Post Moderns

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think "Postmodernism" is a silly term....another way to pidgeon-hole society into discrete sections. From what I've read and seen, it can mean just about anything someone wants it to mean. I don't think it's a good frame of reference.

whew, got that out of my system... I feel better now.

[John317]

It's that we are not listening right to them and willing adjust our presentation.

How would you adjust the Adventist message so they will listen and accept it?

Some have suggested that the gospel needs to be demythologized-- that all the miracles and references to the supernatural should be removed.

I believe the only answer is the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the same as it was in Acts 1: 8, 14. Notice Jesus didn't say that they should go study in order to know how to make the gospel more attractive to the people. Rather He said, "Wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit." Nothing else was necessary.

I think it's the same today. When people's lives are completely surrendered to Christ and He's able to send the Latter Rain, they'll proclaim the truth with power that will result in genuine conversion because the Holy Spirit will be working with them. Until then, all the adjusting in the world won't convert people to Christ in a way that will prepare them for the second coming. What the church needs is not better writers and pyschologists but men and women who are humble and willing to let themselves be used of the Holy Spirit. I'm not suggesting it isn't important to study technique and psycology and how to deliver a good, persuasive sermon, but those things are not the real answer. Acts 2 and 3 proves this.

[SivartM]

Those who want the gospel to be de-mythologized are modern, not postmodern. Modernism is about science and reason and proof. Postmodernism is basically about stories.

[Bravus]

Was going to drop in to note it, but SivartM already has it covered: the 'demythologising' movement in theology was part of a response to what Paulien calls 'secular modernism', and is much less of an issue for postmoderns.

The 'about stories and relationships' characterisation of postmodernism is accurate but a bit shallow: the defining characteristic of postmodernism, according to Lyotard, is 'suspicion of grand narratives'. That is, postmoderns are wary of grand stories that claim to be complete and to explain everything. They recognise that there are hundreds of religions, all claiming to be the One True Faith, and hundreds of political ideologies making similar claims. They have also seen the way secular modernists like Dawkins try to claim that science can explain everything, and rejected that. Rather, they see others' narratives as containing mixed truth and error, and see that there is a process of mutually listening to be done to extract the truth.

This is not a million miles from the approach of most Christians, who see all faiths but one as a mixture of truth and error...

[John317]

Those who want the gospel to be de-mythologized are modern, not postmodern. Modernism is about science and reason and proof. Postmodernism is basically about stories.

OK, so you see postmoderns as being more influenced by stories than by science and reason.

It seems, then, that you understand the postmoderns have no problem accepting the miracles and supernatural in the biblical stories.

Does anyone have an idea when the post-postmoderns may come into fashion and how their beliefs will be different from those of the postmoderns and the moderns?

I'm pretty sure I'm a pre-modern or maybe even a pre-premodern, then, since I accept the miracles and supernatural and don't believe in demythologizing the gospel like Rudolf Bultmann taught.

But if I, who live in the 21st century, am either a pre-modern or pre-premodern, what was the first century Jesus and Paul, I wonder?

[SivartM]

It seems you understand the postmoderns have no problem accepting the miracles and supernatural in the biblical stories.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Most Adventists are definitely modernists; they have Bible doctrines down to a science, while postmodernists would think more about practice.

Unless you can back that up with a valid study, one should never use the term "most"..... one could say, "many"... but not "most," because you don't know that for a fact. Do you?

[Bravus]

Once again, it's really very useful to listen to Jon Paulien's talk: he distinguishes between Christian modernism and secular modernism, and it's a very useful distinction.

Confusion about 'post-postmodernism' is linked with confusion about it representing an historical period: as SivartM said, it's a philosophical stance rather than a time period. It's possible to argue that it is also linked with the 'end of history and geography', and able to contain within itself pretty much any future philosophical stances, so is unlikely to be supplanted. It might be complemented by new worldviews, though: as modernism of both kinds and pre-modernism have been supplanted.

Interestingly, this whole scheme is post-Greek philosophy, and while Paul was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy, Jesus really wasn't, and was much more holistic and less dialectical than Paul. The Old Testament writers similarly don't fit on this scheme at all, really... which is why we do the Bible a great disservice by reading it through a modernist lens.

[John317]

Postmodernists wouldn't necessarily have any less of a problem accepting Biblical miracles as they would the Epic of Gilgamesh.

In what sense do postmodernists accept the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I have read it a number of times so I don't accept it on the same level as I accept the Bible narrative. It is obvious that the Epic of Gilgamesh is not intended to be accepted in that way, and I don't know of anyone alive today who believes the Epic is true in the historical sense. In that sense it is myth. Like the Greek and Roman myths, it is loosely based on some historical events, but those events have been mythologized. This is what some people say happened to the events narrated in both the Old and New Testments.

[John317]

And just because you don't want to demythologize the Bible, that does not mean that you aren't a modernist. Most Adventists are definitely modernists; they have Bible doctrines down to a science, while postmodernists would think more about practice.

But by that definition, wouldn't the Jews' of Jesus' day also be modernists, since they had Bible doctrines down to an even more detailed science? For instance, the Pharisees and particularly the Essenes.

In what way do the postmodernists think more about practice than doctrine? Do you mean they are more likely to be swayed by the gospel if they like how it is practiced than by a theologically pure system?

If so, that could mean they are looking more to people's actual lives and behavior than to teachings.

I see both as very important, but there's always a problem with believing something because of people's behavior. Behavior itself can't prove a belief is true any more than behavior by itself can prove a belief is untrue.

[John317]

Does anyone have an idea when the post-postmoderns may come into fashion and how their beliefs will be different from those of the postmoderns and the moderns?

Quote:

You don't just create new worldviews by adding prefixes and suffixes.

Yes, that's true. I was being somewhat facetious.

Every generation thinks it has the correct paradigm and that the previous generations had the wool pulled over its eyes. Postmoderns see this and therefore conclude that maybe nobody knows the truth if the truth indeed exists at all. It's almost certain that there will be a reaction against this idea and that a future generation will return to the view once held by the modernists.

Solomon said, "And the sun also rises and returns..."

[jasd]

>>You don't just create new worldviews by adding prefixes and suffixes.<<

Ahh, am so relieved – as I’m way beyond post-post-lapsemodern..., half-baked and embracing the thought that maybe St Paul had the right idea:

1 Cor 3:7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.

Well, that being the case – maybe all that Gd needs to increase are .Orgs adding fried chicken with baking powder biscuits and gravy to the menus of their potlucks – that the environment may be made more conducive for 'planting and watering'. Just suggesting... [/salivating]

On a more serious note: to plant the seed of Christ and Him crucified – the modern church needs a more relevant hook; per example, it might seek to ‘plant’ upon another tier level (terrace) – as did the Org when it first utilized the hook of a ‘Seventh-day Sabbath’ and the ‘IJ’.

[phkrause]

So than if postmoderns favor stories, than they should have no problem with the Bible. Because that's exactly what Jesus did, he told many parables, little stories.

[Dr. Shane]

postmoderns aren't people who are young and like coffee shops. Postmodernism is philosophical. It's not synonymous with "contemporary".

A very good friend of mine is a post-modern. He is 71 years old. I have many friends like him that I have met in 12-step support groups. I find it much easier to reach folks like this over a cup of coffee than at a prayer meeting. Few if any would come to a prayer meeting. But they will go out for a cup of coffee. I have also found they will go to a contemporary concert too.

Post-modernism is a philosophy but much of it is wrong. We are not going to change our Biblical beliefs to attract them. We have the truth (that being the Bible). They don't believe there is a depository of truth. The issue is, how do we reach them with the message of the Bible? The answer seems to be building relationships with them. Some ministries are using cafe-style and contemporary-music ministries. I also know of Christian biker clubs that attract some post-moderns although I have never been involved in one. Post-moderns tend not to be too interested in doing church so these other types of ministries are more likely to attract them.

Post-moderns are correct in a lot of their criticism of the "church". Their problem is that they lump all religions or all Christian faiths together. I have found that many are open to Adventism when they see that we are not what they hate about religion. Adventists were not in the crusades. Adventists were not in the inquisition. In fact, Adventists broke away from the churches associated with that. Adventists are all about religious liberty. Adventists are inclusive - we don't believe only Adventists will be in heaven. Adventists view God's law as the law of love. Adventists view God as One seeking out man to save him or rescue him from sin, death and pain. Adventists don't believe in an everlasting, burning hell. The message of Adventism is simply that God is love.

BUT... it still comes down to a person in a crisis. The post-modern that thinks they know all they need to and that life is going as well as expected isn't likely to see their need for Christ. I think it is a mistake to assume that post-moderns are humble. I see as much pride in the post-moderns I know than any other group of people.

[WayneV]

QR Frame:

Bravus and Sivart, I want to thank you for your perspectives as they have increased my appreciation of postmodernism. At the same time, I find myself being described within your posts. I have bookmarked the mp3 for a later listen.

Shane, I would like to propose that it is not necessarily 'crisis' that is the catalyst for one seeking a relationship with Christ. In fact, crisis can actually drive one away from a meaningful, growing, and productive relationship with Christ. Instead, it is an encounter with the living Christ that encourages the seeker. That encounter may happen in the midst of crisis or in the midst of celebration. It may also occur in the course of our everyday lives. I do agree, however, that everyone who seeks to have a relationship with Christ has had some kind of encounter with Him. Otherwise, they would tend toward atheism.

Just some thoughts.

Agape`

[Dr. Shane]

I am not sure what an "encounter" with Christ looks like. I know Saul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus. If an encounter with Christ is interaction with a devoted Christian, we know that not everyone that interacts with devoted Christians become Christians themselves. So I am not sure what that is and am doubtful that would convert a post-modern unless something else is going on.

[Bravus]

I think a single incident is not quite what was meant: postmoderns tend to look at the predominance of evidence. Remember, they're looking for the truths within a wide variety of (life) stories. (And the term 'stories' is misleading, since the most important ones are lived, not told.)

If they are surrounded by loving and lovable Christians who authentically share with them, over time that is likely to lead to a conversion experience, but it is more likely to be gradual than instant. On the other hand, if they hear 3000 times from Christians about homosexuality and 5 times about helping the poor and needy (the exact reverse of the Bible's ratio), that preponderance of evidence tilts the other way.

The prescription is actually the same as it always was: not elaborately crafted sermons and ads for particular demographics, but Christians showing the Fruit of the Spirit in their everyday lives. It's as simple, and as difficult, as that.

[Dr. Shane]

postmoderns tend to look at the predominance of evidence.

[Bravus]

I do think you tend to over-generalise from your own experience and own personality type to the whole world, Shane. I recognise and understand your testimony, and agree that for many people conversion comes as the result of a crisis. I don't accept that that's the case for everyone, however, and I also think that view assumes a certain picture of what 'counts' as a conversion experience. It's possible that postmoderns 'drift' into faith rather than having a single 'gestalt switch' experience.

[Dr. Shane]

In my own case, a life crisis did not cause a conversion. My life crisis resulted in me joining a 12-step organization. It was five years later during a spiritual quest that I returned to the Adventist church. I am not even sure that would qualify as a conversion.

I have seen dedicated Christians of other denominations join the Adventist church after attending a prophecy seminar. I wouldn't consider that a conversion, since they were already dedicated Christians. In most cases like that, the person is a Christian modern already so there is no change in their worldview.

I am interested in the stories others may have of post-moderns they know converting to Adventism without a life crisis. Even though such stories are anecdotal, I would love to hear some. I have never seen that happen.

[SivartM]

I don't remember the last sermon I heard in an Adventist church about helping the poor. And whenever I hear most Adventists talk about homosexuals it is less than compassionate.

[Dr. Shane]

Last time I heard a sermon about helping the poor was last Sabbath. Right in my home church. I watch a lot of Adventist TV, so I see a lot of them. Last time I heard homosexuality mentioned in a sermon was on an It Is Written episode and it was quite compassionate.

[SivartM]

Well, I think you're very fortunate to go to a church so passionate about helping others. My home church (not necessarily the individual members) seems more concerned about making Adventists than altruistically caring for others' needs. And the reason that It Is Written is on TV is because it's more compassionate than people who are sighing and crying over abominations.

[Dr. Shane]

The last time before the It Is Written episode that I heard homosexuality mentioned in the church was when Pastor Ron Woolsey spoke at our church. He was very compassionate. That was three years ago. That means I went three years without hearing homosexuality mentioned in a sermon. I heard a lot about helping the poor during that time - nothing about homosexuality. Click on the above link to read his interview here at Club Adventist.

[aldona]

I don't remember the last sermon I heard in an Adventist church about helping the poor. And whenever I hear most Adventists talk about homosexuals it is less than compassionate.

We had one particular guest preacher who came to our church a total of 7 times over a 3-4 year period, and 7 times he prefaced his sermon (on various topics) by a 10-15 minute rant against homosexuals. Real hellfire-and-brimstone stuff - worded so strongly that it made us all squirm in our seats lest there may have been a gay person in the audience who had dared to sneak into church, if so then they would have gone away not only feeling unwelcome but afraid for their personal safety.

After the 3rd time I noticed a pattern, and would comment privately to my husband each time he came to preach after that: "I bet he's going to start off with one of his denunciations of homosexuals." And each time I was not disappointed.

Maybe Dr Freud and colleagues would have something to say about his recurrent choice of topic. Maybe it was a case of "methinks the gentleman doth protest too much." Who knows?

We have our own pastor now and we do hear quite a bit about helping the poor. Not only in sermons, but also in church business and board meetings, and informally when members talk among themselves, about how we can help this or that person or family who is having trouble.

AJ