Is Post modernism contrary to historical and biblical Christianity?

This gives a good idea about where the Emerging Church is going:
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/conferences/emer/

Richard Rohr, who is part of this conference, thinks Buddhism is great. See
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/conferences/JB/post/

One can also see from this that the Emerging people are very attracted to mysticism and techniques that cultivate subjective experiences and so are drawn to Catholicism.

As someone who was involved in both Tibetan and Zen buddhism before salvation, I can readily testify to the deep spiritual darkness and bondage of Buddhism. Despite it's surface appearance, it is truly very evil. I can also testify to techniques done to evoke "spiritual" experiences which are very real and seem good and peaceful.

 

Notice that at the above link, they promote the enneagram. This is an occult tool that came out of Anthroposophy (Gurdjieff and Ouspensky). There are some good articles online that expose the enneagram. It's one of those "tools" that has been sanitized to appear as though it's a psychological tool, but its roots are occultic. This is also true for astrology (I was a professional astrologer for many years and taught astrology prior to trusting Christ) - it is often used as a psychological and counseling tool today but its nature is occultic.

The enneagram was used at the 2007 National Pastors Conference.

 

I was reading an article, McLaren wrote about homosexuality........

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001795.html

And found this quote.......

-------------------------------------------------
He sounds like a dangerous man to me.

 

I answer in the affirmative. One only needs to compare The general philosophy of postmodernism and that of what is the plain teaching of Scripture to see that they are not compatible.

I understand what Tim is saying about it being of a cultural nature, but culture has a way of manifesting itself within the church in way of theology. I believe we see this with the emergent movement.

 

Good stuff. I agree.:thumbs:

 

these were my initial thoughts after reading the OP.

 

Yep, post-modernism is contrary to historical and biblical christianity, so I voted YES.

 

Yes, McLaren likes Spong, who happens to deny pretty much all the essentials of the faith. McLaren likes Marcus Borg, too -- Borg of the Jesus Seminar. A lot of people say McLaren is way out there but the problem is, he is influencing others and others are following him. McLaren was a speaker at Willow Creek's conf. for youth workers.

 

I really believe that anyone talking about postmodernism at a deeper level should be required to read some of the seminal works on the topic. Some Foucault, Rorty, Derrida, and even Lyotard. There are lots of presuppositions about postmodernism in this thread, most of which aren't awfully good.

That's fine, but postmodernism is (again) not any more an enemy or friend of Christianity than modernism or premodernism. It is all about how we epistemologically approach life. It isn't teaching anything like people suggest.

I believe the Bible is a human product of divine inspiration.

Well let me just say for the record that Brian McLaren isn't a postmodern. If anything he...watch this...hyper-modern. He actually accepts a deeply individualistic perspective of Cartesian modernism in his approach to personal philosophy. I don't believe anyone in this thread should begin to use McLaren as a "poster boy" for postmodernism. He isn't postmodern. If you want a poster boy look at Foucault or someone like that.

Well the "postmoderns" you have been exposed to probably aren't awfully postmodern. They are adopting an epistemological bent based on the cool. Usually when someone accepts a prevelant metanarrative without the suspicion of hermeneutic as real postmoderns move they probably aren't awfully postmodern.

Most of the emerging and emergent groups are hypermodern. They aren't remotely postmodern. I can get into that more if needed.

Ironically you are using deeply modernistic language to describe your position. All of the points you just raised about the perception of postmodernism is all done with deeply modernistic verbiage. My point isn't slight, the langauge we use about postmodernity must reflect the philosophical commitments of those you are talking about.

 

This quote came from the article or blog or whatever it is. It is obviously not from McLaren. He is quoted extensively in the article, but this isn't one of them. I will include a few quotes attributed to McLaren.

The quote from the article cited by stilllearning comes at this point.

I've included these quotes from the article to put the criticism of McLaren in context. I have read a few books by him. I didn't find him particularly remarkable, but I think he makes some good points about the treatment of people and not jumping to conclusions.

Tim Reynolds

 

Maybe he isn't but this is what some call themselves, or at least they feel they are addressing the postmodern culture. I am speaking of the christians doing this.

Yes, please do! I'm interested. I have heard this kind of statement before, btw - that these people are not really postmodern.

I don't agree that I need to be postmodern to talk about postmodernism, if that' s what you are saying. Whether I"m modern or not, I do believe language has meaning, there are absolutes, and there is objective truth that we can know or discover.

 

Tim, thanks for the quotes, some of which I've read before. I certainly disagree with him that we need to wait to decide about homosexuality and where to draw lines. I think scripture tells us where the lines are drawn.

He may talk about being nice to people but he has a very arrogant attitude and says nasty things about Christians he disagrees with, painting them as "mentally ill" and using derogartory terms.

I don't need McLaren to know how to treat people. If anything, I"ve had way more experience in this than he has - as an astrologer, I used to pick handfasting dates for lesbian witches and do charts for both lesbians and gay men. While we need to treat everyone with respect (and the Bible already says this), we also need to be clear about what it teaches on certain issues.

And I'm sorry, but if he thinks Borg and Richard Rohr are great, I have a big question about his Christianity. Rohr is pretty much a New Ager in terms of what he promotes and teaches, and Borg denies all the essentials of the Christian faith.

 

Hi Timsings

You said.......

Before I posted this quote, I took several looks at this blog, and it isn’t all that obvious to me, that this is not a quote from McLaren.
As you said, “He is quoted extensively in the article”!

But just in case I was reading it wrong, I included the link.
--------------------------------------------------
I am sorry it I mis-quoted him, but I still think he is dangerous!

 

McDowell dealt with those folk in his book.

Marcia,

Thanks for your insight from your background. That is a real blessing to the church.

 

Thanks for the encouraging words, ReformedBaptist! :wavey: :godisgood:

 

Last month I attended a conference at Xenos Christian Fellowship (Columbus OH)
I'd guess the church there would consider itself part of the "Emerging church" (and distinct from the "Emergent church").

What a unique and effective church!!! Truely blessed by God.

What drew me to the conference was two plenary sessions by D. A. Carson
He was good...
but I was overwhelmed by the first two sessions by two other speakers.

The first by the pastor of the fellowship, Dennis McCallum
The second by Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

The whole conference is available on the net at: Xenos' teaching website [LINK]

Each session was about a hour and a half so be prepared to listen awhile.

I'd highly recommend listening to the first two sessions!

1. Are We Getting the Job Done? Is the Church Still Relevant? by Dennis McCallum
and
2. How the Local Church Can Reach Our Postmodern Culture by Mark Driscoll

Both concern our response to postmodernism.

Rob

 

Rob, this is certainly not one of the Emerging churches that is following the ideas of many of the Emerging leaders and spokespeople.

D. A. Carson has written against the postmodern move in the church and Mark Driscoll was once with the Emerging gang but stepped back from them for theological reasons.

There are Emerging churches that teach sound doctrine, and I'm glad they are out there, but unfortunately, the writings of many of the Emergent and some of the Emerging leaders are not doctrinal -- they are the ones who are influencing the most people, especially young people.

Some of the Emerging leaders, such as Leonard Sweet, openly endorse New Agers such as Matthew Fox. Rob Bell thinks Ken Wilber is great and everyone should take 3 months to read Wilber's book. Wilber is a New Ager. I have his book, btw. These are the people writing books and speaking at many conferences. And then there's Brian McLaren and his influence, as well as Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and others.

Here's Driscoll himself in a Feb 27, 2008 interview (emphasis is mine):