Postmodern churches

The problem I see with postmodern churches is their readiness to develop new means. They do not hold tight to any previous means or previous belief. They are more open. They are also more skeptical. This is good if the previous things were in error. It is bad if they were correct and biblical or have no substitutes for the true doctrine that they are forgetting. Traditionalism says that certain (older/timeless) means and beliefs are in fact better than new means or beliefs that are not approved by God. Postmoderns may live the way God has called them to but they would do better to live it by truth not just spirit. A believer WILL worship God in both these things. God aught to be glorified in everything and clearly some means are not as glorious.

This argument against postmodernism is a strikingly similar frame as the argument between the Lutheran and Calvinists. The difference in the Protestants is that they opted for less Tradition so the Bible could become the rule of faith. It was so that what was unnecessary was not the main attraction. It differs because Postmoderns opt for no Tradition,(even biblical traditions) but by nature of the uncertainty of postmodernism they have no rule of faith to supercede it. Not evil the Bible anymore.

This similarity fits with idea of postmodernism because Protestants sought a different set of witnesses, or chosen associates, other than just catholic tradition. Namely, the Bible, at the top of those witnesses. Protestants wished to move sideways. Postmoderns have no where to go but downwards since they do not claim any existing rule of faith like Protestants do. There is no new Bible that they can hold as truly inspired. They say it is only about relationship to Jesus Christ. The problem, which Christ? Unfortunately, faith is now only subjective. This new rule of faith will always fall back onto natural (subjective) desires. The progress is also hindered in such a community because uncertainty of truth in any degree is the antithesis of a trusting belief in a truth, faith itself.

First In the "man-centered" world, the exercise of faith is superceded by ineffective excess to do that which seems good (ie entertaining to man) but this is in a medium that is low in content. It has too little words for a too little gospel.

Next, In the "community-centered" postmodern world, the exercise of faith will make some progress together, but not beyond that of the community. When assimilated into that group, there is less novelty in complete skepticism but there is still the equal uncertainty. I venture to say that many of the better Postmodern churches intuitively stress community since they recognize that it is binding on a true Christian. It aught to be truth that binds them. Non-Christians can have such fellowships without meaning. They are called knitting circles. In the "culture-centered" world, the (emerging church) EC creates their own subculture. It is similar to the community centered idea. It links postmodernism to house churches since they both act as a subculture which rethinks everything they do especially the means.

Now lets get into something that the EC needs to pick up, some Confessionalism. They need a belief and doctine. Anything that spreads and propagates without a purpose is a virus. The idea of confessionalism vs evangelical vs liberal is strange thing that has arisen. Some people place confessionalism into its own camp of Christians. I disagree, Confessionalism has benefits in evangelical circles. (Liberal circles are too far gone to mention anything about their confessions. They deal little with faith and too much with social action.) Confessionals are best considered to be premodern balance put in place by churches to fight postmodernism and liberalism. It places a testimony of the beliefs of their shared faith into a believer's hands. I see it as more of a method that would help fight decay than a separate camp. Bible illiteracy is at a all-time-high. At least in a confession, besides the Bible, you know that it is also heavy in content and truth. (Yet not inerrant). Perhaps this is putting too much in the hands of fallible christian men, but at least I trust them more than the Devil's. There are plenty of churches that have not moved despite a lack of a confession. A church should know exactly where to look to refute errors. A confession can be a reference.

The SBC seems to be doing a little better with their recent stress on the BMF and particularly biblical inerrancy at the seminaries. It is still nowhere near a true confessional for them. Some confessionalism is suited for dealing with postmodernist decay. The church's claim can stand solid before any skepticism by a postmodern. The problem with postmodernism is that everything is equally uncertain. With no adversary in writing, anything can be subjective and made to succumb to postmodernism.

The truth proclaimed in writing is also a very good tool to educate. Their is plenty of importance for this even if the confession is not considered binding. The church I attend is nonconfessional but strong in its beliefs with its polity and theology in order. In this they might get some benefit from the 1689 London confession by the Baptists because it is more condensed. They have drawn up documents that complement what is out there but they could do with some more. Part of the Westminister confessional/catechism with scripture references could fill such a gap. I should inqure about this in the Children's ministry.

In additon, A postmodern would need a little more earnestness. It has many implications to postmodernism. I tend to agree with Spurgeon on the necessity of earnestness in a preacher. You can't preach truth to a postmodern if you don't earnestly believe it to be true. You must be so earnest that they know that you do believe it is. You can't preach well if you don't earnestly feel for them, especially in their situation of boundage in sin. Nor can you preach well if you will not go as far as to plead for them to be reconcilled with God. Counterfeits are spotted. There needs to be some more plain speaking in churches today. Less oratory more conviction. This would do the most to impress truth upon people.

Let a preacher when he says that God became man say it with the full conviction as he would have with seeing Jesus himself. Let a preacher when he says Jesus died to save sinners say it with the full force of the angelic hosts. Let a preacher when he says that God poured out his wrath on our sins say it as if it happened yesterday. Let a peacher when he says that God's arm is not so short that it cannot save mean that for even the most vile sinner, even a mass murder!!! Was not the great Apostle Paul such. The wonderful deeds and doings of God cannot be forgotten in Evangelism. Yes, the glory and the power of God himself must be envoked. It cannot be something that is left to mold on rye toast. It cannot be something that is rejected just because it is but another shade of the rainbow of religion.