What’s all this about postmodernism?

Nothing new under the sun says Maxwell Ryan

One of the current terms that has been embraced by the church is postmodernism, which has been used as the pacifier to soothe Christians who are uptight or depressed — or both — at the seeming inability of the Church to influence modern people with the gospel.

Scores of earnest books have been written. Hugely attended conferences have been held. The wisdom of church growth and church decline gurus has been sought. And still the Church experts keep prattling on about “postmodernism in this postmodern generation”.

It’s funny (strange funny) how easily and uncritically Christians accept and use the latest buzzword without unpacking its meaning. New phrases however don’t necessarily mean new ideas.

Dare I say it? Postmodernism is not new. It has always been with us. It is part of the human condition. It is the result of what the theologians used to call “original sin”, or “unregenerate human nature” (see Jeremiah 17:9 and 2 Corinthians 4: 3 – 4).

Why are we surprised? Why do we need to invent new words and phrases to describe a malady that is as old as the human race? The biblically literate — and by that we mean those who read, study, digest and assimilate the Word of God – recognize that the marks of postmodernism are simply the “works of the flesh” (see Galatians 5: 19-21) all gussied up; the old sins in new dress.

No, I’m not trying to be anti-intellectual or simplistic. I’m simply saying that surely the Church should have enough historical sense not to be seduced by words and phrases (largely misunderstood) that let us off the hook because we’re not growing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

And how is this to be done? The Old Testament prophet Micah had the right idea (see Micah 6: 6 – 8). And so did the Apostle Paul (see Philippians 3: 7 – 14). Societal change comes only through changed lives; a concept easy to understand but hard to live. But not impossible, through God’s grace.

Writer: Lieut.-Colonel Maxwell Ryan is a former Editor in Chief in Canada and the UK. In retirement he is a copy editor of theRubicon and the author of two series on theRubicon - Resurrected Writers and Thinkaloud.

The New Conversation: Pondering Postmodernism

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 Think

22 Comments to What’s all this about postmodernism?

Umm… could you explain a bit more? Apart from dismissing post-modernism as an excuse for our failure to effectively evangelise, you haven’t actually told us what’s wrong with it.

I’ve never seen post-modernism as an excuse for laziness, nor do I see it as a problem we have to fix. And I certainly don’t see the concept of a changed life as antithetical to post-modernism.

So… what was the problem again?

Cameron on June 16th, 2009

I agree with Cameron here! I’ve seen a worrying trend within The Salvation Army in recent years to equate attempting to understand how to reach out to people who have embraced a post-modern mindset with being lazy? Why is this? Could someone please explain why trying to understand the culture of our time in order to then reach people with the Gospel is deemed to be ‘works of the flesh’?

It’s also strange to see how those who are ‘biblically literate’ denigrate those who are also searching the bible and seeking to make it relevant to the world today! Strangely there was a guy, and not a small number of his followers, 2000 years ago who got similar treatment when he dared to teach the truths of the Gospel to people in a way that was accessible to them!

Let’s be careful with how we speak of our sisters and brothers in Christ. Most people I know who are seeking to understand our times are trying not to repeat the mistakes of previous generations who have ‘gussied up: the old sins in new dresses’ but instead are sincerely seeking to communicate the age-old truths in ways that speak to people I don’t even begin to understand!

Graeme Smith on June 16th, 2009

Post Modernism is so 10 years ago. We are now all dumber for reading what you have written.

Robyn Bridgeo on June 16th, 2009

In accademic and research circles, the term ‘Structuralism’ is used rather than ‘modernism’, and ‘post-structualism’ used instead of ‘post-moderninsm’. Using terms such as modernism and post-modernism simply identifies the user of such terms as someone who has not done any serious research, and just read the mindless, un-educated rantings of the far-right, ie, a crack-pot who is not to be taken seriously and generally does not have anything intelligent to say.

In short, structualism refers to the ‘trend’ if you like that societies went through which said ’science and reason will explain everything’. Think ‘Star Treck and Mr. Spock’. Many of the great science fiction films of the 1950’s to around the 1980’s were born out of structualism.

Post-structualism is basically anything since (as opposed to post-modernism which attempts to identify a particular epoch or paradigm in thinking). Post-structualism realises that science and reason will not explain everything. There is more out there. As a result, there has probably never been a generation more receptive to the gospel since the early church than the current generation. The difference is, society has come through structualism, and so will not ‘buy into’ any old line that comes along. Post-structualists will say ‘I will believe and accept ‘X’ until something more convincing is shown. There is no such thing as ultimate truth, just that which is relative to my current position and understanding’. As such, if church and/or doctrine says one thing, yet science indeed proves something else, than post-structualists will incorporate the new scientific knowledge into their religion. Post-structualists are far more critical than any generation before them. Before accepting that a survey ‘proves’ proposition ‘X’, they will critically examine that survey. Before accepting teaching expounded from an ancient document (such as the bible) they will examine the document in minute detail, looking at the culture of the time, the language, difficulty in translation, differences in culture etc. As a result, post-structualists will end up with a VERY different interpretation of the Bible than traditional interpretation. They see dogma as detrimental to humans on EVERY level.

Traditional theologians are very threatened by post-structualists, as they challenge everything they believe. It is almost as fundamental as the idea of a spherical, heliocentric world opposing the older view of a flat, geocentric world view. As much as traditionalists want to believe the latter, it will not change the reality of the former.

As such, when we talk about ’sins of the flesh’, we have to critically evaluate what this means. Is it just ignorance that leads us to such ideas? Critical evaluation leads us to realise that many such teachings are wrong, and can not be supported by any means except through ignorant dogma and uneducated rantings.

We don’t just need to understand post-structualism so that we can reach todays generation, we need to understand it so that we can correct the errors in theology that have persisted (and arrisen) throughout the ages.

Just something to think about.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme.

Graeme Randall on June 16th, 2009

Graeme R: sorry but you are way off here.

Are you honestly saying that anyone who uses the terms “modern” and “postmodern” is a “crackpot” with nothing intelligent to say? Did you really mean to say that? You are insulting a huge group of people.

Also, the idea that only “structural” and “poststructural” are used in academic circles is a ridiculous generalization. There are plenty of academics who continue to use the term “postmodern.” For example, a former professor of mine wrote a book on the subject, entitled simply “Postmodernity.” The man I’m referring to is a long standing tenured professor at one of Canada’s top universities, hardly “someone who has not done any serious research”, as you suggest, and it is ridiculous for you to say that his views are “mindless” and “uneducated”.

Of course, some people dismiss the term “postmodern”, including many academics. And it is a bit outdated in academic circles. But that hardly warrants your harsh and high handed comments.

James on June 17th, 2009

Somehow I suspect this discussion has been derailed by the apparent self-congratulatory intellectual superiority of Graeme R and Robyn.

Shame really as I would still like to discuss why the view that anyone seeking to understand postmodernism (or whatever the current trendy word for it is) is considered to have been tricked down the wrong path. What is it that makes postmodernism so clearly the ‘works of the flesh’?

I’d reiterate again that no-one I know who considers it important to at least to try to understand the post-whatever mindset is seeking to ‘let us off the hook’ but instead is committed to growing the Kingdom, through the grace of God, in the lives of themselves and their communities. Why is this so wrong? How is this so wrong?

Graeme Smith on June 17th, 2009

Let me clarify my previous comment. The problem of Postmodernism is so 10 years ago, but the mission to post-moderns is still very relevant. The only problem I see is too much talk and not enough action. While people sit in their ivory towers trying to make themselves experts on the newest trends people are dying and going to hell. William Booths’ charge to “Do Something” is just as relevant as ever. In my field experience, I have personally witnessed the greatest openness to the gospel I have seen in twenty years. It is all pretty simple really. Po-Mo’s reject the idea of structure and religion, but embrace authentic experience and relationship. This generation longs for and responds to the Gospel of Power. In the next few weeks I am moving to my new appointment in Tempe, Arizona to invade Arizona State University. I will keep you posted.

Blessings!!!

Robyn Bridgeo on June 17th, 2009

Dear discussion partners:
Thank you for your comments, which I think somewhat miss the point of what I wrote about postmodernism. While Cameron and Graeme both use the word “lazy” in their responses, this is not implied in my article. I’ve lived long enough to be aware of many phrases or words – slogans if you like - that were supposed to help Christians understand modern times, and didn’t. Even a cursory understanding of history reveals that postmodern is not new. It is simply a new label for the human condition. Is there really any excuse for biblical illiteracy? Even though my piety is showing, I firmly believe that prayer, personal Bible study and attendance to the guidance of the Holy Spirit provide the solution to postmodernism, however it is described.
In Christian charity.
Maxwell Ryan

Maxwell Ryan on June 17th, 2009

Maxwell, thanks for the response and I suspect we’re singing from the same songsheet, just from different angles! I too firmly believe that prayer, Bible Study and guidance by the Spirit are necessary to solve the problems of any age.

I think there is another problem in that there are people in our movement who have come out and said that anyone seeking to address the problem is failing to be a good Salvationist in some way, in fact even to the extent that they are seeking to change the Army into something it was never meant to be. I’m not sure that sort of language is particularly helpful as surely the Army was raised up to reach the lost. Therefore there does need to be a relevancy to our age within God’s leading. In fact I’d go as far as to say that it may even be possible that adherence to methodology that has no relevance to today and that isn’t working may not be the leading of the Spirit at all, but instead an very human response to the massive change that is occurring in the West.

I long for a day where the Army is unifed by its internationalism and celebrates the diversity of both people and methods that this brings to the table. Then maybe we will recapture the energy that typified our earliest endeavours in all areas of the world.

Graeme Smith on June 17th, 2009

Further clarification of my comments. Post-modernism is so 10 years ago was in jest and in response to the term “recent”. The second line is a quote from one of the leading influences in American Post-Modern culture - Adam Sandler. It seems that my attempt at adding a little humor has been misinterpreted as intellectual superiority, which I find hilarious! I guess its’ important to realize that this is an international site and local references can not be assumed as common. There is nothing intellectual about Adam Sandler in the movie, “Billy Madison”. He is a drunken heir to millions who must return to grade school and redo each grade to keep his inheritance.

I have re-read the original posting and my second posting is very much in agreement with it. Graeme Smith please re-read my 2nd & 3rd post in this context and see if you still feel that I am suffering with a self-congratulatory intellectual superiority complex. If so, please explain so that I can correct this perception.

Blessings!!!

Robyn Bridgeo on June 17th, 2009

Robyn, I don’t think it helpful to say to an author that “we are now all dumber for reading what you have written”.

That is neither helpful nor Christlike. In your second comment, you seem driven by a love that is concerned for lost people who are “dying and going to hell”. Let that love drive you to more carefully select your words.

I recently heard Ravi Zacharias (an intellectual giant and man of God, also one of my heroes) go so far as to say that in the fellowship of Christian community, there is NEVER a reason to be rude.

Phil on June 17th, 2009

Agreed Phil. The explanations given are not sufficient to excuse the original post. An apology is warranted in my opinion.

Juan on June 17th, 2009

Thank you!!!

You are right Phil…there was no good excuse for being rude even if it was a joke. I really don’t know the author nor those who have posted well enough to joke like that.

You have extended far more grace to me than I have given. To all those I have offended, please accept my apology.

Blessings!!!

Robyn Bridgeo on June 17th, 2009

Robyn I note your request and now understand the logic of your first comment but have to agree with Phil on the apparent rudeness of it!

I’ve also realised that I didn’t respond on the author’s query on laziness. My comment was more to do with Cameron raising it, but is also due to the suggestions that those who are responding to postmodernism in a particular context are being charged with ‘bottling it’ in terms of Kingdom growing. This does seem to suggest that at least some people see them as people who are displaying either cowardice or laziness!

Having said that I suspect that for everyone concerned our primary concern is in reaching out to the lost and helping them to a place where they will start to follow Jesus, sincerely repent of sin and believe that he is their Lord & Saviour!

Graeme Smith on June 18th, 2009

Almost ten years ago at the training school we had “Postmodernism” shoved down our throats. It was presented as a hopeless epidemic with little attention given as to how to reach them. So, I wondered why bother, no one is going to listen anyway. Quite discouraging for an optimistic cadet. I truly believed that TSA were experts in saving the lost and I wanted to be trained by the best. Quite a contrast from what I experienced. Not seeing one person come to Christ in an entire years was driving me crazy. Especially since one of my heroes D.L. Moody was determined to lead at least one person to Christ every day. For me a year was inexcusable and I guess when I saw the term “postmodern” it struck up an old nerve. Guys, we really are on the same page and once again I am sorry for any offense that I have caused. In fact, last night I read through Maxwell Ryan’s archives and really enjoyed the quality of his work.

Blessings!!!

Robyn Bridgeo on June 18th, 2009

First of all, apologies for Maxwell for reading an accusation of laziness into his post. I read a little more into it than was intended.

I want to make a little observation here: we all seem to be thinking of ‘post-modern’ people as people who we need to be reaching with the gospel. Now, that’s very true, but the assumption seems to be that ‘they’ are post-modern and ‘we’ aren’t.

I would suggest that insofar as the ‘world’ has gone down the track of post-modernism, so has the church. After all, we are players in our respective cultural milieus, not just observers. It doesn’t necessarily mean that we have rejected all possibility of moral or epistemological absolutes. It might simply mean that accept God as the absolute and everything else is relative to him.

I remember confronting this issue as a new officer ten years ago. We had a few classes about how Christian churches should deal with post-modern people. I didn’t have a problem with that, apart from the assumption that post-modernism was something to be feared.

What I needed was a class on how post-modern officers should deal with modern corps. So many of the problems I had derived from the fact that the corps folk and I held deeply different assumptions about the nature of the absolute.

Cameron on June 18th, 2009

Dear discussion partners:
What is ecouraging to me is the evident concern in all the posts that our faith be shared with people, however they are described. Postmodern, modern, premodern - what does it matter? At the risk of appearing to be redundant, I affirm again that people become aware of Jesus Christ through believers who are sensitive and obedient to the very real guidance of the Holy Spirit. Through previent grace God prepares the hearts of people to engage with Christ, while at the same time prompting Spirit-filled believers to be His person in such a life-changing salvation encounter. He leads, we follow. How many of us have cultivated the inner ear that is sensitive to the Spirit’s call? But this takes time, yet it is time so well spent. My friends, rejoice in Him and enjoy your doulos relationship with the One who is the Source of all: God incarnate.
Live in His peace.
Maxwell Ryan

Maxwell Ryan on June 18th, 2009

Hi all,

(Please ignore my spelling mistakes - I have extremely bad spelling. Severe dyslexia)

Yes, I acknowledge my first post was a little incensitive at the beginning. I do appologise for it. My point about the distinction between post-modernism and post-structualism was the acknowledgement of more current understanding. While we can say that modernism and structualism are basically the same thing, we can not say the same for post-modernism and post-structualism. Since it makes no sense to talk about modernism and post-structualism, discussions generally change the term modernism to structualism.

Let me illustrate. About 4 years ago, I read an excellent sociology textbook about modernity and post-modernity. The authors have since contributed chapters to other texts talking about structualism and post-structualism, suggesting that post-modernism in particular is nothing more than a theoretical construct. It does not and never has existed in reality. It is fascinating as a student of social psychology to study this from a discursive perspective, but that’s about all.

I have a couple of points here:

1) If we are going to discuss something, PLEASE people, let us have enough respect for the subject we are discussing to keep up to date with discussions. We can not rely on infomation that may be 2 or 3 years out of date. If we don’t keep up to date, then I suggest we have no right to discuss it. All we say will simply make us look like laughable, uneducated crack-pots, no matter how many degrees we have. To not have such respect for the topic is greatly offensive to all involved (including God). It displays an attitude that one doesn’t care about those involved, that it is unimportant to reach them. That they only care about maintaining their own beliefs without growing themselves or the Kingdom. (I don’t care how many verbal protestations are made - actions speak louder than words)

2)By focussing on something like Post-modernism (which I and many others do not believe really exists), we will certainly only reach the post-mdernists - that is - people who don’t exists. And guess what - we are successfull at that. Our churches are bursting at the seems with people who don’t exist, and will continue to do so unless we ‘get with it’. (I’m being EXTEMELY fasicious here - I do have a bit of a caustic sense of humour)

3)Did anyone read the rest of my post? What I said was that if we look at post-structualism, what we find is that no generation has been more open to the gospel since the early church than todays generation. Post-structualism is not an impediment to the church, it is a great alli. The only thing it is an impediment to and enemy of is orthodoxy.

4)Although we live in a post-structualist society, I would refute that the church is also post-structual. This is the main problem. We have not moved with the people since the reformation. Our thinking is so out of kilter with the rest of society, we have no hope of reaching anyone but an extreme minority. The church rejects modern research on a whole range of topics and issues which contradict the church. Just by rejecting such ideas and affirming dogma, doesn’t change the reality of the world. Those who believed the earth was flat and the universe geocentric, did not change the fact that the earth is spherical, and the solar system heliocentric.

This is where I greatly take issue with Colonel Ryan and many of the other respondents. The ’sins of the flesh’ may not be sins at all. They may be just misunderstandings of reality and misunderstandings of the Bible. As I originally said, post-structualists, before they reject or accept anything, will study it in minute detail. They are so ready and searching for God, that they are finding Him/her/it despite the church’s best efforts at dumbing down God to the point that it becomes a joke.

We need to embrace post-structualism, not just to reach the lost, which I so want to do, but to correct our own understanding of who and what God is, and deepen our own relationship with God.

Something to think about.

Yours in Christ,
Graeme.

Graeme Randall on June 18th, 2009

Graeme R. said:

“The only thing it is an impediment to and enemy of is orthodoxy.”

Orthodoxy is not a bad thing. It means “right teaching” or “right belief”. These are good things. I understand the fear of them, and the reality that sometimes “orthodoxy” changes. But we do need to guard against heresy and false doctrine. I understand that is not PC, but I really don’t care. Right belief isn’t everything, but it is something, and we should fight for it.

Now, I am not one saying that post-structuralism = heresy. It is descriptive of the world we currently live in and a helpful corrective against the excesses of structuralism. It is a useful prism through which to see the world. I do however disagree with this:

“We need to embrace post-structualism, not just to reach the lost, which I so want to do, but to correct our own understanding of who and what God is, and deepen our own relationship with God.”

One does not require post-structuralism in order to deepen their relationship with God. Nor should we embrace it. We should understand it, adopt and adapt it in various ways, but we should not marry it. This was exactly the problem with modernism and the Church, that they essentially became synonymous. So as modernism has fallen, so has a good deal of what the Church thought of as absolute truth. And, I would submit, this is at least partly because the Church was swayed more by cultural and philosophical change than by orthodoxy.

Yes, our understanding of orthodoxy is culturally conditioned - all of our knowledge is - but there are good ways to engage with exegesis and hermeneutic that take seriously the revelation given to the Body of Christ over the last 2000 years, hold to orthodoxy, but also engage with the world as it is here and now (whether in pre-modern parts of our world, still modern parts, parts that are still “Christendom”, and the post-modern West).

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on June 19th, 2009

Well said Aaron, A hearty ‘hear, hear’.

And I still use the term postmodernity (crackpot that I am). My daughter who is currently at University doing a degree in Communication is reading Foucalt and Derrida and discussing postmodernity (even though Foucalt is dead and therfore hardly current).

Postmodernism and poststructuralism although related terms are not synonyms. The literary criticism (as opposed to sociology) of some writers (who have been labelled postmodern) since the late 60s relates directly to hermeneutics and epistimology - subjects that directly concern people who believe that God’s eternal truths are revealed in the bible.

I love using bracketed asides!

Grant

Grant on June 19th, 2009

Hi Grant,

Believe it or not, foucalt is one of my favourite philosophers. I stand by what I have said. You are right (which has been a big point in my past 2 posts) that postmodernism and post-structualism are not synonyms. They are very different.

It is an interesting topic to discuss. I still believe that post-structualism is wonderfull and we should embrace it, and that it can only enrich our understanding of the Gospel and deepen our understanding and relationship with God. It does greatly challenge our traditional understanding of God and the Bible and everything else in Christendom. But this I believe is an excellent thing. It is well over-due.

Perhaps we need the challenge so much we need another Martin Luther to nail a thesis to the church door…..

Yours in Christ,
Graeme.

Graeme Randall on June 21st, 2009

Colonel Ryan asks a question that I believe we need to find an “apples-to-apples” way to discuss here.

While I’m still processing how I feel about Wikipedia as a reference material … I feel that enough people contribute to its authenticity of where our culture believes information to be at… to use it here as a starting place of this “apples-to-apples” goal.

In their MODERN HISTORY entry… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_era … they share the following recap of the Modern Era:

–

MODERN ERA

The modern era includes the early period, sometimes called the early modern period, which lasted from c. AD 1500 to around c. AD 1800. This period ended in a time of political and economic change. In the 18th century, the Enlightenment occurred. This was followed by the Industrial Revolution in Britain, and an Age of Revolutions, beginning with those in America and France, and then pushed forward in other countries partly as a result of upheavals of the Napoleonic Wars. Our most recent era begins with the end of these revolutions in the 19th century, and includes the World Wars era (encompassing World War I and World War II) and the Cold War. The contemporary era follows shortly afterward in the 21st century.

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS

The modern period has been a period of significant development in the fields of science, politics, warfare, and technology. It has also been an age of discovery and globalization. During this time that the European powers and later their colonies, began a political, economic, and cultural colonization of the rest of the world.

By the late 19th and early 20th century, modernist art, politics, science and culture has come to dominate not only Western Europe and North America, but almost every civilized area on the globe, including movements thought of as opposed to the west and globalization. The modern era is closely associated with the development of individualism, capitalism, urbanization and a belief in the positive possibilities of technological and political progress.

The brutal wars and other problems of this era, many of which come from the effects of rapid change, and the connected loss of strength of traditional religious and ethical norms, have led to many reactions against modern development. Optimism and belief in constant progress has been most recently criticized by postmodernism while the dominance of Western Europe and North America over other continents has been criticized by post colonial theory.

–

It seems that the original article presented to us above takes issue with our cultural approach to labeling our times in light of sharing the greatest story ever told to those in our spheres of influence.

I believe that Col. takes the position that any investment of our time, talent, treasure resources to “define things” is a poor investment… as we should be investing these things into addressing the issue of sin amongst people of all walks of life.

I share the Wikipedia link as a way to help us find a language that we’re all on the same page with. Not to say that one person (or more) is right … and therefore others are wrong. Simply put… we could both be looking at the same fruit and calling it very different things… and then we’re getting very upset with one another because of this.

PERSONAL NOTE: I believe that scripture is very specific about the concept of absolute truth. This said… many who hold the cultural mindset of a very close yesterday and today would disagree with this idea… they feel that truth is a relative thing… almost that you make your OWN truth based upon your understanding of things.

The very nature of this duality in our cultural expectations (absolute truth vrs relative truth)… I believe… is an indicator that understanding the prevailing culture is a very wise investment of our resources in light of the Great Commission.

The simplest way that I’ve come to describe my understanding of the “postmodernism” is… we don’t YET know where we are going… all we know is what we are not. Thus a large segment of the world population uses this term. We are no longer modernists… and yet, we can’t agree with where we are… let alone where we are going.

Col. I don’t often feel as strongly as I have to a post… yet I feel as the tone and presented information is a slap in the face to those of us that feel as strongly as you do about seeing lives changed… and yet you feel as though we are using the term postmodernism “as the pacifier to soothe Christians who are uptight or depressed — or both — at the seeming inability of the Church to influence modern people with the gospel.”

I really think we have a case of “apples-to-oranges” here.

Specifically you wrote (in his first reply): “Even a cursory understanding of history reveals that postmodern is not new. It is simply a new label for the human condition.” Tens of thousands of people would disagree with this very specific definition of the term “postmodernism.”

Following the Great Commission by obeying the Great Commandment has been (and will be until a new heaven and new earth are present) the guiding mandates that all Christians through the ages / eras are to follow. Addressing sin and how a fallen being… the only unique being in all of creation to have a fully integrated experience with BOTH the natural and supernatural realms… is the task we find ourselves in each day of our lives.

I simply do not feel that neither the article, nor the follow up comments you shared explain this issue well.

You stated — “Dare I say it? Postmodernism is not new. It has always been with us. It is part of the human condition. It is the result of what the theologians used to call “original sin” or “unregenerate human nature” (see Jeremiah 17:9 and 2 Corinthians 4: 3 – 4).”

You are in essence saying: Postmodernism = Fallen Nature of Humanity (Sin)

Every person that looks to human history and attempts to review it in context find a way to “define” a time… an era… can they all be wrong?

How can you really justify blowing off soooooo many people that are looking to understand the culture and then (in the case of our discussion)… in light of this understanding… reach others within their culture for Christ?

… (pause for reflection) …

Honestly… I don’t feel that you meant the phases as I’ve quoted them above. I fully believe the intention behind your writing was to present your heart… and say “folks… first things first. Focus on Sin… focus on those that have NOT connected in a personal relationship with our Creator… focus on Eternity.”

My gut says your issue with labels LIKE “postmodernism” is we’re wasting time trying to figure things out (you said: “Scores of earnest books have been written. Hugely attended conferences have been held. The wisdom of church growth and church decline gurus has been sought. And still the Church experts keep prattling on about “postmodernism in this postmodern generation”.’)… and not enough time / effort in the task at hand… obeying the Great Commission.

If this is really what you are saying… ok… I get it (and honestly a “first things first” approach is a wise one to invest in.) Yet I can NOT accept what seems like the equation being presented: People that use words to describe and seek to understand a culture = waste of time because you’re not following the “first things first” issue of dealing with sin.

Please… if I’m out of line here… accept my apology. I really desire for a unified body of believers… investing every ounce of our time… our talents… our treasure resources into what my company uses as a tagline for our ministry work… “help them find Eternity… (before it finds them!)”

imMEDIAtely yours,

Errin Hogan
Postmodern Storyteller

PS – Grant… I, too, love using bracketed asides :o)

Errin Hogan on June 25th, 2009

Sound and Fury

1929 (in 1,929 words) 1 Josh Garrington
5 ways to improve SA Worship 13 Ken Smith, Peter, Ken D.
Officer Morale - What's wrong? 7 Roy Stephens, Stuart, Mark Braye
The (Shooting?), Silver Star 6 John, Eleanor Burne-Jones, Eleanor Burne-Jones
What might have been 5 Eleanor Burne-Jones, Terry Camsey, Graeme Randall