Becoming All Things, Spoiling the Egyptians, and Occupying Culture till Christ Comes

Reflections on the Recent Postmodernism Conversation:

Editor Introduction: Postmodernism, The Church, and The Future

Pastor Tony Richie wraps up our discussion on how the church should respond to postmodernism.

Introduction and Overview

The editorial staff of Pneuma Review (PR) is to be commended for its facilitation of this conversation about “Postmodernism, the Church and the Future” through a series of interactive articles (Winter 2007 through Winter 2009). It shows their continuing commitment to PR’s original visionary mission “To lead Pentecostal/charismatic believers to a greater understanding of God’s Word” and assist “church leaders in equipping the saints for the work of the ministry.” It also generates “greater dialogue between Evangelicals” and fosters “an open forum”.¹ As they opened up the discussion, PR editors explained their rationale. Some Christian leaders and thinkers see the shift toward postmodernism as a threat, others as an opportunity. PR feels its readership “needs to hear from today’s theologians and practitioners to get a well-rounded perspective.”² They intentionally assembled a diversely representative panel for that very reason. As I share their initial supposition, and as a member of that original panel, I am excited at their gracious invitation to do a kind of “wrap up” of the conversation that has now been going on for about two years. I am further motivated by general agreement with Stanley Grenz that, “the emerging task of evangelical theology is that of coming to grips with the postmodern condition.”³ Arguably, PR has put its finger one of the most urgent needs for discussion today.

So far, the PR postmodernism conversation has included some notable contributions. In “Emerge or Submerge” Dave Livermore asks “Is ‘cultural relevance’ an effective and theologically sound wineskin for the emergent church or is it moving Christianity toward oblivion?”⁴ Next Winfield Bevins wrote “Retro Faith: A Christian Response to Postmodernism,”⁵ and B. Keith Putt “From Babel to Pentecost: Proclamation, Translation, and the Risk of the Spirit”.⁶ My own prior contribution to the postmodernism conversation was “Effectively Engaging Pluralism and Postmodernism in a So-Called Post Christian Culture: A Review Essay of Lesslie Newbigin’s The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.”⁷ Craig A. Carter contributed “The Myth of Relativism: Christianity in a Postmodern World,”⁸ and Philip Graham Ryken, “Answers to Questions.”⁹ Finally, Frank Viola wrote “A New Kind of Church for a New Kind of World.”¹⁰

I will return later to these thinkers and their ideas. For now, I begin taking a closer look at the topic at hand: postmodern culture and a Christian engagement of and/or response to it. Throughout, I exhort us to bear in mind Hal Knight’s comment that “what is central is a concern to proclaim the truth of the gospel in a postmodern world” because “whatever hope we have rests firmly and ultimately in the risen and living Jesus Christ and in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.”¹¹ Now I will discuss to what extent or in what way we ought to engage postmodern culture as Christians.
 

Wondering about a Worldview on the Rise: Orientation

By way of explanation, this “wrap up” will revolve around certain presuppositions that I will present here. An important Early Church Father, Origen, taught that Christians, like the ancient Israelites, are right and wise to “spoil the Egyptians,” that is, to take from their treasures of knowledge whatever is valuable for divine service in the journey of faith and life. Herein Origen also warned those who “sojourn” in Egypt that, “not many take away … only the useful”. He strongly recommends prayerful study as a safeguard.¹² Therefore, non-Christian culture, according to this perspective, may have something positive to contribute to Christian belief and practice but we must approach it circumspectly. Perhaps, as Thielicke suggested, we can enlist the wisdom of this world as an ally of faith but we must listen carefully to the instinct of the children of God.¹³

Furthermore, Richard Niebuhr’s now classic Christ and Culture explicates five possible attitudes toward culture for Christians.¹⁴ John Stackhouse notes that Evangelicals tend to approach culture most commonly through the “Christ transforming culture” model. This suggests that culture, somewhat like individuals, can be converted and become more Christ-like. It stresses God’s original creativity in conjunction with the subsequent distortional impact of sin and appeals to the restorative power of grace and faith. However, Stackhouse suggests Evangelicals today need to consider more carefully Niebuhr’s “Christ and culture in paradox.”¹⁵ In the paradoxical relation between Christ and culture, Christians live with strong tension. They believe that God has ordained worldly institutions and therefore they may be, though in a limited sense because of the strident reality of sin, recognized and utilized; but, also that the Kingdom of God is penetrating the world here and now with a holy alternative in the power of the Spirit. In either of these cases, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, in Christ’s dealing with culture, both sin and grace are always evident and the balancing act is never easy.

I suggest that Origen and Niebuhr’s views are consistent with Apostle Paul’s courageous ministry among the Corinthians. He declared himself willing to “become all things” to them under the standard of Christ as the lawful norm (1Co 9:19-23). Soards, commenting on this passage, explains that, “the gospel is not relativized to worldly social conditions that are no more than contemporary social structures and sensibilities; rather, the apostle himself becomes relativized in order to preserve the integrity of the gospel.”¹⁶ The point is that Paul not inconsistently uses whatever he can from the cultures he encounters in order effectively to share the gospel but is not brought under binding power to any of it (cf. 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Pentecostal Pauline scholar Gordon Fee calls this “Paul’s apostolic freedom,” and notes that it applies an “accommodation” not of the gospel message but of “how one lives or behaves among those one wishes to evangelize”.¹⁷ Speaking anachronistically, in my opinion this kind of dynamic “pre-modern postmodernism” is precisely what is called for today. Accordingly, this biblical-conceptual-theological framework will inform my subsequent reflections.

Essentially, I will suggest that Christians, including Pentecostals and Charismatics, should take what they can find of value from postmodernism, use it in building better relations with contemporary culture for faithful performance of ecclesial mission, and yet always carefully gauge everything by Jesus Christ as the measuring norm or guiding standard. Possibly aspects of postmodernism may even be of benefit to Pentecostalism. I will first define postmodernism a bit more carefully, and then describe suggestive ways contemporary Christians involved in leadership and church related ministries might apply its insights.

Mention has already been made of the interrelatedness of culture and postmodernism. Now a slightly more substantive statement is necessary. Bouchard notes that, “Culture entails every aspect of the social, artistic, and linguistic environment” of humanity existence. Furthermore, he notes that it includes “particular” and “universal” aspects of the human condition.¹⁸ Essentially, culture is an interpretative framework for bringing meaning and purpose to the human existential condition. According to Bouchard, biblically, culture can be perceived as both promise and problem because of the dual realities of God’s creative action and humanity’s sinful condition.¹⁹ Not surprisingly, there have been vastly differing approaches even by Christians for dealing with culture. Bouchard perceptively proposes that whatever particular theory of culture one adopts, maintaining a “critical, prophetic imperative” is always important. Thus, Christians can “identify idolatries and pretensions” of culture, including religious culture, and be “self-critical” and even, if necessary, “call culture into judgment.” In fact, this is possibly the only way successfully to survive the changes in culture and theology commonplace in contemporary society.²⁰ Pentecostals do well to take note. Hereby we may rise above cultural reliance without falling below cultural relevance (cf. Livermore, Donev).

Postmodernism, therefore, is a cultural framework or philosophy apparently in process of replacing modernism. As I will say more below about understanding postmodernism per se, I only wish here to state that postmodernism and theology until recently have had a rather ambiguous relation. Yet an assessment that “postmodern theology” is “a contradiction in terms” seems premature and surely challengeable.²¹ For example, I think Knight successfully shows that “a critical appraisal of postmodern perspectives can be made to serve evangelical theology’s fundamental insistence on the unique yet universal revelation of God in Christ.”²² Probably, Bevins, Putt, and Viola would generally agree, while Carter and Ryken might not.

A lot depends on presuppositions regarding philosophy of culture and Christianity. Tertullian, always quick-witted and sharp-tongued, produced a famous quote against cultural philosophical speculation: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”²³ My own conviction is that while Athens/the world may not be seeking to understand Jerusalem/the Church, Jerusalem/the Church ought always to endeavor to understand, though not always to embrace, Athens/the world.²⁴ This obvious inequality, in a manner of speaking, is because Christians are in the world, but not of the world (John 17:14-16), and because we are called in Christ to participate in God’s redemptive love for the world (John 17:18; cf. 3:16).

Indeed, the postmodern conversation is complex, but it is at least now moving forward more rapidly than previously. This is as it should be. Accordingly, I will now move on to some explication regarding a definition, or perhaps better, a description, of the postmodern worldview.

Watching a Worldview on the Rise: Evaluation

James Sire gives a verbally concise and technically precise definition of worldview as a concept.

A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.²⁵

More simply, “worldview” means a “perspective on life or outlook on the world.” Briefly put, a worldview is a lens through which one looks at all of life. Everyone has a worldview, whether one realizes it or not and whether one applies it consistently or not. A worldview comes from the experience of life in all its myriad forms, and enables one to function accordingly. There are many competing worldviews, and sometimes people change their worldview. Yet worldview determines identity and is essential for understanding others and ourselves.²⁶ Moreover, not all worldviews are equal. To adopt one that is inadequate or cling to an outdated one is like building a house on a foundation of sand. One can only expect it to crumble (cf. Matt 7:24-27).²⁷

As a worldview, postmodernism is new. In fact, the jury is still out as to whether it really is an entirely new paradigm shift, simply a late modern development, or even what final shape it may take. This prevalent ambivalence inspires Sire to speak of postmodernism as “the amorphous cultural phenomenon”.²⁸ However, indisputably postmodernism is an attempt to move beyond traditional modernism. Modernism’s perceived over reliance on rationalism, a tendency arising out of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, is anathema to postmodernists.²⁹ They generally perceive it as a severe reductionist and even arrogant mindset. For postmodernists truth is subjective as well as objective, and they tend to avoid “metanarratives” or “big picture stories” purporting to explain all of life. In lesser and lower versions, this often results in idiosyncratic individual system building. In healthier and higher versions, it tends toward more humility without succumbing to relativity. One thing is certain: postmodernism permeates contemporary culture, especially in the West.³⁰

Unfortunately, too many Christians tend to either baptize or demonize postmodernism. Riskier but wiser is learning to discern what really is or is not compatible with a biblically based Christian worldview. “Can Christians adopt a postmodern approach without embracing postmodernism?”³¹ The answer is probably yes, if they do so carefully enough, but no, if incautiously. Yet that has really been the same answer to the same question regarding all cultures in the course of Church history. Perhaps best is avoiding over attachment to any “worldly” worldview. There is wisdom in the thought that “An airtight worldview often indicates a lack of truly critical thinking or a childish naiveté; both are dangerous in their own right.”³² As with almost anything else, beware of being too dogmatic.

As the target readership of PR is primarily Pentecostal and Charismatic church leaders, pastors, and scholars, I wish specifically to discuss postmodernism in that context. Jackie Johns will assist us here.³³ Johns, a staunch Wesleyan theologian, is a seminary professor and administrator as well as a church planter and pastor. He embodies in his person much of the PR audience. With keen prescience, Johns tackled the interrelatedness of Pentecostalism and postmodernism nearly a decade and a half ago. In the first half of his essay, Johns constructs a model for understanding the concepts of worldview and postmodernism and offers a critique of one leading theory (systemic science) on the emergence of postmodernism.³⁴ For our purposes, we will focus on the second part, a direct examination of dominant characteristics of the Pentecostal worldview itself in correlation with postmodernism.

Johns notes that, “Pentecostalism was born outside of the dominant theological visions of the Christian world” at the same time “postmodernism” (a later label) was birthing alternative visions of scientific reality. This raises “questions concerning interdependence.” Harvey Cox has argued that, “Pentecostalism is a potential bridge” with postmodernism, and may serve a special role of leadership during this era of human history in that regard.³⁵ Johns thinks Pentecostalism’s lack of dependence on modern science and evident dependence on the nineteenth century Holiness Movement does suggest it might even be “more of an impetus than a consequence” of the emerging worldview.³⁶ For me, if this is so, and it most likely is, then their interrelatedness is much more dynamic or perhaps dialectical than often thought. There may be a kind of give and take complex reciprocity between Pentecostalism and postmodernism in which both form and are formed by the other.

Johns identifies and describes “a core image within the Pentecostal worldview and extrapolates from it specific visions of reality”.³⁷ Significantly, he gives preeminence to the importance of “affective experience of God which generates an apocalyptic horizon for reading reality.” Essentially, Pentecost restores the primitive eschatological vision fusing the space-time continuum of past (biblical), present, and future (eschaton) into a unified reality. Pentecostalism’s experiential nature is a “form of resistance to modernism”; however, Pentecostals have also employed a “decidedly modern worldview” that makes for humanity fuller, richer, that is, for multidimensionality humanity.³⁸ I note that here the complex character of Pentecostalism confronts us. Oversimplification would be an error. Pentecost cannot be (correctly) reduced to any cultural category, modern, postmodern, or otherwise. Its fecundity and diversity defies facile classification.

Johns enumerates several dominant characteristics of a Pentecostal worldview. Specifically, a Pentecostal worldview is God-centered, holistic, transrational, apocalyptic, and primitivist. Furthermore, scripture holds a special place, different from Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in that “the Bible is a living book in which the Holy Spirit is always active.” Moreover, Pentecostals are more active than reflective, resistant to “bureaucratic authority”, have a paradoxical view of power that stresses personal empowerment simultaneous with surrender to God, and a strong sense of separation from the world.³⁹ For me, that last one may signal a healthy suspicion toward the world’s ideas, words, and deeds—including postmodernism.

Johns now moves toward a Pentecostal paradigm, which he roots in the knowledge of God. Pentecostal epistemology bases itself squarely on “personal revelation and response” undergirded by a sense of knowledge as experiential, or, from the Hebrew, yada, indicative of a journey or pilgrimage (being in time).⁴⁰ A Pentecostal paradigm sees the total transformation of the believer as an advance indicator of eventual total cosmic transformation. In addition to propositional truth, Pentecostals are concerned with affective reality. This is an integrative commitment to orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy, and includes the integrative and affective nature of Pentecostal sanctification.⁴¹ Ultimately, the “paradigm of Pentecostalism is Pentecost.” In short, “The Pentecost event embodies the values, beliefs, and affections of the movement.” Significant for the present study, Johns notes that the Pentecostal paradigm is capable of incorporating the postmodern paradigm; however, the reverse is not true.⁴² To me, this suggests an all-surpassing transcendence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is able to confront, conform, and then commission cultural resources according to the Spirit’s own good pleasure and purpose. Yet the Spirit, and the Spirit’s power and truth, is not reducible to a particular cultural worldview.

Jackie Johns observes important similarities between Pentecostalism and postmodernism. Both are “holistic, systemic, and purposive.” Each is “growth-oriented, ogranismic, relational, dynamic and open to change.” Consequently, he cautiously concludes that, “Pentecostalism may indeed be a part of the stream ushering in the postmodern era.”⁴³ Nevertheless, there are deep divergences too. Most notably, the Open System Paradigm of postmodern science is susceptible to a process theology that does not align well with biblical theism. Accordingly, Johns rightly warns that it would be “a mistake to marry” Pentecostalism and this emerging worldview. For Pentecostalism to be true to itself requires uncompromising commitment to the God’s presence and sovereignty. Contemporary Pentecostals ought to reclaim an original apocalyptic vision that, as Johns well says, fuses “it to primitive Christianity as a single eschatological community living in the hope of the Parousia.”⁴⁴

I think this is important. Such a Pentecostalism is able to transcendently adapt and adopt the cultures and concepts of every age through a pneumatological unity with the original paradigmatic Church in anticipation of its teleological, eschatologically realized form in its present authentic experience, existential ethos, and ontological identity. Eschatologically transcendent Pentecostalism is relevant without becoming relative and authentic without becoming archaic.

Additionally, Jackie Johns’ work awakens an exciting suggestion. A frequent complaint is that postmodernism destroys commitment to absolute truth by denying any metanarrative, and, therefore, any universal reality. That seems on the surface to undermine believing the Bible, and the grand story of the gospel itself. The comparison/contrast with post-Newtonian, postmodern systemic science opens up exciting vistas here. It ceaselessly stresses systemic. Prevalent among Evangelicals and Pentecostals is a tendency to take a local narrative, usually our own little story, and elevate it (and idolize it?) to the level of the universal, that is, to the status of metanarrative. Pentecostals, however, are not monolithic; neither is humanity monochromic. A postmodern approach to identity and reality just might encourage us more conscientiously to consider other local, particular narratives and their places in any kind of grand metanarrative. An end-result emerging from that process could be, not an absolute abolition of a metanarrative/great overarching story, but joint authorship of a genuine story inclusive enough to embrace authentically all the little, local ones, that is, to take in and take up all of the many realities in the one reality. The Bible is an excellent model. It is full of numerous seemingly competitive, almost contradictory stories that when woven together in the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ become one seamless garment of grace and truth testifying to God’s Son (John 1:17; Heb 1:1-2).

In the interest of space and time, let us now move toward a pastoral and practical application of our conversation. At this point, I will assume that I have made something like a defensible suggestion that Pentecostal Christians can and should engage postmodern culture with hope and prayer, but without naiveté or as novices.

Working with a Worldview on the Rise: Application

For me, the thrust of this discussion correlates to Christ’s command to “Occupy” or “Do business” until he comes again (Lu 19:13, KJV, NKJV). In other words, Christians have a responsibility to employ whatever resources, including cultural or philosophical resources, God places at their disposal in faithful performance of ecclesial ministry and mission to the glory of God until the consummation of all things in Christ at the eschaton. A strong note of accountability to Christ in eventual assessment of faithfulness in stewardship is present in this connection.⁴⁵ Augustine observes that “The fault of that servant who was reproved and severely punished was this and only this: that he would not put to use what he had received.” Additionally, Origen observes that, though we “engage in business for the Lord,” his generosity assures “the profits of the business go to us.”⁴⁶ Thus, our task is paramount, involving promissory of eternal reward and punishment. Therefore, in some agreement with Bevins, though with attentiveness to theoria, now I will address praxis.

This section will briefly apply some of the preceding insights regarding Pentecostalism and postmodernism in a pastoral and practical tone. As an exhaustive analysis is not possible here, I have opted to select a key issue for representative reflections: spirituality. This is not an arbitrary selection. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen identifies spirituality as the single most important element of Pentecostal self-understanding, as “the core of Pentecostal identity.”⁴⁷ Interestingly, he notes that, “Pentecostalism emphasizes lived charismatic experience rather than discursive theology.”⁴⁸ Furthermore, in agreement with Margaret Poloma, it is precisely at the point of experiential spirituality that Pentecostalism resists, adapts, and transcends traditional modernist categories.⁴⁹

Garnet Parris summarily describes Pentecostal spirituality, emphasizing that a piety of divine immanence penetrating and permeating all of life with “the personal and direct awareness of and experiencing of the Holy Spirit” is especially critical. The significance of experiencing the Holy Spirit of course includes the centrality of the Spirit’s charismatic gifts and the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Parris focuses on Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues for the empowerment of individuals for the edification of the whole church in a context of the priority of worship.⁵⁰

Sheldrake points out that “postmodernism is not necessarily inimical to Christian spirituality.” In fact, a kind of fascination for the sacred realm often exists. Important for our purposes, Sheldrake explains that, “The most crucial element of a postmodern Christian spirituality is the rejection of modernism’s division between the spiritual and secular sphere.” Postmodern spirituality “tends to cross boundaries and rejects impermeable divisions.” Interestingly, postmodern spirituality also stresses the inability of humanity fully to comprehend God through theology. Accordingly, its relation with Christian mysticism is remarkable.⁵¹ Therefore, I suggest spirituality will serve as a viable reference point for relating Pentecostalism and postmodernism. If the core belief and central practice of Pentecostalism connects well to a comparable belief and practice in a Christian postmodernism, then we may assume some positive interaction is possible and desirable at the level of pastoral ministry and practical leadership.

Obvious from the foregoing is that Pentecostal spirituality and postmodern spirituality share certain strong assumptions. For example, both are committed to spiritual experience, and both see spiritual reality as an all-pervasive condition. Additionally, both are suspicious of an over reliance on reason as the final arbiter of religious reality and verity. Finally, both are open to fresh and vital expressions overflowing traditional boundaries. Accordingly, I might suggest that Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians profitably use these points of contact with postmodern culture for increasing their effectiveness in encounters of ecclesial mission. However, I recommend caution regarding communal-individual accountability, always (understandably) an issue for Pentecostals anyway.

A local Pentecostal congregation reaching out to a postmodern community would emphasize personal testimony, prayer, and powerful worship, operation of spiritual gifts, and preaching and teaching facilitating encountering God’s felt presence. Deep intellectual and moral development and discipleship training would take place in this context, coming out of it and extending beyond it into evangelism and outreach. None of this need stop at the church door. In fact, Pentecostals must sustain a strong emphasis on individual and personal spirituality beyond institutions. Furthermore, ministering to the material, physical, and social needs of neighbors is as much a spiritual act as saying prayers and singing praises in church. Righteous and wise leadership would affirm by precept and by example the diversity of their people and the variety of their gifts and calling. Economic status and educational history, gender, ethnic background, and racial identity would not weigh as much as signs of the presence of the Spirit.

If this all sounds somehow familiar, it used to describe a typical Pentecostal congregation. Shepherd notes that for Pentecostal gatherings, “The central focus of the service is not the sermon or the music, but the moving of the Holy Spirit.” He adds that, in such services, “There is an expectation that God will minister in love to the worshiper through the agency of the Holy Spirit.”⁵² Tragically, many have so succumbed to the paralyzing and sterilizing trends of modernity that there is little to distinguish them. They aim at the merely cognitive, or at best, the aesthetic, but not much that is truly dynamic Perhaps postmodernism can remind Pentecostals of their original beliefs and practices and Pentecostals can invite postmodernists to fulfill their future in the freedom of the Spirit of Christ. In any case, according to Shepherd, fortunately “Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals are discovering that God can be worshiped in a variety of ways; Christians thereby may live a life energized by the Holy Spirit.”⁵³ This might mean significant elements of the postmodern culture could be important contributors to a context for ongoing Pentecostal revival.

I suggest that in the important intersection point of spirituality, a discerning pastoral and practical application of Pentecostalism to the postmodern community’s beliefs and practices could have a positive face. This would mean, first, that the relationship should be explored and plumbed, and second, that those who do so will likely experience a level of success in reaching non-churched souls not enjoyed by those who adopt more myopic mindsets. Pentecostals tend to join commitment to biblical primitivism with contemporary pragmatism.⁵⁴ Thus, one may predictably expect in the future for Pentecostal leaders, pastors, and thinkers to interact energetically with postmodern culture to the extent that they can do so with faithfulness to their own uncompromising Christian commitment.

Conclusion and Continuing Conversation

As observed earlier, this is sort of a “wrapping up” of an ongoing discussion. I return to this previous conversation now in closing to tie it together with the present reflection. Livermore essentially warned against churches abdicating the gospel through becoming overly concerned with being culturally relevant. He advocates being “relevantly counterculture” instead, which he describes as becoming “resident aliens”. For Livermore this implies being present and incarnational but forming an alternative kingdom culture. By way of contrast, Bevins passionately and persuasively argued that the foundations of modernism’s world are crumbling and postmodernism is a workable way forward for the Church of the future. For Bevins postmodernism enables churches to retrieve their own ancient history and experience in order to go forward with renewed vision and vitality.

Putt gave a substantive response to those who assume too easily that postmodern philosophy is inherently anti-Christian or even anti-religion altogether. However, given the nature of language and of textual interpretation, he recommends remembering their limitations regarding the infinite and “unnamable” God, exercising love and humility in discussion of truth, and, finally, riskily trusting the Spirit. My own prior contribution suggested the that in the context of an increasingly religiously pluralist society characterized by a post-Christian mindset with postmodernism underpinnings, Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians can engage culture more effectively by discerningly appropriating current trends under the guidance of sound Christian faith and values.

Carter confronted moral and epistemological relativism. He challenges the entire concept of liberal relativism, and charges postmodernity is really an attempt to relativize Christian truth while idolizing the State and its power under the guise of liberty. Ryken responded to questions raised by readers. For example, he suggests postmodernists may have difficulty with the doctrine of the cross because it stresses absolute realities rather than relative truths. Finally, Viola starkly stated that modernism’s stress on science and objective knowledge “stood in stark contrast to the Christian faith” has failed and is past. He thinks “postmodernism is much more friendly to the Christian faith” because it accepts the spiritual world, connects relationally, and projects humility.

Our PR panel is not only diverse but also divided on this topic. Mostly they all make a strong case for their conclusions. The present study suggests that a Christian attitude toward “Postmodernism, the Church and the Future” is not an entirely either-or matter. However, in the Pentecostal tradition, discernment of the Spirit/spirits is a key belief and practice that is applicable here (1Cor 12:10). Further, an apostle instructs us to “test the spirits” (1John 4:1). There is then this theme of distinguishing between good and bad. Somewhat in the spirit of Ovid’s ancient adage, “You will go most safely in the middle,” I advocate for a balanced and best middle way between extremes.⁵⁵ In sum: rather than either baptize or demonize postmodernism, I would utilize it where I can and criticize it where I must. The trick, so to speak, is to know when to do which. A reliable resource for this process is a clear, continuing commitment to the inspiration of scripture and illumination of the Holy Spirit in the context of God’s forever-definitive self-revelation in Christ. I close with this closing paragraph of a Lausanne consultation on “Gospel and Culture.”

Our Consultation has left us in no doubt about the pervasive importance of culture. The writing and the reading of the Bible, the presentation of the gospel, conversion, church and conduct—all these are influenced by culture. It is essential, therefore, that all churches contextualize the gospel in order to share it effectively in their own culture. For this task of evangelization, we all know our urgent need of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He is the Spirit of truth who can teach each church how to relate to the culture that envelops it. He is also the Spirit of love, and love is “the language—which is understood in every culture of man.” So may God fill us with his Spirit! Then, speaking the truth in love, we shall grow up into Christ who is the head of the body, to the everlasting glory of God (Eph. 4:15).⁵⁶

PR

 

Notes

¹ See “Statement of Vision and Purpose,” at http://www.pneumafoundation.org/statement_of_vision.jsp.

² PR 10:1 (Winter 2007), 30-31.

³ Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 19.

⁴ PR 10:1 (Winter 2007), 31-55.

⁵ PR 10:2 (Spring 2007), 37-40. In a Reader Comment titled “Postmodern Rebels,” Dony K. Donev suggests Pentecostals were rebels against modernity’s rise through their Wesleyan-Holiness stance on sin, and now could and should be rebels against postmodernism from the same perspective and for the same purpose (41).

⁶ PR 10:3 (Summer 2007), 29-45.

⁷ PR 10:4 (Fall 2007), 27-39.

⁸ PR 11:1 (Winter 2008), 27-35.

⁹ PR 11:2 (Spring 2008), 58-60.

¹⁰ PR 11:3 (Summer 2008), 32-39. Bevins wrote a brief “Response” complaining that the discussion had taken an overly theoretical turn and calling for a more praxis-oriented approach. He also warned churches against becoming outdated and irrelevant (30-31).

¹¹ Henry H. Knight III, A Future for Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 15.

¹² “A Letter from Origen to Gregory,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson), 4:393-94. On postmodernism and early Christianity, see Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999).

¹³ Helmut Thielicke, A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, trans. Charles L. Taylor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 21-26. Thielicke also insisted that, “Nothing human is foreign to it, if it is true dogmatics” (27-28).

¹⁴ See H. R. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951). Niebuhr’s categories are Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ transforming culture.

¹⁵ John G. Stackhouse, Jr., “In the World, but …” Christianity Today (April 22, 2002), 1-3: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april22/8.80.html.

¹⁶ Marion L. Soards, New International Biblical Commentary: 1 Corinthians (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson), 194.

¹⁷ Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 422-33 (432). Italics are original.

¹⁸ Larry D. Bouchard, “Culture,” A New Handbook of Christian Theology, eds. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 115-17 (115).

¹⁹ Bouchard, “Culture,” 115.

²⁰ Bouchard, “Culture,” 116-17. Cf. Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).

²¹ William C. Placher, “Postmodern Theology,” A New Handbook of Christian Theology, eds. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992), 272-75 (275).

²² Knight, A Future for Truth. The quote is from the back cover.

²³ Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3 (PC Study Bible, Biblesoft, Inc.), cp. 7.

²⁴ Notably, even Tertullian’s reluctance regarding worldly philosophy and philosophers does not restrain him from referencing “the enlightened view of Plato”, Ad Nationes (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, PC Study Bible): 2:3, or openly admitting the conditional value of philosophy, On the Resurrection of the Flesh (Ante-Nicene Fathers), 3:3. Consequently, even here the contrast between culture and Christianity is not so “cut and dried” as is so often assumed.

²⁵ James W. Sire, Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 161.

²⁶ John M. Yeats and John Blase, Worldviews: Think for Yourself about How We See God, gen. ed. Mark Tabb (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006), 15-25.

²⁷ Cf. Yeats and Blase, Worldviews, 7-10.

²⁸ Sire, Naming the Elephant, 12.

²⁹ My own view here is similar to that of John Wesley. Religion built entirely upon reason is deism (or, as I would say, only a form). Religion built without reason is enthusiasm (or, fanaticism). Religion that recognizes reason’s limitations but utilizes its contributions is true religion and true Christianity (or, genuine faith). E.g., see “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered,” Wesley’s Works (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991 [from 1872 ed.]), 6:350-60, “An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” 8:1-45, and “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” 8:46-247.

³⁰ Cf. Yeats and Blase, Worldviews, 181-85.

³¹ Cf. Yeats and Blase, Worldviews, 190-91.

³² Yeats and Blase, Worldviews, 211.

³³ For an introduction to postmodernism by a Pentecostal addressing a broader audience, see Jamie K. A. Smith, a prolific philosopher from a Reformed/Calvinist orientation, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).

³⁴ Jackie David Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 7 (1995), 73-96, (73-84).

³⁵ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 84-85.

³⁶ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 85-86 (85).

³⁷ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 86.

³⁸ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 87-88.

³⁹ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 88-91.

⁴⁰ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 91-92.

⁴¹ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 92-94

⁴² Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 95.

⁴³ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 96.

⁴⁴ Johns, “Pentecostalism and the Postmodern Worldview,” 96.

⁴⁵ French L. Arrington, “Luke,” Full Life Bible Commentary to the New Testament, eds. French L. Arrington and Roger Stronstad (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 501.

⁴⁶ Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament III: Luke, ed. Arthur A. Just, Jr., gen. ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 295.

⁴⁷ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 92.

⁴⁸ Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology, 94.

⁴⁹ Margaret Poloma, The Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 8.

⁵⁰ Garnet Parris, “Pentecostal Spirituality,” The New Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality (NWDCS), ed. Philip Sheldrake (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 485-86.

⁵¹ Philip Sheldrake, “Postmodernity,” NWDCS, 498-500.

⁵² J. W. Shepherd, “Worship,” The New International Dictionary of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (NIDPCM), eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Mass (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1217-20 (1219).

⁵³ See Shepherd, “Worship,” NIDPCM, 1220.

⁵⁴ Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (London: Harvard University Press, 2001).

⁵⁵ Thomas Bulfinch, Bulfinch’s Mythology: A Modern Abridgement by Edmund Fuller (New York: Dell, 1959, 1967), 268 (cf. 43).

⁵⁶ See The Willowbank Report: Report of a Consultation on GOSPEL AND CULTURE at Willowbank, Somerset Bridge, Bermuda, January 6-16, 1978 (Wheaton, IL: Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 1978): 33 (sponsored by the Lausanne Theology and Education Group).