protest
I've found something interesting looking back a few years and into the present:
Many of the stories and opinions of the newest church movement, most notably the emerging or PoMo movement has a shared point of origin: traditional evangelicalism.
What most have in common is that they began as one thing and emerged into something else. This gives the movement a flavor of protest and rejection: we were where you were once, but we emerged from it into something different. It's a movement defined first and foremost, against something else. Someone asks, what's the new church movement? Well, I'm not completely sure, but I can tell you what it's opposed to. That's a dangerous position.
The last thing I want for Eikon or myself for that matter is being pegged a "PoMo", emerging church, though I do value a number of issues that are challenged in the process (absolute nature of scripture, objective knowledge and truth, linear thinking, foundationalism to name a few). I've read several books on the subject and more firmly believe people don't really know what PoMo means exactly.
In a PoMo world, tolerance is increasingly understood to be the virtue that refuses to think that anything is beyond the pale - except the vew that rejects this view of tolerance: for that, there is no tolerance at all.
Isn't that so interesting? When I look back a few years ago of being in "protest" of the traditional modern church I was raised in, I found myself becoming tolerant of anything but that.
Lastly, how about this thought:
A tree does not simply grow up, but adds a layer at a time and the accumulation of layers is what enables it to grow. Each layer embraces everything that went before. It is a bit like learning to read. The ability emerges, embracing and moving on by acquiring the new.
"Perhaps a culture plaqued by absolutism needs a dose of relativism to correct what is wrong with it - not so much a relativism that utterly displaces what came before, but a relativism that in some sense embraces what came before, yet moves on. If absolutism is the cancer, it needs relativism as the chemotherapy. Even though this chemotherapy is dangerous in itself, it is the necessary solution."
Many of the stories and opinions of the newest church movement, most notably the emerging or PoMo movement has a shared point of origin: traditional evangelicalism.
What most have in common is that they began as one thing and emerged into something else. This gives the movement a flavor of protest and rejection: we were where you were once, but we emerged from it into something different. It's a movement defined first and foremost, against something else. Someone asks, what's the new church movement? Well, I'm not completely sure, but I can tell you what it's opposed to. That's a dangerous position.
The last thing I want for Eikon or myself for that matter is being pegged a "PoMo", emerging church, though I do value a number of issues that are challenged in the process (absolute nature of scripture, objective knowledge and truth, linear thinking, foundationalism to name a few). I've read several books on the subject and more firmly believe people don't really know what PoMo means exactly.
In a PoMo world, tolerance is increasingly understood to be the virtue that refuses to think that anything is beyond the pale - except the vew that rejects this view of tolerance: for that, there is no tolerance at all.
Isn't that so interesting? When I look back a few years ago of being in "protest" of the traditional modern church I was raised in, I found myself becoming tolerant of anything but that.
Lastly, how about this thought:
A tree does not simply grow up, but adds a layer at a time and the accumulation of layers is what enables it to grow. Each layer embraces everything that went before. It is a bit like learning to read. The ability emerges, embracing and moving on by acquiring the new.
"Perhaps a culture plaqued by absolutism needs a dose of relativism to correct what is wrong with it - not so much a relativism that utterly displaces what came before, but a relativism that in some sense embraces what came before, yet moves on. If absolutism is the cancer, it needs relativism as the chemotherapy. Even though this chemotherapy is dangerous in itself, it is the necessary solution."
posted by dcschmiddy at 2:54 PM
2 Comments:
Enjoyed your post. Very interesting thoughts.
Great post! I can identify! I often justify this behavior & focus b/c I'm rejecting or breaking down the traditional ideaologies & practices that seem harmful or not accurate. I'm helping people see what I think are harmful things! But in the end, what good is that if I'm not pointing to life! In fact, do I really even need to point out what's wrong to point at what's right? I guess in some instances you do, but the primary focus should be what's right, not what's wrong!
Not sure if that made sense outside my head, but it does inside my head! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home