the trend towards postmodernity in america and europe (aka, "the west") is evident in just about everything. i thought the other day about all the recent films i have seen that are as blatantly post-modern as a hammer to the forehead. the sheer amount of them is staggering. (must be part of that whole life-imitates-art-imitates-life thing.)
perhaps you're asking yourself, "what exactly qualifies a movie as post-modern?" well, the way i see it, the first conspicuous sign of a post-modern (pm from here) flick is that you get an overwhelming sense of the movie having no real plot. there's no flow of events, just chaotic happenings. there's no real climax to the film; people kind of do whatever they're doing for an hour and a half or two and then it stops. next, everyone in the movie looks like they're on prozac for most of the duration of the film (or like they ought to be). there is an overwhelming sense in the characters of purposelessness and loneliness. and as the characters have no purpose, hence the absence of actual plot. (the best, or worst rather, recent example i can think of is "friends with money". if you were unfortunate enough to see it, you know what i mean. if you didn't see it, i DON'T recommend it.) the overwhelming message is "life doesn't have any meaning (and so neither does our movie)". the literary critic fredric jameson says of pm art (film and other mediums) that it is "the transformation of misery into beauty" and that it contains a "deathly quality… in a way that would seem to have nothing to do with death ... on the level of content." good description. even in a pm film that has nothing to do with dying, the viewer is still left with the feeling of emptiness or death.
the whole pm system of thought (which i am not about to attempt a summary of in a blog entry) has slithered its way into the christian community as well. hence, the birth of the "emergent" movement. now, i'm not saying that EVERYTHING put forward under the "emergent" label should be tossed out. the emphasis on cultural relevancy (or "contextualization"), personal relationships and actual experience of God (juxtaposed with mere ritual) are truly positive things (none of which, however require adoption of pm thought, merely acceptance of Biblical teaching). the sad part is that the emergent movement in typical pm fashion, cuts the boat loose from the anchor of the soul, Christ. the emergent movement promotes deconstructionism, redefinition, removal of what in the philosophical world is called a "meta-narrative" (what we'd simply call one objective truth for everyone), and a bag full of other problems. (for a pretty good summary of the emergent movement, listen to this teaching by mark driscoll (formerly a leading member in the emergent community): click here.)
in contrast, ukraine is currently very much in the "modernism" mindset (which has its own problems, of course... materialism being one of the greatest ones.) we've not caught up to the west in that area, thankfully. ukraine is an odd mix of old and new. in many ways this country is much like america in the 40's. people are much more interactive within society (think like open markets, public transport, and neighbors borrowing things from each other like matches or sugar). most everyone is convinced that there is an objective truth (though they certainly don't all agree what that is). they are struggling to find an acceptable order in areas of politics, family, work, etc., rather than the trend to reject order. there is, in general, an accepted understanding of moral absolutes, and even the existence of God. at the same time, just about everyone and their mom has a cell phone, mp3 player (younger generation) and a dvd player at home. the younger generation (30 and under) are starting to catch on to many of the techno-trends of the west as well as the philosophical propaganda of the west. the moral/spiritual climate will likely change very quickly as the younger generation grows and the older generation dies off. well, all that to say, it makes me really glad that we here in ukraine are way "behind the times".
on a completely separate note, me and lena, and the navarros and two married couples from our church were able to go up to kiev for a married couples' retreat in feb. it was a great, refreshing time. pray for God's strengthening of all the marriages in our church (i'm counseling with one couple currently and Jesus is definitely doing great things). here's a pic from that retreat.
from left to right: igor and anya dikiy, lena and tom navarro,
grisha and valya yaromenko, ben and lena morrison
9 comments:
Ahh... refreshing blog! Thanks for those great insights. I almost felt like I was reading Ravi Zacharius.
yeah... tell Lena I said big thanks for the stuff she send to me through Katie... well I gave my mom hair cut... so she looked cool... I hope I come visit you sometime soon...
Do you use Google Earth? I was just checking it out after not using it in a while. I noticed that your city finally has a clear picture. i think i found your apartment.
Yeah, Rich Mullins writes some awesome stuff...very blunt and powerful....there is so much fluff out there now...another favorite of mine is "If I Stand"
I agree that there certainly are some challenges with postmodern thought; unfortunately, though, I fear that those of us "stuck in the West" really are going to have to learn how to adapt to it, because it doesn't seem to be going away. You're absolutely right that its effects seem to be more and more visible!I must stick up for my fellow emerging thinkers a bit, though. What you describe as "the emergent movement" is really only one side of the coin. Of course there are going to be those who are doing what you describe (deconstruction to the point of destruction, etc.), but there is another side of thinkers who are very much concerned with the integrity of truth, and very respectful of the meta-narrative. Driscoll is only one voice (given, he's one very loud and opinionated voice) in what I think has become a very helpful discourse for many of us trying to find a way through the postmodern haze.If any other readers here are into this philosophical stuff, here's an interesting article that may help clarify all the "postmodern" terminology: http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000071.html.
i read that article by mclaren you linked to. i have to say that first of all i'm not entirely convinced (in fact, i'm pretty doubtful) about his definitions of post-modernism. what he refers to as "adolescent p-m" is a) more widespread than mclaren seems to think it is and b) is not a very accurate description of postmodernity (in fact the consumerism he lists as part of p-m really falls in more with modernity than postmodernity... which later he does seem to then later acknowledge). anyway, my point is not to deconstruct his article (hmm, that seems ironic :), but simply to point out that his "third p-m" which he titles "emerging" is something which he seems to lift up as a positive thing. i agree that a) the western/modern mindset has huge problems of its own and that b) the western world is going more and more pomo and that the church does need to take this into consideration in reaching the world. HOWEVER i don't think that means melding with it and adopting its philosophy. i think you accurately described it as a "postmodern haze".... it is foggy, without clarity (intentionally, i might add). i don't think that Jesus really fits that mold, since He descirbed Himself as Light coming to illuminate darkness, not to meld with it. as i mentioned, what i appreciate in even the most "deconstructionist" of the emergent movement is the attempt not to shun culture where it is at. but at the same time one can go too far and forget that the point is to reach a lost culture with a lost mindset, not to become one with it (you know, that ol' "in the world but not of the world" thing). it may seem by my holding up the danger flag for the pomo mindset getting into the church that i am promoting christian modernity. i am not. i am promoting biblical christianity. it is not enough for me that someone give credit to the meta-narrative, but rather that he be willing to die for it. what concerns me with the emergent movement is not so much the issues of culture, but the approach to truth in general and the Bible specifically. it seems to me all a bit relative and universalist and doesn't take seriously the Bible's statements about the reality of hell, the definitiveness of sin, or the uniqueness and therefore necessary exclusivity of Christ as the only Savior. as for a definition of postmodernism and postmodernity, i'd simply recommend the articles on wikipedia -click here- (the articles are pretty thorough and quote a number of sources, primarily non-christian... its always telling to see what the world says about itself instead of seeing through what christians evaluate it to be.)
Hey Ben -- thanks for taking the time to check out the article.There's just so many tricks with this stuff, eh? So much terminology, so many ways to define everything, so many perceptions, so many perspectives. It's almost hard to even dialogue about it without writing a separate book just to explain what the hell we mean by the words we're using. In any case, I'm sure we can probably both agree that neither of us are ever going to completely see eye-to-eye with the other over these issues. From my book, you know I don't think there's any way to "promote biblical christianity" outside of a personal and social context/construct, which, of course, puts me pretty much right in the middle of the emerging mindset. I know you don't see things this way, and I think that's OK.
I hear the whole "in the world, not of the world" statement a lot, although I'm starting to think it means something different than I once thought. (And also, I'm not sure where that idea comes from... do you know?) So many "issues" surrounding the emerging church movement have to do with how much christianity will, as you say, "meld with and adopt the philosophy" of "the world."
But I think that's missing the point of the discussion people like me are trying to have.
We would say that by using terminology like "the world" in the first place, we're distancing ourselves from what God has made -- and that's not an accurate description of reality. As humans created by God, we are integral components in the fabric of the universe. We can't step outside of our experiences any more than we can step outside of our own bodies. Therefore, it's not fair (or truthful) to somehow claim an objective stance on what's real. We're always informed by our context, and to ignore that is to ignore the situations and geographies that, I believe, God specifically placed us in! We cannot pretend to stand "outside" and proclaim judgement on something we're actually very much on the "inside" of.
If this is the case, the issue doesn't become a fight against "the world" as much as it becomes about recognizing and building on the good and God-ly parts of our humanity; discovering the talents and strengths that we've been given -- in order to affect and help transform the context we've been placed in, for the good of the Real Kingdom!
In essence, I guess I'm saying it's not that you're giving incorrect answers or anything like that; I think you have valid points and that there are probably dangers inherent in any philosophy. But the issue, for me, is that the perspective you purport is asking the wrong questions. Does that make any sense?
Well... Kiev isn't too far behind the times, trust me! I find that Kievsky students are far more "metropolitan" in their thinking than those coming from smaller cities and villages. BTW... my name is Joel I live in Kiev.
Hey my friend! Sorry it took me so long to respond... but of course, I must say that length of response time is directly proportional to the length of your comment. It's like a mathematical law or something. I'll try to go point for point, so we can at least stay quasi-organized.-- I think your distinction between "emergent" and "emerging" is probably helpful, especially for any readers who might be new to this whole discussion. But the camps have already fragmented so much I'm not sure it's as clean as it used to be. Also, I have to say that I don't think there's an "order" to the orthodoxy/praxy discussion. I think they're too closely connected -- and human situations are so varied -- that it's almost counterproductive to try to separate the two. I think the separation of these ideas is what has gotten the western church in most of the trouble it now finds itself in, actually.-- Word.-- Thanks for the reference; I've been puzzled by the origins of that for a long time, and I think you're probably right on the paraphrase. My perspective is that the paraphrase, then, has taken on a meaning that I would say Jesus did not intend. (Of course that's pure speculation, but what else do we got?!) I'm not saying that the authors had some kind of wrong idea, I'm saying WE have the wrong idea as to what they're talking about. Again, the problem with this kind of stuff is that we're getting into issues of language and translation and authorship/context, and I don't feel entirely qualified to really comment on all of that. I just really think that the position "we Christians" tend to take on "the world" is more destructive than it is helpful. (Don't mean to turn this into a commercial, but again, this idea is too big to elucidate here. There's a whole chapter about it in my book.)-- I included an inline link in my last comment to a blog entry where I talk more about this, but I'll include it again in case any readers missed it: Two Kingdoms. It's a bigger idea than I can cover here, but essentially I think the "Kingdom" means something different than what I've always thought... simply put, I don't think we actually "see" the Kingdom until its given some kind of social, person-like skin. Our theology has become far too esoteric, in my opinion.-- I know this is just a point where we'll have to agree to disagree. And that's totally cool. For me, the logic just doesn't work... I simply don't see the difference between the two things you describe. From where I stand they're the same position.On your last thought -- first, I know this is a really common response to the interaction of christianity with postmodernism. But I totally disagree with it (haha, I'm sure you're shocked). I don't think the credibility or power found in the truth of God is contingent on it being objective at all. In fact, I think God is quite capable of using many things within our myriad social and cultural contexts to speak differently, and yet cohesively, God's truth across all generations, times, etc.(Here's hoping our discussions might help somebody else sort through what they think about all this stuff someday!)Tag!
Post a Comment