• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Emerging Church - Thoughts on Postmodern Christianity

Apollonian

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
121
MBTI Type
INTJ
The past: Modernism

The Christian church has encountered a considerable amount of criticism from many different sources over hundreds of years.

The Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopalian churches have had scandals regarding the moral character and behavior of its clergy. There are many people who participate solely for the ceremony rather than the religion. Many others believe so thoroughly that they are prone to superstitions.

The so called "Evangelical" Protestant church has been criticized for its overzealous approach to social reform, often using questionably invasive tactics to attempt to 'convert' the 'lost'.

In the last century, science has called many traditional religious beliefs and dogmas into question, yet science itself never really answers some of the basic spiritual longings of our lives.

Now, there is a growing group of thinkers and believers who are attempting to seek to revise and reform the Christian message in the post-modern era where the flow of information is the spice of life and people are longing for a return to spirituality without the guilt and manipulation of "institutional religion" but don't want to completely abandon the usefulness of science.

Postmodernism

First, what is "post-modernism"? There are many definitions of post-modernism, but put simply post-modernism is the response to the philosophies of the modern era. The modern era mainly focused on a criticism of social and religious traditional dogma in light of the ability of science to unveil truth about the natural world. Ideas shifted from unyielding belief in the beliefs of the previous generation to a scientific approach to testing hypothesis based on readily available facts and observations. However, in the last quarter century, the development of mass-communication (TV, Internet, etc) has given rise to a society saturated by scientific, economic, religious, political, and artistic ideas to the point where the individual is lost amidst the flow of information. In this sea of ideas, it is difficult to determine who or what to trust as true. People are turned off to religion which tells them what to believe without explaining why. People are disillusioned with scientific advancement which has polluted the ecosystem and often created more anxiety than an increase in standard of living. Yet, through all this, we are now able to share information and art with a much wider audience and human expression is richer for the free access. So, postmodernism often leaves people with profound questions without many readily identifiable answers, and it is often typified by people who refuse to be pinned down by belief in absolute truths but who still believe that there is such a thing as truth for us to find.

The Response to Postmodernism

The following article does an excellent job of explaining the movement of Christianity which is seeking to respond to this rising postmodern era.

The Five Streams of the Emerging Church
Five Streams of the Emerging Church | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

In short here are the Five Streams
- The need for constant revision of beliefs and practices
- The need to question fundamental assumptions and discover Truth for ourselves
- The need to connect belief with how we live and to practice the faith
- Rejection of labels which separate "believers" from "non-believers"
- An honest approach to social activism and seeking to change the world for the better

Here is the Wikipedia Entry for those who don't trust Christianity Today Magazine.
Emerging church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you think of these ideas? If you consider yourself a Christian, do you agree with them? If you are not a Christian, how do these ideas compare to your perception and experience of Christians? Do you think that this is a more tolerant, more caring, and/or more reasoned way of believing? Do you believe that these ideas are heretical or overly controversial?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I would be interested as well. I see this happening around me. But I am not a Christian, and have only distant Christian relatives, so I have little insight into what is going on.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Each point can evoke a great deal of discussion, so I will only look at one at the moment.

2. The need to question fundamental assumptions and discover Truth for ourselves

As with each one of these points, there are positives and negatives; and specific implementation (not theory) is part of determining how positive this particular one is.

The traditional church's methodoloy is to slam down the Bible and the institution in front of believers or potential penitents and say, "Here are all the answers. Memorize and follow accordingly." If one assumes they already possess the entire truth in a comprehensible fashion, then exploration of new ideas and the process of self-discovery are at best pointless and at worst the road straight into Hell. Any deviation from the established truth has to necessarily be a veer into error.

The strength of this method is that people have the standards and simply have to memorize and obey them. There is a high potential for conformity (which in this perspective is actually positive). There is no need for arguing or dissent or confusion or ineffeciency. Just obey.

The weakness is that, what if the original assumptions are wrong (e.g., "The Bible can be used as a literal comprehensive discourse on exactly how one is to behave and what one should believe, regardless of culture")? Another weakness: People are not machines and do not conform easily to a "Be perfect on Day #1, never question, never doubt, never make mistakes," platform. In fact, they usually need to take ownership of their beliefs over time if the beliefs are to last; being spoonfed another's belief system does not generally result in a maturing, responsible, strong person.

So the Emerging Church can either be viewed as apostasy (because if the truth is already known, why risk it?) or as a natural part of human development or a correction for current errors in doctrine and practice. And there is no good way to "prove" which one is right. It is more a matter of the Emerging Church doing its thing while the Traditional Church does its thing, and the victor is the one that proves in the long run that it outlasts and dominates.

However, I do not think it is as much as a battle over which one wins, as much as "When they merge into a unified faith, what traits from each will continue to thrive?" Basically, the Traditional Church has become stilted in some ways or calcified, and the Emerging Church is meant to shake things up, inject itself into the current church mentality, and bring life back to the Church movement as a whole. There will be some sort of combining at some point, most likely, and hopefully resulting in a stronger more flexible mentality.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
The traditional church's methodoloy is to slam down the Bible and the institution in front of believers or potential penitents and say, "Here are all the answers. Memorize and follow accordingly." If one assumes they already possess the entire truth in a comprehensible fashion, then exploration of new ideas and the process of self-discovery are at best pointless and at worst the road straight into Hell. Any deviation from the established truth has to necessarily be a veer into error.

...and with that, five centuries of Jesuit apologia, theology, and scientific inquiry vanished into the rhetorical mist...
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...and with that, five centuries of Jesuit apologia, theology, and scientific inquiry vanished into the rhetorical mist...

Apparently it's not definitive enough to prove anything, if the debate still continues.

Not every disagreement can be blamed on "the world's lack of faith in God."

Expound. :)
 
O

Oberon

Guest
Apparently it's not definitive enough to prove anything, if the debate still continues.

Without checking Google, can you name one representative of the church at the trial of Galileo? If not, I think it rather disingenuous to blame your lack of answers on the failure of the church to seriously address the questions.

My point is that the "traditional church," as you put it, is not uniformly fundamentalist, and to the degree that it is not your post amounts to a mischaracterization.

I am not well-read enough to have the answers. In fact, I could not myself pass the test I set for you...but where intelligence fails, I try to be aware of my ignorance.

Frequently I fail even at that.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Without checking Google, can you name one representative of the church at the trial of Galileo? If not, I think it rather disingenuous to blame your lack of answers on the failure of the church to seriously address the questions.

My point is that the "traditional church," as you put it, is not uniformly fundamentalist, and to the degree that it is not your post amounts to a mischaracterization.

I am not well-read enough to have the answers. In fact, I could not myself pass the test I set for you...but where intelligence fails, I try to be aware of my ignorance.

Frequently I fail even at that.

I thought it was clear the parameters of the OP were "Emerging Church" versus "The Rest of the Church." Which means obviously I was generalizing and lumping in fundamentalists with some other more open-minded branches -- since they were not the case in point, we weren't exploring the differences between THOSE groupings within the church.

I think my point is actually the church has been seriously trying to address the issue of "proof" for years. The hardcore fundamentalists seem to fudge the data because of a priori religious reasoning. But even the evangelicals (which seem to go fundie in their sense of "science") do the same: Religious belief is the foundation, then science is tailored to fit on top of it.

I only see things getting worse for the church in terms of proof. In regards to the whole "evolution" issue, we definitely see evolution occurring within species. I was just reading about wisdom teeth today, which seem rather useless to be part of a "divine plan" of sorts but very much expected as part of an evolutionary process. And some of our scientific research (product creation, etc.) uses evolutionary processes in development... and it works.

Anyway, this is a derail. We can discuss that aspect of things elsewhere: This thread was supposed to be discussing the Emergent Church versus the Established Church.

Oh, yes -- and Hans Grubelswartzen was the janitor of his church and happened to attend Galileo's trial to borrow a cup of sugar and was very indignant at being denied because of the more important proceedings. (Don't bother checking it on Google, you simply must take my word for it. :D)
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
There's a school of thought quite big in Anglicanism that we're now in an era of post-Christianity, where Christianity is no longer (in Europe anyway) a major force in the shaping of society.

The "answer" (they say) is to quit working in an institutional mode which was developed for a majority-church-going society, stop thinking of ourselves as a major force or mainstream or anything and "go back" to thinking as an underground, minority movement as in the early days of the Apostles.
 

cafe

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
9,827
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
There's a school of thought quite big in Anglicanism that we're now in an era of post-Christianity, where Christianity is no longer (in Europe anyway) a major force in the shaping of society.

The "answer" (they say) is to quit working in an institutional mode which was developed for a majority-church-going society, stop thinking of ourselves as a major force or mainstream or anything and "go back" to thinking as an underground, minority movement as in the early days of the Apostles.
It seems the most logical thing, really. And IMO, it is more the natural habitat of Christianity. It is not a religion that is meant to govern like Judaism or Islaam. It is just meant to be lived and shared, but not forced on those who do not want it.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Apparently it's not definitive enough to prove anything, if the debate still continues.

Not every disagreement can be blamed on "the world's lack of faith in God."

Expound. :)

Without checking Google, can you name one representative of the church at the trial of Galileo? If not, I think it rather disingenuous to blame your lack of answers on the failure of the church to seriously address the questions.

My point is that the "traditional church," as you put it, is not uniformly fundamentalist, and to the degree that it is not your post amounts to a mischaracterization.

I am not well-read enough to have the answers. In fact, I could not myself pass the test I set for you...but where intelligence fails, I try to be aware of my ignorance.

Frequently I fail even at that.

As someone who has already made his "leaps of faith" in a different direction, I find it hard to believe a lot of what evangelicals try to "prove" to me. Note: I have read some of Josh McDowell's, J.P. Moreland's books, listened to some of Ravi Zacharias' lectures, and even went to see William Lane Craig in person when he came to Stanford (he is clearly "smarter" than in his critics, but failed to make a convincing argument to non-believers).

Still, I have gone to a youth ministry's talks about love and relationships, and found it enlightening. Attend "warehouse ministry" and charismatic church services and believe their spirituality to be real. As far as "conversion" goes, the "emerging" church is doing a better job. I wonder, however, if they are still practicing Christianity or if it is a form of Unitarianism in disguise.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
There's a school of thought quite big in Anglicanism that we're now in an era of post-Christianity, where Christianity is no longer (in Europe anyway) a major force in the shaping of society.

The "answer" (they say) is to quit working in an institutional mode which was developed for a majority-church-going society, stop thinking of ourselves as a major force or mainstream or anything and "go back" to thinking as an underground, minority movement as in the early days of the Apostles.

By "institutional mode", do you mean established religion with (mostly symbolic) institutional perks, like in Europe, or something else? I am all for disestablishment as a matter of principle (I'm an American). I think the idea is that such retrenchment would entail a partial withdrawal from mainstream secular society and greater interaction between like-minded people, leading to fewer people falling away from the faith (both those born within the movement and new recruits). Also, an emphasis on "traditional values" within a socially withdrawn movement usually leads to higher birthrates than that of irreligious populations. I'm not sure how viable such a effort would be in the context of unitary, statist societies with mass media and universal education, though.
 

Apollonian

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
121
MBTI Type
INTJ
One thing is clear to me: The Emerging Church movement is decidedly not unitarian universalist. It is true that the Emerging Church is open to conversing about ideas which fall outside the bounds of Christianity. However, it does not advance the idea that all religious thought ultimately leads to the same place. There is still the notion that people can be wrong in their beliefs. It is simply that people who are not Christians are encouraged to join the conversation in order to become more Christian.

Ultimately, a Muslim or Buddhist still remains distinct from Emerging Christians.

The idea of cultural inflexibility is an important one, though. A church which is open to new cultures and new perspectives is far more likely to withstand the test of time than one which refuses to adapt. That said, there is a difference between adapting practices to cultural ideas and "adapting" fundamental truths in the worldview to make it more pleasant to a changing culture. I would argue that the Emerging Church does the former, not the latter. They may reinterpret Christianity to ensure it is not overstepping its bounds, but the point is not to reinvent Christianity or include elements from other (non-Christian) orthodoxies.
 

Eileen

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
2,179
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6?
I think that it may be necessary to reconsider what "believing" means, rather than revising beliefs. Some beliefs should be reconsidered and revised (the role of women is one that most mainstream, moderate churches have managed to revise), but I think sometimes the main problem lies in belief about belief... I like the idea of rejecting the terms "believer" and "nonbeliever".

I guess I'm just orthodox enough to be repelled by the idea of "revising the Christian message" because I do think (perhaps idealistically) at its purest, the Christian message has always been the same--it's always been about loving and serving your neighbor, self sacrifice, and deep and abiding compassion. I would prefer the term "recontextualizing" to "revising." We can put the Christian message into new contexts and make the church more gloriously (and I might say righteously) inclusive.

I can concede that all the human institutions are in some form corrupt, but I also don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm part of the Episcopal church (actually, my "home" is an Episcopal church that has sympathies with the Emerging Church movement). There are things going on in the ECUSA that make me sad and frustrated to call myself Episcopalian, but I'd prefer to work within the institution and change those things, rather than turning my back on it entirely. The ritual and ceremony does matter to me, but I don't do it mindlessly... for some people, ritual is a really valid way to experience spirituality and religion. I'm one of those. I see no need to throw it out--just... recontextualize it. Make it meaningful in our time.


Those are just a few thoughts. Here's a good quote from William Sloane Coffin for controversy and conversation.

William Sloane Coffin said:
“Christians have to listen to the world as well as to the Word -- to science, to history, to what reason and our own experience tell us. We do not honor the higher truth we find in Christ by ignoring truths found elsewhere.”
 

Eileen

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
2,179
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6?
One thing is clear to me: The Emerging Church movement is decidedly not unitarian universalist. It is true that the Emerging Church is open to conversing about ideas which fall outside the bounds of Christianity. However, it does not advance the idea that all religious thought ultimately leads to the same place. There is still the notion that people can be wrong in their beliefs. It is simply that people who are not Christians are encouraged to join the conversation in order to become more Christian.

Ultimately, a Muslim or Buddhist still remains distinct from Emerging Christians.

The idea of cultural inflexibility is an important one, though. A church which is open to new cultures and new perspectives is far more likely to withstand the test of time than one which refuses to adapt. That said, there is a difference between adapting practices to cultural ideas and "adapting" fundamental truths in the worldview to make it more pleasant to a changing culture. I would argue that the Emerging Church does the former, not the latter. They may reinterpret Christianity to ensure it is not overstepping its bounds, but the point is not to reinvent Christianity or include elements from other (non-Christian) orthodoxies.


heh--may it be noted that i really only read the OP before posting my previous response...
 

Apollonian

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
121
MBTI Type
INTJ
Eileen, you bring up an excellent point by asking what "believing" means, and I sympathize with your ideas of "recontextualization".

How about we go a little further? What do you all believe about Truth? Not just any truth, but absolute Truth? Do you believe that it exists? If so, can we ever hope to truly know what that Truth is?

Many people in postmodernism (in part due to the paradigm shifts started by quantum mechanics) have started to lean toward believing that we can never know what the absolute truth is in the universe. Then, there are two camps:

First, there are people who believe that not only can we not know absolute truth but there is no such thing as absolute truth. They believe that we live in a distinctively relativistic universe where point-of-reference and perspective determine the nature of experience.

Second, there are people who believe that absolute truth exists, but we can only approximate it by observing small pieces of the overall puzzle. The scientific method is then an attempt to formalize this process so that many people can share in the pursuit of knowledge. Many different perspectives are used to test whether or not the model of 'objective' truth falls apart. Some things can be known, but not all.

In which category do you fall? Can you think of a third?
 

darlets

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
357

In the last century, science has called many traditional religious beliefs and dogmas into question, yet science itself never really answers some of the basic spiritual longings of our lives.

People are now doing research into that. Over the next 20 years you will see some massive breakthrough in this area.

Science is rapidly making progress, the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology are expanding into these areas. We will soon know the chemical reaction of religion in the brain.

A brief overview of the way religion maps to how the brain evolved can be found in this video at 13:30 to about 24:00.
Andy Thomson
This is a talk by a forensic psychologist talking about the role of religion in suicide bombing. The complete talk is linked below

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
These go for about 28 minutes each. (The last one is just Q & A)

The question becomes if/when science can explain it would people stop believing in gods/goddesses.

If we can explain the universe entirely without supernatural powers will it change our view of the world?

What would be the effect on religion if we reach the point, 2,000 years time we can upload our brains to the internet and our minds could continue existing after our bodies have gone? Or life expectancies reach 200?

(As an aside, we are already researching DNA computing which will better help us understand how the brain works.)
DNA computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think people are really aware how much of a technology explosion we have the capacity for over the next 100 years. (As long as we don't blow ourself up in the process)

Religions are constantly created but the main ones are between 200 and 1500 years old, so will struggle to keep reinventing themselves in a contemporary setting.
 

Apollonian

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
121
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think it is the "As long as we don't blow ourself up in the process" that forms the basis of postmodern thought questioning whether science can really give answers to fundamental moral and aesthetic questions.

There is a problem with the scientific approach: it is dependent upon an objective viewpoint, or at least (in the case of psychology) double-blind subjective viewpoints. How can we ever be objective about ourselves?

It is true that neuroscience can map out the interactions of neuro-peptides in the brain and may one day describe a model which encompasses religious behavior. But does the knowledge of the neuro-peptides and neuro-transmitters change the essense of that "religious behavior" itself? Science may answer the question "what happens and how does it happen?" but the fundamental methodology of science makes it impossible to answer "what does this mean to me personally?" I predict that it may change our interpretation of religion, but it will never eliminate it.

I think we will find that ultimately it is up to our "behavior" to govern our lives, regardless of how well we can model that behavior. We cannot abdicate our moral and aesthetic sense to the computers which conduct our science for us.

So do you believe that science will tell us everything? Aren't there things out there which science cannot answer? What do you believe about science?
 

Eileen

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
2,179
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6?
It is true that neuroscience can map out the interactions of neuro-peptides in the brain and may one day describe a model which encompasses religious behavior. But does the knowledge of the neuro-peptides and neuro-transmitters change the essense of that "religious behavior" itself? Science may answer the question "what happens and how does it happen?" but the fundamental methodology of science makes it impossible to answer "what does this mean to me personally?" I predict that it may change our interpretation of religion, but it will never eliminate it.

I agree with this. I fully expect neuroscience to be able to explain religious impulses, and I believe that there are probably evolutionary reasons that we have those impulses. But it doesn't matter to me, because I still HAVE the impulse, even if it can be located in my brain rather than my "spirit."
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
I agree with this. I fully expect neuroscience to be able to explain religious impulses, and I believe that there are probably evolutionary reasons that we have those impulses. But it doesn't matter to me, because I still HAVE the impulse, even if it can be located in my brain rather than my "spirit."

Yes!

Neuroscience can explain my emotions, too. Little chemical signals squirting from synapse to synapse, hormone flux causing physical changes, etc. I don't think this in any way discounts emotion or makes it irrelevant. It merely explains the mechanism by which it operates.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What would be the effect on religion if we reach the point, 2,000 years time we can upload our brains to the internet and our minds could continue existing after our bodies have gone? Or life expectancies reach 200?

I have no idea. I do not even know if the "center of consciousness" will move from this body to the Internet. (IOW, is it just a replica of you that others mistake for you, or is it actually YOU?) And this is aside from all the inherent psychological/emotional problems that would be associated with placing a mind in a "body" (such as the abstract internet) that it has not been tailored for. (Talk about psychological damage...)

I don't think people are really aware how much of a technology explosion we have the capacity for over the next 100 years. (As long as we don't blow ourself up in the process)

I agree with that. Just look at the advances in the last 100 years; 50 years; 25 years; 10 years; 5 years. It seems to jump ahead by leaps and bounds every moment. The things that are done today would seem like magic to Ward and June Cleaver.

I wonder what the world will be like when I am 55. I have no idea.
 
Top