Comments on: Should Churches Look Postmodern? http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55 Evangelical Resources for the 21st Century Mon, 06 May 2024 11:53:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0 by: Heather http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55#comment-185 Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:11:08 +0000 http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55#comment-185 Michael, thanks for your clarification. I think there are many ways that a lot of people are on the same page with following Christ's calling, but terms get in the way (as Chris has pointed out to me). I do want to clarify that when I said, "Secondly, in regards to the church being post-modern or not, a church will reflect its culture, whether medieval, modern, asian, french, south african, postmodern, etc.," I was meaning this to be a statement, not a question. The question I think I was referring to was how can we be one culture or another. We already are a specific culture (North American, Italian, etc). I think this is in line with what you are saying as well. I think you'll have fun with the philosophy course. The philosophy courses I have had and the reading I have done have shown me how much theories influence what we think about Christianity. For example, how we talk about getting to heaven, our bodies being temporary trappings to getting our souls home, etc. is actually more platonic than Christian. In Christianity, the material is created by God and will be redeemed and recreated. In other words, our hope is not getting to heaven but when heaven comes to earth - a perfect earth with no death, evil, suffering. Anyway, that's just one of my many soapboxes! :) Thanks for this dialogue! Michael, thanks for your clarification. I think there are many ways that a lot of people are on the same page with following Christ’s calling, but terms get in the way (as Chris has pointed out to me). I do want to clarify that when I said, “Secondly, in regards to the church being post-modern or not, a church will reflect its culture, whether medieval, modern, asian, french, south african, postmodern, etc.,” I was meaning this to be a statement, not a question. The question I think I was referring to was how can we be one culture or another. We already are a specific culture (North American, Italian, etc). I think this is in line with what you are saying as well.
I think you’ll have fun with the philosophy course. The philosophy courses I have had and the reading I have done have shown me how much theories influence what we think about Christianity. For example, how we talk about getting to heaven, our bodies being temporary trappings to getting our souls home, etc. is actually more platonic than Christian. In Christianity, the material is created by God and will be redeemed and recreated. In other words, our hope is not getting to heaven but when heaven comes to earth - a perfect earth with no death, evil, suffering. Anyway, that’s just one of my many soapboxes! :)
Thanks for this dialogue!

]]> by: michaelh http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55#comment-175 Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:49:55 +0000 http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55#comment-175 I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying and have reiterated my points in the process :) First, I don't think we need to look at ourselves and try to recontextualize ourselves to the culture as the first order of business. The key is to <i>be</i> the church - to help the body live up to the high calling of Christ, and then from the overflow of the work of the Spirit in the body of Christ we can address the other things. Second, I don't think that the question is quite the right question to ask (and neither did the person asking, really). But it is the way that so many churches in North Dallas think about the emerging church - how can we appropriate postmodern and emerging elements in the church? Obviously this misses the point, emphasizing style over substance. The better question would be: How can the Christian church live out its calling? Which, I think is what you are getting at. I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying and have reiterated my points in the process :)

First, I don’t think we need to look at ourselves and try to recontextualize ourselves to the culture as the first order of business. The key is to be the church - to help the body live up to the high calling of Christ, and then from the overflow of the work of the Spirit in the body of Christ we can address the other things. Second, I don’t think that the question is quite the right question to ask (and neither did the person asking, really). But it is the way that so many churches in North Dallas think about the emerging church - how can we appropriate postmodern and emerging elements in the church? Obviously this misses the point, emphasizing style over substance. The better question would be: How can the Christian church live out its calling? Which, I think is what you are getting at.

]]> by: Heather http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55#comment-174 Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:17:28 +0000 http://www.evangelicalresources.org/blog/?p=55#comment-174 I agree that the "emergents" take things personally, but so do the "traditionalists" (both terms, I'll note, I dislike, but for the sake of clarity and continuity, I'll employ them). I also agree with the problem of marketing. I don't believe that is the intention of most people who are looking at ecclesiology. Two thoughts: First, I would disagree with your order. I don't believe that we start with figuring out us first then looking at how we should serve the world. I believe that we need to figure out first who we need to be for the world and second how the forms and structures should make that possible. The purpose of the church as the body of Christ is to incarnate Him and continue His ministry to the world ("so that the world may know..."). Secondly, in regards to the church being post-modern or not, a church will reflect its culture, whether medieval, modern, asian, french, south african, postmodern, etc. I don't believe that is the right question to ask. Instead, we need to be constantly evaluating the consistency of 2000 years of church history alongside of the present culture, whichever culture of which you may be a part, in order, not to prove we are right, but to love those you feel rejected with Christ's healing and penetrating love. I agree that the “emergents” take things personally, but so do the “traditionalists” (both terms, I’ll note, I dislike, but for the sake of clarity and continuity, I’ll employ them). I also agree with the problem of marketing. I don’t believe that is the intention of most people who are looking at ecclesiology.
Two thoughts:
First, I would disagree with your order. I don’t believe that we start with figuring out us first then looking at how we should serve the world. I believe that we need to figure out first who we need to be for the world and second how the forms and structures should make that possible. The purpose of the church as the body of Christ is to incarnate Him and continue His ministry to the world (”so that the world may know…”).
Secondly, in regards to the church being post-modern or not, a church will reflect its culture, whether medieval, modern, asian, french, south african, postmodern, etc. I don’t believe that is the right question to ask. Instead, we need to be constantly evaluating the consistency of 2000 years of church history alongside of the present culture, whichever culture of which you may be a part, in order, not to prove we are right, but to love those you feel rejected with Christ’s healing and penetrating love.

]]>