Thursday, January 10, 2008
The "Death" Of The PC(USA)
Our churches are dying in body and spirit because we have no institutional capacity to handle the complexities of being church in the shifting worldview from modern to postmodern.Now, interestingly, I objected to that thesis because I do not think the church is supposed to shift its worldview, it defines worldview. But, if you think about it, the church has to defend its worldview in light of a changing prevalent worldview, which, when I read his sub-points, I think is the issue. We have enjoyed a period in which our worldview was the culturally predominant worldview, that is changing. Here are his subpoints
- We promise relief from life's craziness rather than offer ways to experience peace in the midst of chaos
- We worship the past rather than allow the past to ground our future
- We value the DOing of the institution over BEing in relationship
- We only know acceptance or rejection and can't handle appreciation:
Modernity says that there is one and only one "Big Story" or metanarrative and truth; Postmodernity says there is not ONE metanarrative or truth; Christian Postmodernity says that under the metanarrative of Christ, there are many many truths about knowing Christ.
Interesting points all, but I would express them a bit differently.The first three points are things I talk about all the time - we need transformation (peace in the midst of chaos is something only a transformed individual can experience) - idolatry (Hey - it is all about who or what we worship) - choosing the institution over the reason for the institution (I am betting my regulars are bored with reading about that).
It is that last point I find a little troubling. In some very real sense, I agree with that point. For example, I am not at all convinced there is an absolute truth on the question of paedobaptism, I am not going to judge someone on their stance or lack there of on that issue - that is one of the "many truths" about knowing Christ.
But along the path of "many minor truths," is a large and readily confusable fork that leads down the path of "no objective truth." The real problem is maintaining the metanarrative while allowing for the minor narrative to vary - that is the point where fracture occurs. What defines the metanarrative? How do you enforce the metanarrative without taking that awful ugly side trip?
It seems to me like if you don't take the "no objective truth path," you end up on the "dogmatic jerk" path.
Which, if you think about it, takes us back to the first point. Transformed people can maintain these important distinctions.
Technorati Tags:pc(usa), transformation, truth
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
