“So, what do the postmoderns think?”
October 6, 2005
Today in one of my precepts, we were having a conversation about creeds, atonement theories, salvation, cathechismal (we think it’s a word). At the end, one of my classmates looked at me and said, “So, what do the postmoderns think?”
It kind of caught me off-guard for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I’m one of those people who finds talking in precepts a bit uncomfortable, so to be called out like that, that’s not generally how I operate (no worries Tim, I did appreciate you asking). The second part has to do with an email I received shortly after the precept in which another classmate was interested in whether or not I was comfortable being the “go-to person” for the “‘post-modern’ church.” And I guess it catches me off guard because there is an assumption that one person could speak for a community of people. I suppose it’s somewhat different it someone asks, “Tell me about the Assemblies of God perspective on that” or “Tell me what the Presbyterian Church in America thinks about that?” (Even then, though, I think there is still a large variety of opinions on issues within any denominational group). And even more so, with the ‘postmoderns’ - who is to speak for them? Who is able to encapsulate the variety of voices, experiences and perspectives amidst a group of people who seek to defy classification? And need there even be that reason…?
Am I the ’spokesperson’ for the postmoderns? No, I don’t think so. Another assumption people have about me is that I am the spokesperson here at PTS for Emergent. And to some degree, yes; I can claim that. I am “a” voice of someone who feels connected to Emergent, but I am by no means THE voice of Emergent [I'm sure there are some who even have tighter connections with Emergent than I do, who would hope that I'm NOT the voice of Emergent]. When you read my blog and read my thoughts and feelings about women in ministry, homosexuality or other issues, you are reading MY thoughts and opinions, not those of Emergent, which is made pretty clear by the Disclaimer on my blog (and even though I think there are many good reasons why these SHOULD be opinions that Emergent would seek to hold - that is simply not the case).
So am I A resource for Emergent and postmoderns here at PTS? I don’t know. Perhaps… Am I THE spokesperson for the ‘post-modern’ church? Nope. Do I think you can even have THE spokesperson for postmoderns…? No.
With all of that said, for anyone who wants to have a quick glance at some things that “I” think are important to postmoderns and to many in Emergent, you can download a paper I wrote last semester, called “Emergent Postmoderns: Who are they and What is their Biblical Hermeneutic?” It may or may not be helpful, but I think it summarizes what I think that “some” postmoderns think as far as when it comes to their presuppositions about the Bible. Below you can read my conclusion from the paper:
It is difficult to paint the entire spectrum of a postmodern worldview and understanding of biblical hermeneutics. However, I think that an adequate summary of this cultural group of emergent postmoderns consists of a post-institutional, post-rationalistic, post-individualistic and post-Holocaust/post-9/11 worldview. Therefore an emergent postmodern biblical hermeneutic is ecumenical, dynamic, communal and organic. The hermeneutic is ecumenical in that it struggles to fight against institutions and desires to bring all into the conversation; it is dynamic because it reads the Bible through the lens of a Story and attempts to bring about life-action and response from the text; it is communal because it seeks first the community (over against the individual) and arrives at such an interpretation through authentic relationships of people in dialogue; and lastly, it is organic because it is fluid, ever-changing and has a good understanding of human limitations. An emergent postmodern biblical hermeneutic will not claim to be the only and true hermeneutic, but I believe this hermeneutic is one such way that disillusioned postmoderns find T(t)ruth, meaning and hope in the Bible.
Tags: Emergent, Postmodern, Truth
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
October 7th, 2005 at 12:38 am
And I guess it catches me off guard because there is an assumption that one person could speak for a community of people.
Perhaps dubbing your site “pomomusings” has something to do with being labeled a “resource.”
It is difficult to paint the entire spectrum of a postmodern worldview and understanding of biblical hermeneutics.
I thought that the philosophical post-moderns wanted to do away with the use of the term “worldview”. Maybe that’s why it’s so hard to paint it….
…post-institutional, post-rationalistic, post-individualistic and post-Holocaust/post-9/11 worldview…
By this point in your post, and given the fact that “postmodern” has yet to be defined save in opposition to definition, I think the only “post” I want attached to my name in the profession goes something like being “post-postmodern”….
But then, what do i know? ;)
*Oh, and you aren’t “post-rationalistic.” You just tried to explain what you are according to human reason. I think “post-rationalistic” would be more like writing something along the lines of:
“I apostmodern Adam did define not write but go Story and narrate interpretation post-post-interpretation to the people of post-people being history.”
Now that’s post-rationalistic!
October 7th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Oh, and I forgot to add, Adam: I love you bro. :)
October 7th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I question the nature of a postmodern hermeneutic over at http://www.fidepoeta.com. I appreciate your thoughts.
October 7th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Adam. I read your paper. Great job laying it all out.
I have one question, which probably arises in these Emergent conversations often. When I read the paper, I was picturing a minister friend of mine who lives and works in New York City. He has had his urban ministry in operation for over 30 years now. Here’s the thing: every single ideal/interpretation/thesis described in your paper regarding Emergents could be said of this guy and his ministry. In other words, is the emerging church new, and more importantly, can it by definition exist within academia or the institution? It seems like my minister friend, doing his thing day by day for 30 years, already is everything Emergent seeks to be. But he does it with no label (”emerging/ent”) other than following Christ’s example, and he does it with no “us vs. you”ism.
Wuddya think?
October 7th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Adam,
Didn’t mean to “call you out” and if I offended you I apologize. I was really asking the question out of my own interest, wondering how the atonement is viewed by different hermeneutics. I thought we had really pulled all we were going to get out of the mainline church discussion - once the discussion resorted to debating wether the book of Confessions included the Westminster Catechisms in 1967 or 1974 I was looking for a different topic!
I didn’t look to you as the postmodern expert or even necessarily representative, but I did, as Kellen points out, figure you might have a working idea based on your blog name. All I really know is that I have no real idea what the PM hermeneutic would be on the atonement. It really was an honest question which was searching for an answer.
I abhor precepts which waste our time. I enjoy a precept which stretches my thought and allows me to see other perspectives. So the question was really just seeking information and if it made you uncomfortable then I apologize. But just what would a PM atonement model look like? Would it promote the blood of the cross?
Blessings,
Tim
October 7th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Tim, no worries brother. I didn’t think you were ‘calling me out’ and you most certainly didn’t offend me. It was just the question that got me thinking…so no worries at all.
Yah, I’m right with you brother. I hate precepts that suck (although, I’m not the biggest fan of precepts in general…).
I want to know what the PM idea of atonement would be too…I can’t give you a good idea right now (I didn’t really even do the reading from last week) - but I do have the paper for this week, so I’ll let you know what I can next precept… ;)
October 8th, 2005 at 2:49 am
Hmmm…
[pauses - thinks, "I'm not comfortable with Adam being the go to person on things relating to so-called postmodernism."]
After that guttural noise and thought, I decide to read Adam’s paper in the coming week.
October 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Perhaps it might not have caused so much of a ripple if the question had been framed “What does _a_ postmodern think?”.
The whole notion of only one person, or even a select few, who speak for a whole body of people is so very, well, modern.
That’s why, even though I think he’s great in so many ways, I get uneasy when I see the likes of Brian McLaren being hoisted up on that pedestal (by others, of course, never himself…)
October 8th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Hey, you did read Derrida…kind of:) Peace.
October 8th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Hey jerky…I did at least *try* to read Derrida….what can I say? Yah…that was depressing…trying to read Derrida…
October 9th, 2005 at 10:18 am
Adam, i printed out your paper and read it. Thank you for crystallizing what the pomo/emergent hermeneutic is about in accessible language. I am going to share this with everyone i know that has no idea what any of this is about. You are a very good writer! Adele
October 10th, 2005 at 3:09 am
Adam,
Interesting paper, well written. As I try and understand the “emergent” church movement, I have a couple questions that were raised as I read your essay.
1. Does this group believe that scripture was written to express a particular truth to the reader and the community (and therefore lending it an objective reality), or rather that the scriptures can and should be interpreted through one’s cultural lenses apart from any definite “truth” the author might have intended (therefore lending it a subjective reality).
2. Webber refers to 24 traits of “younger evangelicals”. What does he mean in trait #3 when he claims that they have “recovered the biblical understanding of human nature”?
3. In light of the fact that the terms used for this group are (to be honest), at least slightly exclusive (”emergent”, “progressive”, “post-modern” and “younger evangelicals”), and that the nature of this group is to leave the “old way of doing church”, often times entering into community with itself at the exclusion of the “non-progressive” church, is there an inate danger in the makeup of this community in that, in being exclusive and possibly being seen as “elitist” from an outside perspective, they will destroy the very inclusive and communal nature they seek to bring to the church?
October 10th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Jeff, thanks for your questions. Let me try to address some of them:
1. One of the things that I am going to post about in the next few weeks relates to Emergent and how they are not going to be coming out with a Statemenf of Belief (at least not for now). So, I can’t speak for the group - but I would say that just like in any group, organization, denomination, etc., you’ll have people who believe either of those ideas on scripture. Now, as far as where “I” come down…? I don’t think that every piece of scripture has ONE objective truth/kernel of knowledge that we are trying to figure out. No.
2. Webber thinks that the younger evangelicals approach humanity with a more realisitic and biblical assessment of our estrangement from God. He talks about the fact that now, in a post-9/11 world, the language of sin, evil, evildoers has come back to be common. He goes on to write that “the liberal notion of the inherent goodness of humankind and the more recent evangelical neglect of the language of sin and depravity have failed to plumb the depths of the wickedness that lurks in the human heart” (48).
3. Sure, there is that danger. As is the danger with any group or organization. And that again, which I’ll mention later in the next few weeks, is one more reason that Emergent does not want to come out with a Statement of Belief, because that will cause even more people to become alienated. For example: I think that women in ministry is a complete and utter non-issue. I think it’s a basic, no-nonsense issue and I’m pretty black & white about that. But, if Emergent were to adopt that as one of their “Essential Tenets” - then that would in fact automatically exclude any person who was still ‘on the fence’ with that issue from the conversation. As you will come to see, whether or not you agree with it, the ‘conversation’ is more important to Emergent than necessarily coming down somewhere on a specific issue or doctrine.
Are there problems with some people feeling ‘excluded’ from “Emergent”? Sure. I worked at a church in Idaho and there was a guy there who was pretty progressive and open to a lot of new stuff but would always joke around with me about “Oh, I’m too old…and not hip enough to be in that Emergent stuff with you.”
Is it a potential danger…? Sure. But Emergent is not by any means trying to exclude anyone. They have work to do on becoming more diverse for sure, but they are open to any and all joining the conversation.
And, just a note on your comment about how Emergent wants to “leave the old way of doing church.” There are some within Emergent who, for them and where they are at, they need to say “I am leaving the church in the way it’s been done” and they do need to go out and create completely new forms of church. There are others, and I find myself to be very sympathetic to these people, who say, “I want to be more subversive - there is much about church as it is now that I love - and I don’t want to give that up…but there are things that need to change, and those changes can happen at a more grassroots level.”
For so much of all this, it’s not about either/or.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Adam,
Thanks for you thoughts. I was talking to Liam last night about the “emergent” church, and found it interesting that (as you also pointed out), the “emergent” group doesn’t have a set standard of beliefs, as there are so many people in the body that it would exclude some of them and keep the conversation from ever really happening. I find that to be refreshing and productive. (In truth, it might endanger the group into becoming a “non-entity”, but, I think that it might be a risk worth taking- the conversations need to happen)
Also, nice summation of Webber’s point. I think I would agree with him.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to address some of these issues, it is appreciated.
October 13th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
just curious. have you avoided my question purposefully?
October 31st, 2006 at 10:44 pm
The problem I have with all this talk is that sometimes we must look also at reality when we are pondering our doubts. I work at a high school with an depressingly high dropout rate and equally saddening test scores. Language issues of immigrants aside (it’s an extremely diverse school), I think that a major factor is the issue Mark Driscoll is trying to address- the family’s love for Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Without fathers and mothers (orderly team units) who care for their kids and give them loving boundaries and attention, kids are literally starving.
You can sit around and talk emergent church all you want to, and maybe it will be of some use. But please keep in mind that you will be responsible, as pastors, for the lives and livelihoods of the children whose families someday you will guide, direct, admonish and encourage.