Open Letter to Modernistic Christian Thinkers

The following is actually a discussion board reply for a theology class I am currently taking.  I have removed the person's name to whom I am writing and posting it here as more of an open letter.

            Thank you for your concern regarding what is considered the emerging church.  I enjoyed reading it. 

            Your opinion of what Enns calls the emergent or emerging church (Enns 2014, 695) is interesting.   It is my opinion that a church that is willing to admit that it is a process, not a finished product, and that it is still developing (Enns 2014, 695) is more biblical than a church that believes it has everything correct and its doctrine is resolute.  At least it is less prideful. 

            Enns writes,

The emerging church does not subscribe to specific doctrinal statements.  As a product of postmodernism, the emerging church adherents to do not see things – including doctrine – in black and white; they see grey, better yet, multicolors of other cultures, backgrounds, and religions” (Enns 2014, 698).  This is not necessarily a negative thing. 

            In his book Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church, Neil Cole writes of the differences between a modernistic viewpoint and a postmodernistic viewpoint.  His conclusion is that there are things that the modern church can learn from a postmodern philosophy – that instead of assuming God is modernistic, we, as Christians examine the Bible and what is says (Cole 2010, 26).  In fact, if we truly study the Bible, we see that there are many ways the Bible is in agreement with a postmodern world. 

            For instance, Cole points out that the modern church focuses on a mission. It believes the church is there to provide spiritual guidance (Cole 2010, 28-30).  However, a postmodern culture values relationship over mission (Cole 2010, 28-30).  It is not going to take the word of a church, just because the church feels it has the authority. 

If we study the life of Jesus, we see that He, also, did not expect people to blindly accept.  He formed relationships with people (and Himself pointed out the error of those in authority – mainly the Pharisees).  The Pharisees believed they were the authority, much like the modernistic church believes.  They would not allow questioning.  Jesus, however, did allow questions and was willing to answer. 

            Cole also points out the fact that while the modernistic church values excellence, the postmodern society values authenticity (Cole 2010, 30-32).  In his words, the greatest sin to the modern church is heresy.  The worst sin according to postmodernism is hypocrisy (Cole 2010, 32).  The postmodern society can see through the hypocrisy of the modern church, which strives to prove its excellence and perfection to the world (a battle that it loses over and over because, those in the church as the rest of society, are human beings who fall and sin).  If rather than trying to prove its excellence and perfection, the church would be open and honest, it would reach many more people from a postmodern generation. 

Cole points out the postmodern society values experience and mystery rather than a solution (Cole 2010, 32-41).  This is the idea that is often interpreted, as Enns believes, as adhering to the beliefs of Easter religions (Enns 2014, 695).  As Cole writes, “The postmodern is not obsessed with solutions.  In fact, mystery is more attractive than answers.  The journey is better that the destination” (Cole 2010, 39). 

Perhaps the modern church should understand that valuing experience and mystery is not anti-God.  In fact, is not a personal relationship with Jesus Christ an experience?  The modern church viewpoint is the perfect example of the belief that education in cold doctrine is what saves.  It is not.  It is Christ and our relationship with Him. 

Lastly, as you point out in your post, postmodern society values diversity over uniformity (Cole 201, 40-41).  This point ties in with my own post on liberation theology and what we can learn from this philosophy.  From experience in the modern church, anyone that is different – be it because of wealth and social status, difference of opinion, even a difference in race – is not welcome in the church.  At least, those people do not truly have a place.  Cole writes, “The kingdom of God is the best place to see diversity of God’s creation, but that’s not necessarily true of churches” (Cole 2010, 40). 

I find it interesting that you say men and women have separate gifts.  I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this argument.  It began in my teenage years when I preferred playing the electric guitar to worrying about boys, my hair, and clothes.  It continued in my religion degree when I was told more than once that it is unusual for a woman to study theology.  I hear it all the time now because my husband likes to cook (I do not) and my thirteen-year old son has hair to the middle of his back and likes the color pink.  We are certainly not a family that follows gender rules or stereotypes. 

It is my opinion that the Bible shows diversity in many issues – including the one that I touched upon here of societal gender rules.  A classic example is from the book of Deborah – of Jael nailing Sisera’s head to the ground with a tent peg.  She did not worry about waiting for her husband to do his role.  She did it herself and was blessed because of it.  Esther saved her people by being willing to put herself on the line.  She used her creativity – some would say craftiness – to speak the truth about Haman, whom her husband (a pagan king) trusted unconditionally.  The apostle Paul was friends with Lydia, who was not a homemaker.  She was a business woman (Acts 16:14). 

My personal favorite example (the example for whom one of the books I am working is titled) is Jacob.  According to Genesis 25:27, Jacob was a quiet man, who helped his mother in the tents.  Esau was the man’s man.  His name even shows his masculinity.  However, it was not Esau that was chosen by God.  It was the more feminine Jacob.  Even Paul referred to this in Romans 9:13 – “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (NIV).  If God sees gender roles as modernistic thinking does, He should have automatically rejected Jacob and chosen Esau. 

Just a question that I often ponder: is it possible that, at least in some cases, so many people are confused about their gender because of the lines modernistic thinking draws?   From experience, there are very, very few people who automatically assume my son is a male.  Every day, someone will either call him a “she” or refer to him as a “young lady.”  He is not the one who is confused.  He knows his identity.  It is those who follow societal rules of what a male should be or a female should be.  He just has his own style. 

In short, as Neil Cole points out, God is neither modern nor postmodern (Cole 2010, 25-27).  It is my opinion that the modern church should cease believing God is an American modernist.  We so often are guilty of forming golden calves from our own philosophies. 

Kandy    

References

Cole, Neil.  Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2010. 

Enns, Paul.  The Moody Handbook of Theology.  Revised and Expanded ed.  Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014.