A Quick Layover

After ten posts in one month about the emerging/emergent church, you may have been a bit surprised to see me change focus. When I invited their party to detrain (though they are welcome to stay aboard for the conversation), it may have seemed a little abrupt. It may be wise to explain why I began punching other tickets.

I'm not sure I believe in post-modernism.

Like an atheist who claims not to believe in God, you're probably thinking, It doesn't matter what you think, Danny. Facts are facts. Of course, you'd be right. Allow me to explain. Let's pretend the Lord tarries another 500 years (but pray He doesn't). Will the people 500 years from today really recognize postmodernism as seperate from modernism? Of course! you scoff, I can't believe Danny can't see the difference!

But consider the following:

Some claim postmodernism is dead.

Books have been produced and theorists speculate that 9/11 killed postmodernism. Perhaps they are right, or perhaps not. Either way, it shows that postmodernism may already be off its moorings a bit. If so, and the movement only lasted a couple of generations, do you really think it will be considered a completely different era?

It's reaction based.

Ever wonder why modernity wasn't called "post-dark ages?" Specific inventions, philosophy and discoveries played into the development of modernism. Sure, it responded to some things in the era before it, but largely it developed as a unique movement.

It should probably be called "plus-modernism"

Since it is a reaction, many times they just took the modernist philosphy to the next level. It is truly a misnomer to consider postmodernism the antithesis of modernism. Postmodernism is really like modernism's little brother. They look pretty similar, its just that postmodernism is a little more extreme. (Please don't read that as me saying one is better than the other. They could be the rough bully brothers around the block, for all I care. I merely call modernism the bigger brother because it came first...hence the names.)

I'm not sure I buy modernism either.

That's just my way of saying, I think when we label eras, we sometimes get ourselves in trouble. Back in Jesus' time, there were wonderfully postmodern statements and also postmodern thinking floating around. There really is nothing new under the sun. We may speak differently or emphasize a different point, but each era is a group of people rebelling against God and trying to excuse themselves.

And though these men probably wouldn't sign onto this post, David Wells, Os Guinness and Phil Johnson (to name three), all agree that postmodernism has more in common with modernity than most recognize.

Labyrinths, lectio divina, centering prayer, yoga and icons. Do those things bother me? To varying degress, yes. But these are just outworkings of another list that bothers me:

Undermining of: substitutionary atonement, heaven, hell, eschatology, the Kingdom future, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, progressive sanctification, transformational separatism, propositional truth, sufficiency of Scripture, perspicuity of Scripture, necessity of Scripture, inspiration of Scripture, limitations to general revelation...and on and on. (If you have ECM sympathies, relax, I am not saying every EC has these characteristics. But these trends do come up in some ECM discussions. Don't forget, I'm letting you off the hook.)

Here's why the ECM was given a pass from here on out.

If there are concerning practices that trouble us, they are probably born out of troubling philosophy. And since modernity and postmodernity are quite similar (in my opinion), their troubling philosophy may actually be shared.

Some of the current extreme trends in the ECM do look quite a bit like a train wreck. But we don't learn anything from just staring at the wreckage, we've got to examine where the train got off the tracks.