Me-referentially absurd
Sorry I haven't posted anything in a while. I have been really busy and the few chances I have had to write, I have been working on a few other things. I have also been thinking about my last post. I have so much more to say, but I'm not really sure how to say it yet. In the mean time, I have been thinking about a few other things, as well. Most prominently, the anti-postmodernism sentiment that is rampant in fundamentalism today.
Maybe I can bring a different perspective to the table. Philosophy, as a general rule, is a study of reactionary thinking. New paradigms and philosophies arise when one worldview becomes unable to support the factual and logical realities of its time. The evolution of ideas drives philosophy the same way that technology and discovery drive science. Therefore, part of the final verdict of any philosophy is the philosophy that follows it. The new philosophy will differ most significantly in the areas of the old philosophy that it rejects.
So, what is the significance? Well, it explains this past Wednesday night service at Calvary. Dr. Oats discussed the Emergent Church. At first, I was extremely offended by his closed-minded approach and "straw man" portrayal of postmodern Christianity. But today, while I was at work, I got to thinking. Isn't that closed-mindedness and competitive self-justification part of the reason why postmodernism exists today? Honestly, what else should I have expected? I may have hoped for a more open-minded or positive portrayal, and maybe if someone had the chance to discuss it with Dr. Oats, he would be able to see it from a more balanced perspective. But in his postion right now, postmodernism seems as foreign and illogical as helio-centric astronomy. And the issues that are most vital to understanding the Emerging Church and postmodernism are the ones that he will take umbrage with first.
What does that practically mean, and how can I avoid continuing this cycle? First of all, I can't trust a philosophy. I can't trust a worldview. Society is constantly changing, and I am constantly changing. My understanding of God, nature, and myself will hopefully always be evolving. So I don't ever want to let myself get too comfortable in any philosophy. Also, it means that I need to carefully examine the areas which my current philosophy fundamentally rejects. I need to ensure that I am not rejecting them simply from a reactionary impulse, but that I am comparing them with scripture so see if they are correct.
Maybe I can bring a different perspective to the table. Philosophy, as a general rule, is a study of reactionary thinking. New paradigms and philosophies arise when one worldview becomes unable to support the factual and logical realities of its time. The evolution of ideas drives philosophy the same way that technology and discovery drive science. Therefore, part of the final verdict of any philosophy is the philosophy that follows it. The new philosophy will differ most significantly in the areas of the old philosophy that it rejects.
So, what is the significance? Well, it explains this past Wednesday night service at Calvary. Dr. Oats discussed the Emergent Church. At first, I was extremely offended by his closed-minded approach and "straw man" portrayal of postmodern Christianity. But today, while I was at work, I got to thinking. Isn't that closed-mindedness and competitive self-justification part of the reason why postmodernism exists today? Honestly, what else should I have expected? I may have hoped for a more open-minded or positive portrayal, and maybe if someone had the chance to discuss it with Dr. Oats, he would be able to see it from a more balanced perspective. But in his postion right now, postmodernism seems as foreign and illogical as helio-centric astronomy. And the issues that are most vital to understanding the Emerging Church and postmodernism are the ones that he will take umbrage with first.
What does that practically mean, and how can I avoid continuing this cycle? First of all, I can't trust a philosophy. I can't trust a worldview. Society is constantly changing, and I am constantly changing. My understanding of God, nature, and myself will hopefully always be evolving. So I don't ever want to let myself get too comfortable in any philosophy. Also, it means that I need to carefully examine the areas which my current philosophy fundamentally rejects. I need to ensure that I am not rejecting them simply from a reactionary impulse, but that I am comparing them with scripture so see if they are correct.
posted by oneweekend at 11:43 AM
1 Comments:
"Philosophy, as a general rule, is a study of reactionary thinking." Good call. My biggest problem with Fundamentalism's hatred of postmodernism is that since we are not going to change the majority opinion, we are cutting off any modern thinker. An honest seeker (for lack of a better term) who walks into our church is not going to change his worldview simply because we say it's wrong. If we would realize the gospel is always relevant and present it in a way a postmodern mind will understand, we would be able to see the power of the gospel at work.
I also think we fail to note the distinction between intellectual postmodernism and postmodernism in practice. While it's too early to say for sure, there seems to be a lot of relativism in postmodernism, a rejection of absolute truth. However, the average person with a postmodern worldview does not attack things because they claim to have absolute truth--they simply don't see the need to accept it. In other words, the average person does not attack Christianity because it claims absolute truth, they simply refuse to be convinced they must accept it. The gospel is just as effective for the postmodern person as for the modern person. We should realize this and present the gospel in a way that will be relevant to the postmodern mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home