It's a Start...

[Tom Wetmore]

So, what's our Church doing about postmodernism?

Check it out - re:frame

[Nan]

My son - an organisational psychologist who is not a member of the church - says postmodernism is also past tense. This was some time ago when we had had some Adventist Forum meetings on the issue, I am not sure what he thinks the current 'thing' is called.

[Stan]

Tom

Check out www.lifedevelopment.ca for some interesting stuff.

We are creating, some life Development Cafes in British Columbia

[Neil D]

Tom,

Just a curiosity question........

Do you truely think that our church needs to deal with secularism? perhaps I don't understand that nearly as well as you are attempting to communicate....

To me, I think the church probably needs to look at getting out a different empphasis...but our audience tends to be pretty religious as opposed to maybe 20 years ago...when we needed to look at secularism then....

nice website though

[there buster]

Postmodernism as an academic phenomenon may be somewhat on the wane. As a cultural phenomenon it is spreading like wildfire, including inside the church.

Today's audience in NA, Europe, and the South Pacific is more spiritual, but less Christian. The only difference between NA and the rest of the world is the rate of change. The US is more religious than the rest, but less than it was a couple of decades ago.

Everywhere, including within the church, a more synchretistic and vague 'spirituality' is taking the place of religion. This is neither good nor bad, as both 'spirituality' and traditional religion often act as a sort of dead-virus vaccination against the gospel.

However, we must approach those with the more contemporary mindset in a completely different way than those with the traditional religious mindset.

The GC mandated that the secular/postmodern study group be established in 1990. It was finally started in 2003.

[Woody]

Quote:

The GC mandated that the secular/postmodern study group be established in 1990. It was finally started in 2003.

I would hope that you are a part of this .... ???

[Stan]

Post-moderns... do not like silly answers to serious question.

An Example... when I was joining

Question: You can watch movies on TV but not in the Theaters? All kinds of silly answers, often ending with, "If you REALLY loved Jesus you would understand".

(Actually there are a lot of good reasons why not to watch either, but those come from outside of scriptures)

Question: You mean if she does not take off her wedding ring she does not love Jesus as much as you do? AND why is that?

(Actually there are a lot of good reasons why not to some other Jewelry, but those answers are from outside of the Bible as well)

Question: The second Commandment says... but you say it is ok to hang of picture of your God on your wall? Silly answers as well, similar answers as why people keep Sunday...

Post Moderns say, "If it works for you fine.... but it means nothing to me"

[Stan]

We have the Big 28, we do not need to kick them out, some of them we need to put a new frame around...

Check this out http://www.reframe.info/ and post your thoughts here.

[there buster]

When Jim Coffin was in charge--till this last summer-- I worked with him. Now that Miroslav Pujic is the head, I have not been contacted.

I do write regularly for Life.info, the magazine outreach of lifedevelopment.com, on which all this is based.

However, next Feb. or so a new book on Postmodernism will be coming out, written by Jon Paulien, in which I wrote one chapter and another is based on some of my work. I will likely be listed as "by Jon Paulien with Ed Dickerson."

Right now, it's just not all that organized.

[Gerr]

Responding to no one in particular but posing this question to everyone:

Is it some new methodology that will reach the hearts and minds of the post-moderns? the post-post-moderns? the post-war generation? the x-generation? the baby boomers? Is that what will lighten the earth with the Lord's glory?

Gerry

[Woody]

Perhaps we could go back to the 1800s methodology. Would that draw or repel ?

[John317]

Perhaps we could go back to the 1800s methodology. Would that draw or repel ?

No, we need to go back further: what's needed is the "primitive godliness" of Pentecost of the first century AD, don't you agree?

I don't think we should be after great numbers. It's the quality of the commitment, not how many come to meetings or make claims, that really counts.

Methods can help but what's absolutely necessary is the Holy Spirit to open people's hearts and minds. Without Him, everything else is useless.

[Woody]

Ellen White's 1800s methodology was to try NEW methods. She was one of those revolutionaries.

[John317]

I saw where you wrote about taking classes by Lynn Mallory at La Sierra. He taught a wonderful class in Evangelism. Did you ever take it? It had lots of good things about different methodologies. He was very open-minded when it came to finding successful ways of conveying the gospel. (The first time I ever met him was during a series he was holding in the Bay Area in 1973. It was based on archeology, a favorite subject of his.)

[Gerr]

Perhaps we could go back to the 1800s methodology. Would that draw or repel ?

Please enlighten as to what the 1800 methodology was.

Gerry

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Perhaps we could go back to the 1800s methodology. Would that draw or repel ?

No, we need to go back further: what's needed is the "primitive godliness" of Pentecost of the first century AD, don't you agree?

That's what I was driving at, thank you. I would not for a moment denigrate the importance of methodology, but outside of North America and Western Europe, what do the rest of world know or care about post-moderns, gen-x'ers, etc? Methodology will only go so far, but without the Spirit and Spirit-filled people, will continue to have scanty harvest. How sophisticated were the fishermen, the tax-collectors, the nationalist rebels who comprised the core of Christ's followers, who dealt with the most sophisticated Greeks and Romans of their day, who, nonethelss, turned the world upside down?

Gerry

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Perhaps we could go back to the 1800s methodology. Would that draw or repel ?

Please enlighten as to what the 1800 methodology was.

Gerry

[Neil D]

Ok, guys and gals....

You're dancing around the subject but you ain't defining anything... It doesn't seem you are 'hitting the nail on the head' and you keep missing it..or you all are afraid to put your opinion out there to be picked appart...So, let me ask a few questions...

What do you mean by the phrase ' "primitive godliness" of Pentecost of the first century AD' and what do you mean by the phrase "1800s methodology" and what " NEW methods" were tried by EGW and succeeded or failed?

[Gerr]

Thanks Neil. That reminds me of a guy who was asked what he believed. He said I believe what the Pastor believes. And when asked what his Pastor believed, he answered that the Pastor believed what he believed. And when asked what they both believed, he said they believed the same thing!

Gerry

[there buster]

Quote:

outside of North America and Western Europe, what do the rest of world know or care about post-moderns, gen-x'ers, etc?

Wherever people reach a certain level of affluence and education, they are post-modern. There are post moderns in Nairobi, Manaus, Singapore, Mumbay.

As the world becomes more affluent, the proportion of people we cannot reach with traditional methods increases.

The crucial issue is that we are not reaching our own children.

It is not a matter of ethnicity, race, or national origin. We are not reaching the indigenous populations of NA, Europe, or the South Pacific (Australia, NZ). Virtually all of the growth in numbers in NA comes from 1st generation immigrants.

The other huge issue is what Phillip Jenkins has written about in terms of 'the global south' and the way it experiences and believes in Christianity.

There is this HUGE gap between the majority of Christians today (who live in Africa), and the growing postmodern world. And most SDA's, as demonstrated by this thread, are ignoring the problem.

Brian McLaren has written a book titled "Exercises in Missing the Point." I don't buy everything that he says, but the title surely describes the typical debate over this issue in most churches today.

Engaging in a lengthy discussion of 'primitive Godliness' and what Ellen White did is mainly missing the point. In fact, Redwood is right, to wit:How did the Millerite movement gain momentum?

Quote:

The Millerite movement gained momentum by utilizing the latest technologies of the day, of mass communication. The high speed printing press, for example, was very important in promoting pamphlets and newsletters and newspapers and colored charts that illustrated Miller's system.

But I'm sure this won't settle anything. Instead, we will continue to requantify the precise number of angels who march (they surely must not dance!) on the head of the methodological pin, instead of actually finding out how to reach our own children's generation.

[Woody]

Hi Ed ... Have you read the book "If I were the Devil?" Contempory Challenges Facing Adventism? My wife and I just started reading this together. WOW!

It starts off talking about the post modern world and how our current organizational structure is not fit to meet the challenges of our world. He pulls no punches. He attacks pretty strongly the Unions and Conferences and proposes some very radical suggestions.

I have SO much respect for George Knight. And now that he is retired from the Seminary ... I guess he feels he is free to speak his mind. Earlier this year I took a class at the seminary from him. My wife and I enjoyed it so much. My wife was taking it for credit. I was just auditing it. He spilled some of his radical ideas but this book has even more.

Knight is probably more prepared to make suggestions for our church than anyone out there. He is probably the formost scholar out there on SDA History. Who else could be in a better position to help direct our church. Other than that author who frequents this forum.

You know ... the one who wrote "Grounds for Belief"?

[olger]

Post-modernism is alive and well. One of its driving forces is the demand of nominal members to be regarded as equal to self-denying members. They find this demand to be reinforced in the wider currents of society, and thus feel free to pick & choose among the doctrines of the church, cafeteria style.

Another identifying aspect of postmodernism:

In the past (modern world) nature was thought to be an inert object, to be used and manipulated by mankind for the purposes of improving civilization. Today, nature is being invested with some sort of new-age deity, hence the growing fervor of environmentalism. That's far from an inert object, isn't it?

In the church today there is hostility toward the 28. First, those who differ with one or more of them would naturally oppose them, such as those who dismiss a 7-day creation. Others, influenced by the spirit of the 60’s oppose a statement of faith because they are antiestablishment, opposed to any kind of organization. They are the “free spirits” from the 60s. People not even alive in the 60s may have that orientation because much of it has been built into contemporary society.

Often these are the people who see in corporations a conspiratorial plot to extract from the people their money and their freedom. A lot of them promote “greenpeace” type causes or are into a form of New Age.

Then we have those among us who, in the free spirit mode argue that any statement of faith is restrictive, that our unity must rest in a pooling of diversities, each doing his own thing. This is a segment of the postmodern philosophy that argues that each person is creating reality within his/her own mind, therefore all points of view are equally valid.

Their sole virtue is non-judgmentalism, so of course any kind of statement seems to draw a judgment, for it defines some things as correct, others incorrect. The same mentality also dissolves all absolutes as well, so we are left living without solid guidelines to life.

What is needed?

What is needed is conversion. A return to the Word and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This will keep us both inspired and humble.

olger

[carolaa]

In the past (modern world) nature was thought to be an inert object, to be used and manipulated by mankind for the purposes of improving civilization. Today, nature is being invested with some sort of new-age deity, hence the growing fervor of environmentalism. That's far from an inert object, isn't it?

In the past, many Christians were arrogant and disrespectful about their role with regard to nature. Nature is not inert, nor has it ever been. Yes, today some go to extremes to protect nature, but that is to be expected after we have used and abused it like we have. It is not wrong to want to respect that which God has given us. What we have done in the past WAS wrong. Trashing the earth and recklessly wasting resources does not honor God. Being concerned about the environment is the responsible thing to do, both to honor God and to protect what He has given us for our children and grandchildren who may have to still live here.

[Neil D]

Post-modernism is alive and well. One of its driving forces is the demand of nominal members to be regarded as equal to self-denying members. They find this demand to be reinforced in the wider currents of society, and thus feel free to pick & choose among the doctrines of the church, cafeteria style.

[snip]

In the church today there is hostility toward the 28 [a reference to current doctrines held].

[snip]

What is needed?

What is needed is conversion. A return to the Word and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This will keep us both inspired and humble.

A most jugdemental statement, if ever there was one. And the hostility is from traditionalists who insist that all 28 doctrines that we know be passed on in the same way that they understood them. After all, they know THE TRUTH and have had it sanctified by EGW.

I am reminded that doctrine MUST be dynamic and not stagnent, otherwise we become like the Catholic church...dead, in both spirit and in faith.

Conversion is definately needed...unfortunately, those who think they know the Truth, are in greater need of a conversion those of us who are searching and don't have all of the answers.

Tis an irony most profound....

[there buster]

I haven't read the entire book yet, but I did read the article in the Review on which the book is based.

George is a great guy, but he would tell you that I snore louder.