Do you believe the Restoration Movement is just as valid in a postmodern environment as it was in the environment of the modern age? Why or why not?
Yes. The problem is, I'm not entirely certain what "postmodern" really means. For a decade or more I've heard conflicting definitions. They are always either too long or too vague. I haven't seen a good, succinct, understandable explanation of "postmodern."
Does anyone care to give describing it a shot?
UPDATE
The complete series of posts on this topic:
Does the Restoration Movement Matter? (1-7)
If we pursue the restoration ideal as restoring the function of the first century church, then I would say yes. In fact, I would say yes in any socio-historic culture. But I believe many my generation and younger (postmoderns) are looking for a community like the first century Christian church.
ReplyDeleteNow, if restoration philosophy continues to be the pursuit of the first century church forms... then no.
Rex
It's intriguing to me that "postmodern" seems to have its roots in architecture, and was a reaction to simplistic, reductionistic, clean, rational design. It seems that it was an effort to re-introduce passion into the arts, especially architecture. (Modernism was probably an overreaction to the rococo vestments of the Victorian era - my guess.)
ReplyDeleteModernism is an extreme position. In some cases, postmodernism is an extreme position - whether in architecture or not. As an effort to re-inject passion into church, I think some emerging churches/conversations are an overreaction to modernism, perhaps pendulum-swinging too far in the other direction.
Whereas modernism concentrated on the mind and soul aspects of a relationship with God, postmodernism seems to emphasize the heart and strength. Modernism in Christianity talks about knowing the rules and obeying them in order to have a right relationship with God. Postmodernism in Christianity talks about loving with all the heart and showing that love toward others by what we say and do.
My sense of it is that the Restoration Movement can be valid today. It could even find great success if, rather than focusing on the restoration of the simplistic rational/legal aspects of a church (its modern heritage) or focusing solely/mostly on emotional experiences and benevolent outreach (its postmodern potential), it could focus on restoring the individual soul to Christ - with all of the heart, soul, mind and strength.
I won't even attempt to define post modern. It would be just another conflicting definition.
ReplyDeleteThe best definition I've found of "postmodern age" (after checking many wikis, dictionaries, and many websites that remind me of things my kindergartner would write) is that it began after WWII - evolving into the "hippy" movement, and continuing in the hearts and minds of Generation X, Y, and Z. Basically, your parents are idiots and go do what you want. Wicca has embraced this in their "motto" - "do as you will, harm no one". This has resulted in a rejection of everything that was seen as "normal", from music to living space, to fashion trends, to what is taught in school and college. The thing is, it's a snowballing effect. Children of "hippies" are rejecting what thier parents did, which was a rejection of their parents. And now "Generation X" is having kids and they are rejecting things that were a rejection of a rejection and so on. As a result, church is seen as "way old-fashioned, dude".
ReplyDeleteThe Restoration movement CAN matter today, however, the "old school" way of thinking needs to be thrown out and the postmodern way of communicating needs to be embraced.
In the 1940's you could set up a tent, say a revival is going on and people from all over would show up. Now, you have have a revival, it's probably just the people from your church that will be there and you won't be reaching anyone.
To reach the hearts of people, you have to go where they are. Like here, we're all in "cyberspace". (I've heard of many churches that have a larger membership role in "Second Life" than they do in reality.) Many people are in their livingrooms watching TV (unfortunately Benny Hinn and others know this all too well), others are working 15 hour days. Still others are living in poverty, not able to concieve of a better life in "the world to come".
Does the movement matter? Yes, because in many ways we hold "the truth" in a way that other groups don't. The real question is, "is it relevant?" For the most part,given the definition I gave above, I'd say no. Unless we break with the "old gang" way of thinking and do what Jesus did and go where the people are, then we will just fade away.
As to your question, function without form - I think the form needs to be changed. The "mold" of "this is how we do church" needs to be broken. Only then can we reach the hearts (and likewise the minds) of people in this "postmodern" era.
Greet one another with a holy kiss! That command is given five times in the NT. The function is hospitality, while the form is a holy kiss. Must we greet with a holy kiss to be hospitable or can we be hospitable in another form, such as hugging or handshake?
ReplyDeleteI believe that examply is rather obvious. Other examples are not as obvious ad would require much more space to demonstrate. Such demonstration would also need to look at every example on an individual basis because there are examples where form and function cannot be seperated so easily (i.e., marriage).
Most of my experience is within the a capella branch but I do know that the entire conservative part of the movement (Acapella CoC and Independent-Instrumental CoC/CC) have pursued the idea that the goal of New Testament Christianity was the reproduction of the NT (first century) Church forms. In fact, such reproduction was the litmus test of faithfulness and soundness. Churches that broke from this form were wrong. From the Acapella standpoint, this meant that it was wrong to add instruments since the NT church did not have instruments. I reject that view.
Though I am oversimplifying the matter, I believe the purpose of the church (body of Christ) is to reproduce the life of Christ (Head). The body cannot be any different than the head. The fucntions of Christ are to be the functions of the church. The first century church is an example of Christians carrying out this function within their own cultural contexts (Jewish context is different from a Gentile context). We learn from the first century example as a historic example recorded in scripture just like other societies learn from reading other history. But the pedagocical purpose is not to reproduce that historical form. Or, in other words, we are not to follow the church but instead to follow Jesus Christ (which is what scripture itself teaches).
And just to add to my point, to my knowledge there has never been any point within Restoration history where any congregation has ever fully reproduced the form of the first century churches. Our form (or "pattern") has been very selectively decided. Further, even if the RM continues to pursuit of form reproduction, I doubt it will ever reproduce the first century form in its entirety -- for that would require too much radical change from what has become the accepted norm.
Rex