I just listened to a Centurions web conference that resonated with me. It was given by a fellow (who I will leave nameless) who ministers to 16 to 29 year olds and is well connected with leaders in the emerging church as well as leaders in modern church. He lives in the space where that tension exists ... and thinks the tension is a good thing.
His presentation resonated with me. Why? Because my mission field is twenty somethings and thirty somethings who are asking big questions ... both followers of Christ, and those who are not yet following Christ. I am called to speak truth to a culture that believes in absolute truth but absolutely rejects certainty ... and is quite certain about that :-)
One useful component of his presentation was a new term for me ... a very sticky term, I might add.
Amateur Postmodern
First, let's define a Professional Postmodern.
A professional postmodern is someone who is openly and aggressively nihilistic and naturalistic, dogmatic. People who have thought a lot about it and are anti-modern. Generally intellectuals and in the academy. A small percentage of the population.
Now, an let's define an Amateur Postmodern.
Have absorbed this view by osmosis but haven't tested it or thought much about it. They aren't opposed to modernity and enjoy a mix - a "mopo" of sorts (versus a "pomo", which is the usual term for a postmodern thinker). The majority of 20 and 30 somethings.
I found this quite helpful. When I hear the term "postmodern", I automatically latch onto the first definition. When I hear that our culture is postmodern, I assumed it was "professional" postmodern. In my experience, however, I have not found professional postmodernism espoused by the man on the street, as it were. It is usually a blend of modern and postmodern thinking. Another thing, it is characterized usually by very little thinking -- mostly people are just repeating things they have heard others say (without thinking it through themselves).
The result is a hodge-podge of mopos out there. They are not rigorously postmodern. They are not nihilistic. They do believe in truth. They do reject certainty, however. It is a knowledge thing. And, they value consistency in life and words. Your life must be your message along with your words (not to the exclusion of your words). Authenticity is a big deal.
There is much more to post on from this remarkable web conference.
I like the term mopo. Most people do have a hodgepodge of modern and postmodern influencing their thinking or lack thereof. This has been my experience with most people I meet outside of the academy or intellectual circles. They have not thought through the implications of what they believe. Unfortunately, the same can be said of many people within the church.
Posted by: B.A. | April 21, 2006 at 10:43
Agreed. But why this is significant for me, anyway, is that people claim to be pomos, but they are not pomos. They are really mopos.
Sounds nuanced and like a ridiculous thing to care about. But it actually is quite important.
People like Colson and Moreland, who understand what professional postmoderns (PP's) believe, go ballistic when people (especially churched people) happily claim the title "postmodern". It is an anathema to truth and truth warriors like Colson.
What is really going on, imo, is that amateur postmoderns are espousing things that they really know very little about. They are repeating things the PP's have said -- but the AP's are quite shallow. People like me have given the AP's too much credit for actually believing the junk that PP's are printing and teaching. Make sense?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 21, 2006 at 11:38
Makes perfect sense. This reminds me of the discussion with had in January with Joe. I stated that I thought many Christian leaders are fear mongering and much of that fear mongering was misplaced.
The fear mongering about postmodernism is often placed on the whole of society when in reality this battle is largely trapped in the academy and even there most are not as hardcore as many Christian leaders would like you to believe. I understand the fear they have that these radical beliefs will move from the academy to the mainstream but on the whole most people I encounter, whether it is a waitress at the local eatery or the cashier at the grocery store are reasonable people who would not buy into all the ProPomos have to say.
I would say, let's address the everyday man and equip them to think critically and when some crazy hardcore ProPomo approaches them they will make them think twice before trying to convince them.
Most AP's can be reasoned with and will see the light if we are about to demonstrate by word and deed that there is truth, it is knowable and a certain amount of certainty is reasonable as we are empowered by the giver of all truth.
Posted by: B.A. | April 21, 2006 at 12:08
Who sets the definition of pomo? I am 28 years old, I question a lot of things my dad tought me, I question a lot of things that the church has told me, but I am a believer and I do believe in absolute truth. I do not believe the cross to be "just a metaphor" and I do believe Jesus died and rose again. I think that haggling over worship styles causes more division then unity and I believe that God would not be happy with the church as a whole. We are factional, divided, and are guilty of what the church in Corinth was. Paul said that we must be unified as a church to show ourselves approved to the world. What does that make me?
I do not like being defined, I like being refined. Bring on the refiners fire, it hurts, but iron sharpens iron and even to get the iron molded it must be heated up sometimes.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 21, 2006 at 14:18
"What does that make me?"
From what you just expressed, I think that makes you spot on :-)
"I do not like being defined, I like being refined."
I am not a fan of labels for the sake of labels (if that is what you mean by not liking being defined). Language, however, is unavoidable. Labels will always be around.
I am not trying to fence people in ... I am trying to understand them. This web conference helped connect a few dots for me.
The payoff for me personally is that I can better engage those immersed in this culture -- with greater wisdom, sensitivity and efficacy. I can be a wiser and more gracious ambassador for King Jesus.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 21, 2006 at 18:03
I want to make sure I do not sound so hostile in my last post. Please do not take it that way if it does.
Labels bother me a bit though. I do understand that we have to to some extent. A great book by David Berreby is called Us and Them. It explores why we tend to lump ourselves into factions and different groups. It is a little dry at times, but a worthy read.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | April 21, 2006 at 18:42
"I want to make sure I do not sound so hostile in my last post. Please do not take it that way if it does."
I did not, but I appreciate you making sure :-)
"Labels bother me a bit though."
Me too. On the positive side, they make it easier to communicate ideas. On the negative side, they play into our human tendency to manipulate and control people by constructing cartoons of their beliefs and then smashing those cartoons to pieces.
One thing that I tell people at our Pigfests, Carl, is to keep the debate focused on ideas rather than going after people. We can be hard on ideas, but we need to be gracious toward people (in most circumstances anyway).
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 22, 2006 at 11:01
The thirst for authenticity among mopos/APs may be driven by previous generations who have not yet fully put their money where their mouth is.
I grew up in a family steeped in the Word of God -- where the Bible was not only acknowledged, but read and lived (albeit imperfectly because of human fallibility). But I discovered in college at Washington and Lee University that apparently not all 20 and 30 somethings have had the same upbringing!
It was there that I gradually came to a conviction that what the Bible says about the deceitfulness of riches and worldly ambition ought to be taken more seriously than it often is. Affluence may not be inherently evil, but perhaps it tends to isolate people from realities of life that show them their need for the salvation that Christ offers, or gives them the illusion that their problems can be solved or at least pushed aside by money and material possessions.
I learned recently that the French postmodern philosophers Baudrillard, Lyotard, and Foucault developed their philosophies largely in response to the revolutions in personal computing and information technology that drove the new economy that began to emerge in the 1970s and 1980s. Ironic, isn't it, to think that the very technology I am using to write this is the sort of technology that fueled the genesis of postmodernism?
Perhaps this points to the need for Christians in America and the wider West to think critically about the role that consumerism and materialism have had to play in distorting our sense of priorities.
The way I see it, the battle for truth in our day is in large measure a battle between God and Money. Mainstream culture is forcing Christians in America and the West to clarify our allegiances. Are we going to be loyal to Mammon at the expense of Christ? Or to Christ at the expense of Mammon? We cannot serve two masters.
The situation Christians find themselves in today with respect to postmodernism and the contemporary thirst for authenticity is in many respects nothing new. Greek civilization went through a similar phase with the Sophists. And the entire Old Testament essentially deals with the problem of authenticity in Hebrew civilization -- or why else did the prophets perpetually castigate their countrymen by portraying the huge gap between God's faithfulness and their rebellion?
One of the Psalmists reflected on tensions of godly witness to pagan culture in this way:
"It is time for You to act, O LORD,
For they have regarded Your law as void.
Therefore I love Your commandments
More than gold, yes, than fine gold!
Therefore all Your precepts
I consider to be right;
I hate every false way."
(Psalm 119:126-128)
Whom do we love more? God or Gold?
The battle for Truth boils down to this.
Posted by: Daniel | April 22, 2006 at 12:43
"The situation Christians find themselves in today with respect to postmodernism and the contemporary thirst for authenticity is in many respects nothing new."
Good points, Daniel. Wifey and I were talking about the new buzzword taking over evangelicalism in the last 10 years -- besides worldview ;) -- and that word is authenticity.
Wifey made the same point as you -- and you both are right. The thirst for authenticity is nothing new. In fact, it is quite old.
You focus on the money aspect of the struggle -- which is true.
But wifey made a cogent point that goes deeper.
The problem is unbelief.
If we really believed in the things we say we believe in, then we would be fearless people. No more fear of what others think. No more fear of running out of money. No more fear of losing our creature comforts. No more fear of not finding the perfect church. No more fear of *not* being loved and *not* being accepted. No more fear of living wide open -- real, messed up, authentic people.
So the problem goes deeper than money. The problem is fear, and ultimately unbelief.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 22, 2006 at 14:22
Interesting distinction. I think it's right as to the "average" person. I'd suggest, though, that it's a mistake to limit the EC movement to the "mopo missionfield." There is underlying the EC movement a deeper dissatisfaction with modernism's influence on evangelical Christianity -- read Murphy, Grenz, Newbiggin and Franke about that. Theirs is a valuable critique. Many within the EC would contend that viewing the EC as simply a missions movement is a coopting of the movement by the old modernist church.
I'd also suggest that the theologians whose work underlies the EC don't fall into either the "professional" or "amatuer" pomo buckets. "Professional" pomo seems to equate with continental literary theory, which is only one thin slice of the range of possible critiques of modernity. The theologians I mentioned above challenge most aspects of foundationalism, but don't resort to the relativism of the continental literary theorists.
Posted by: dopderbeck | April 24, 2006 at 12:12
"Many within the EC would contend that viewing the EC as simply a missions movement is a coopting of the movement by the old modernist church."
Not that I disbelieve you, but could you provide some examples? This would categorically disagree with Bolger and Gibb's assessment after an exhaustive survey of leaders of the EC.
The foundationalist critique is a segment of the EC, and it does appear in their book, but it is fairly minor in scope (I think they quoted one leader).
"I'd also suggest that the theologians whose work underlies the EC don't fall into either the "professional" or "amatuer" pomo buckets."
Agreed, and this speaker was not suggesting that they did. He was suggesting that the culture was largely comprised of amateur postmoderns. The question is how to contextualize the gospel of the kingdom so that amateur postmoderns can understand it.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 24, 2006 at 21:13
The foundationalist critique is a segment of the EC, and it does appear in their book, but it is fairly minor in scope (I think they quoted one leader)
Well, maybe so in Bolger's book, but having read the stuff I've read, and having hung out in places like The Ooze, I don't think you can just write off the foundationalist critique. What I'm suggesting is that it's a mistake to treat Emergent like a bunch of modern folks who are acting postmodern in order to bring amatuer postmoderns into the fold. Emergent is also a critique of the modernistic Evangelical subculture, and that's a vital critique.
Posted by: dopderbeck | April 26, 2006 at 08:58
"What I'm suggesting is that it's a mistake to treat Emergent like a bunch of modern folks who are acting postmodern in order to bring amatuer postmoderns into the fold."
Agreed. But it is also a mistake to say that the Emergents are postmoderns -- many are not. I am not sure what term befits them -- perhaps Ken Boa's term of "transmodern" is better.
Critiquing aspects of modernism (like rationalism, for example) is something all Christians should do. Critiquing something like rationalism does not make a person postmodern. I criticize rationalism, which I believe to be closely wedded to modernism, yet I postmodernism as I understand it.
If I have time later, I'll post the section from Bolger and Gibbs where they address the foundationalist critique. It appears in the chapter on "transforming secular space." The subtitle of the section is called "from systematic to nonlinear". It is quite interesting.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 26, 2006 at 09:14