradition;

* a rejection of metanarrative;

* a tendency to ignore some essential doctrines which may or may not be viewed as "current";

* a desire to be current.

In Western PA Conference, we have several congregations which are attenpting to develop postmodern communities which may or may not actually be postmodern, which is fine. The only community of faith I know of in our area which is certainly postmodern in Hot Metal Bridge. But even this community of faith is on the "right wing" of the emergeing movement, as the pastors are theologically solidly evangelical (though again, they've rejected, in many ways, the evangelical subculture). My own opinion is that an established congregation, steeped in modernity, cannot birth a postmodern community, definitionally; it would be like a tiger giving birth to a shark.

Should we seek to begin more distinctly postmodern communities of faith?

I have two primary concerns about postmodern Christianity.

First, our desire to "hip", "relevant", "current", "sexy" and "now" can hurt more than help. I look at the recent trials of Radiant Life, a community of faith birthed in a mall. It seems to me that we as a Conference saw something "cool" and jumped at it, without proper theological reflection or planning appropriately. As a result, the congregation failed and the family which was appointed to work the launch has been hurt; not the Church at its best.

I write these words as a self-avowed geek who is keenly aware that I am the least hip person on the planet (a fact to which my teenage children can speak to ad nauseum). The gospel is already perfect and relevant. We don't need to hip it up. While looking for different ways to spread the gospel is good, we need better exegesis far more than we need better locations. Biblical reflection will acccomplish much more than strategic planning. Doctrinal obedience and faithful living are far greater tools than the latest fads; confession of sins and the Eucharist are far more effective than the latest technology.

I don't need to make the gospel more relevant; Jesus already made it completely relevant on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. I need to be more faithful in my living out of his gospel and in my sharing of this transformational news. Method can never trump message.

Our desire to be hip and current should not override other valid issues, and far too often, I fear that it does.

"The church is looking for better methods;
God is looking for better men." - E. M. Bounds

Second, those of us who call ourselves evangelical need to remember the failures of modernism.

Evangelicalism is, for me, "the old, old story", shared by the apostles and the Church fathers, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Asbury, and many others. It is not synonomous with fundamentalism or Methodism or Presbyterianism or Pentecostalism or Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but it can include the best parts of each of these "subgroups". It is, for me, the faithful transmission of Jesus' gospel.

Modernism is something else. For me, it is synonomous with the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher and his theological descendents. It dominated the Church in the late 19th century and most of the 20th century, and still holds sway over denominational leadership. It was driven by a desire to be hip, current, and relevant, and is now tired and old. Much of the most vital current Christianity is a reaction against modernism.

Modernism has not produced any great denominations, nor has it resulted in astounding missional success. Those who have embraced modernism have presided over the decline of the western Church, but were blind to their failings because of their
desire to be relevant.

We should be very careful about tying our boats to the uncertain ship that is postmodernism. It suffers from many of the same weaknesses of its parent, and has an uncertain future.

Let's go back to our roots instead...the Bible, the Church fathers and, for United Methodists, the Articles of Religion, the sermons and explanatory notes of John Wesley, even the hymns of Charles Wesley. Surely, these are far better guides than the latest philosophical fad.

And if we are able to stop caring about our own relevance and hipness, maybe we'll realize just how current and relevant Jesus already is...and has always been.