Starting Points (aka Describing Postmodern: The Sequel)
The suggestion that the Bible should be our starting point for a revision of "We Believe" represents a particular bias. Although it is one that is probably widely held by those who are reading here, it is still only one option of many. While I am not suggesting that the Bible should not be our starting point, I do accept the potential that other starting points may be helpful as we sort through this conversation. Another way of entering the conversation is to recognize that there are major differences between those making the decision and focus some attention on that difference before moving on to constructing a new statement. Obviously the goal is to construct a new understanding of the CGGC, but often we may assume too much about those participating in the conversation.
I posted some of these thoughts in October 2006 (under the heading "Describing Postmodern"), but in light of the recent discussion and agreement/disagreement over “We Believe,” I thought it may be timely to revive the conversation. Also, since many new voices have joined the blog over the past (almost) five years, hopefully others will contribute to the purpose of this blog which is to create a space for “emerging/postmodern conversation in the CGGC.”
I believe that definitions are very important; so, from my vantage point, it is important to consider what we mean when using words like “emerging” and “postmodern”. Although it is difficult to provide a definition for the phrase “emerging church”, many of the recent conversations that have taken place here have helped illustrate how that idea is understood. While equally difficult to define, we have not talked as much about what is meant when we use the term “postmodern”.
To help reignite this conversation, I want to provide a few coordinates that are helpful to me as I think about what is meant by the word postmodern. Since a complete analysis is beyond the scope of this post, there are many items I have overlooked. Questions/answers, discussion, and subsequent posts can provide additional ways for understanding our current historical moment.
Seeking a Definition
Over the past few months Bill has started many conversations about the role of a Mission Statement, the importance of being faithful to who we say we are, and the need for conciseness, clarity, and consistency with our doctrinal statement.
Taking this example a step further, the conversation about “We Believe” can be connected to the wider use of the term “common sense”. When we say something is “common sense” we are suggesting that what is understood without explanation in one particular narrative (informed by different geographic locations, one’s education, family traditions, political/religious traditions, etc.) can be transferred to another and be readily understood. While this may have been true in a Modern era that was driven by universal understanding it is no longer the case in a postmodern context.
In his book The Postmodern Condition, Jean-Francois Lyotard provides the philosophical backing for an understanding of the postmodern era that highlights the loss of universals in the public arena. Understanding “postmodern” as a loss of a metanarrative (or all encompassing story that unifies each person’s existence) also suggests that we live in a time of competing narratives. Lyotard writes that “the grand narrative has lost its credibility.” In other words, we currently lack an agreed upon metanarrative that guides public life. Based upon Lyotard, this means that our public life is no longer dominated by a trust in the progress of Science, Religion, and Progress. This creates a context in which there is a multiplicity of competing narratives that strive for our attention within public life.
Several years ago someone introduced a distinction that has been helpful to me and may be of use to others as well. It is possible to distinguish between the terms postmodernity and postmodernism. Postmodernity can be used to describe our current historical moment while postmodernism can used to describe the philosophical theories of Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, and others. Therefore, it is possible to say that we live in a postmodern moment (postmodernity) without accepting the whole of postmodern theory (postmodernism).
One side note. Although there is no universal agreement about what is meant by “truth”, the rise of postmodernism did not end the importance or the pursuit of truth. We can simply read Pilate’s question directed at Jesus (“What is truth?”) to see that there has not been a universal acceptance of truth for over 2000 years. Some of the same debates that go on today regarding who controls the truth, etc., took place several hundred years between Greek philosophers before Pilate asked this question. I have encountered many, both in personal conversations and through their writings, who suggest that postmodernity equals the “death of truth.” I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our current historical moment.
Cultural Factors
Many events took place throughout the 20th century that shattered the sense of Scientific Progress leading to the decline of a metanarrative (both World Wars, the use of the Atomic Bomb, the Holocaust, etc.). Much has been written about the decline of the Christian culture in the United States since the middle of century. Other cultural events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Great Depression, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also helped many recognize that the Modern world dominated by routine, technique, and progress was slowly fading.
Why Clarity Matters
Imagine an open field. A sign has been posted that simply says “Come and play.” Some people make the assumption that the game to be played is football, so they bring the appropriate equipment and attitude necessary to play the game. Others read the same sign and assume they will be playing baseball. Others rugby. Still others come prepared for lacrosse, volleyball, and even a friendly game of tag. A few remember the good old days when the field was used as a running track. Some come ready to play competitively while others come for the simple enjoyment. Others come, not ready to play, but simply to watch.
When the group assembles, no rules are provided, no boundaries given. Chaos breaks out when those hitting the volleyball around are run over by a person trying to catch a football. Arguments erupt because everyone feels they have the right to be there because they have come to play – just like the original sign invited.
Even as the spectators notice the growing conflicts, no one wants to offer any guidance because “everyone has a right to play the game of their choice.” “Who am I to say that football shouldn’t be allowed here?” is asked by others.
Eventually, frustrations over the lack of guidelines cause most people to leave. Of course there will be a few diehards who love to play anything who will stick around until no one else is there. But ultimately, no meaningful games will be played and many people will never again respond to a sign that has the simple invitation “Come and play.”
Wrap-Up
When working from an understanding of postmodernity defined by competing narratives and metanarrative decline, this brief story illustrates what can happen if clear boundaries are not drawn. Whether a church, a non-profit organization, a blog such as this one, or any other context in our current moment, guidelines must be given in order to help people make a decision about their participation.
What does this mean for the CGGC? local churches? “We Believe”? And the list of questions goes on and on.
This is only one person’s views on the topic of postmodernity. Hopefully this will provide the starting point for a helpful conversation for those who are interested.
Labels: CGGC, Emerging Church, Postmodernism, We Believe
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 10:01 AM
|
31 comments
Now the Southeast Emergent Cohorts are following in our footsteps and hosting a 
