Becoming All Things, Spoiling the Egyptians, and Occupying Culture till Christ Comes
Conclusion and Continuing Conversation
As observed earlier, this is sort of a “wrapping up” of an ongoing discussion. I return to this previous conversation now in closing to tie it together with the present reflection. Livermore essentially warned against churches abdicating the gospel through becoming overly concerned with being culturally relevant. He advocates being “relevantly counterculture” instead, which he describes as becoming “resident aliens”. For Livermore this implies being present and incarnational but forming an alternative kingdom culture. By way of contrast, Bevins passionately and persuasively argued that the foundations of modernism’s world are crumbling and postmodernism is a workable way forward for the Church of the future. For Bevins postmodernism enables churches to retrieve their own ancient history and experience in order to go forward with renewed vision and vitality.
Putt gave a substantive response to those who assume too easily that postmodern philosophy is inherently anti-Christian or even anti-religion altogether. However, given the nature of language and of textual interpretation, he recommends remembering their limitations regarding the infinite and “unnamable” God, exercising love and humility in discussion of truth, and, finally, riskily trusting the Spirit. My own prior contribution suggested the that in the context of an increasingly religiously pluralist society characterized by a post-Christian mindset with postmodernism underpinnings, Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians can engage culture more effectively by discerningly appropriating current trends under the guidance of sound Christian faith and values.
Carter confronted moral and epistemological relativism. He challenges the entire concept of liberal relativism, and charges postmodernity is really an attempt to relativize Christian truth while idolizing the State and its power under the guise of liberty. Ryken responded to questions raised by readers. For example, he suggests postmodernists may have difficulty with the doctrine of the cross because it stresses absolute realities rather than relative truths. Finally, Viola starkly stated that modernism’s stress on science and objective knowledge “stood in stark contrast to the Christian faith” has failed and is past. He thinks “postmodernism is much more friendly to the Christian faith” because it accepts the spiritual world, connects relationally, and projects humility.
Our PR panel is not only diverse but also divided on this topic. Mostly they all make a strong case for their conclusions. The present study suggests that a Christian attitude toward “Postmodernism, the Church and the Future” is not an entirely either-or matter. However, in the Pentecostal tradition, discernment of the Spirit/spirits is a key belief and practice that is applicable here (1Cor 12:10). Further, an apostle instructs us to “test the spirits” (1John 4:1). There is then this theme of distinguishing between good and bad. Somewhat in the spirit of Ovid’s ancient adage, “You will go most safely in the middle,” I advocate for a balanced and best middle way between extremes.55 In sum: rather than either baptize or demonize postmodernism, I would utilize it where I can and criticize it where I must. The trick, so to speak, is to know when to do which. A reliable resource for this process is a clear, continuing commitment to the inspiration of scripture and illumination of the Holy Spirit in the context of God’s forever-definitive self-revelation in Christ. I close with this closing paragraph of a Lausanne consultation on “Gospel and Culture.”
Category: Ministry, Winter 2009
Followers
Fans
