The Narrow Path Ministries

It seems that the new emphasis on "Post-Modern" church, or doing church in a "Post-Modern" way really seems to be just another form of selfishness. I understand the critique of modernism and the me, me, me mentality of church in the 80's, but I think this emphasis on "Post-Modern" is really only a trendy new fad. I still think that it is an emphasis on what "we" want. Sure, I appreciate art, a lot actually. But it seems that these "Post-Modern" churches are still selling the same thing just under a different banner. I have been to a few and read some books on it and studied it in college (Post-Modernism as a philosophy that is) and it seems kind of like a gimmick. Any thoughts?

I understand post-modern philosophy but what exactly do you mean when you say "post-modern" church? I can not agree with something if I do not have a nice grasp of what exactly you mean.

The Church must defend truth at all costs. I don't know if this answers anything. But if a church wishes to present itself in a way that is completely biblical and defends truth, then thats fine [God calling them to do so]. Truth must be a priority above all things. Post-modernism is the denial of truth. Whats the point of saying "God is real" if there is no truth in anything? Its a meaningless statement, it has no weight. I've heard 70 percent of americans deny absolute morals, and 67 percent deny absolute truth and 32 percent believe the bible is true. The Church must defend truth. I'm sorry I hope i'm not avoiding your question but I suppose I will have to wait for your response to see if you can clarify it.

Thank you!

In Christ,
Steven

Without being too sure what exactly you mean when you refer to a "post-modern church," I'll attempt to comment. For instance is a "post-modern church" one that, like the secular culture around us, also rejects any type of sovereign creator or authority and sees all truth as being relative to the individual; or... is a "post-modern church" one that recognizes the reality that we are living in a post-modern or "post-Christian" age/culture and has decided, in obedience to the Great Commission, to reach-out to and make disciples of the people of this culture ("nations" doesn't exclusively mean overseas). If the latter is the definition, then my opinion is that a "post-modern church" is a great way to forward the Kingdom of God.

What these churches seem to be doing (and I applaud them for doing it) is looking hard into what apsects of church (referring to Christians meeting together, not the true defintion of church as the Body Of Christ) are affirmed by and taught in the Bible and what aspects of church are simply human tradition and ritual. It's not just the Catholic Church that is guilty of this; the self-professed "fundamentalist," "Bible-believing" evangelical church has its fair share of tradition and ritual. It has to be recognized that these traditions and rituals, while not necessarily a bad thing, may be a major barricade to people seeing who Jesus Christ really is. Its not a compromise of obedience to God to change the way we approach church and evangelism in response to our audience (mission field), e.g. the difference in Peter's sermon to Jews at Pentecost in Acts 2 and Paul's address to the Gentiles gathered in the Areopagus in Acts 17.

Michael.

Michael,

You said:

the self-professed "fundamentalist," "Bible-believing" evangelical church has its fair share of tradition and ritual.

Could you list any of the traditions and rituals that you believe have no scriptural precept or precedent that would legitimize them? I am most interesed in this.

Thanks, Homer

There are plenty of websites which describe the Post-Modern Church.

One article I found particularily helpful from a insider's point of view is
entitled "The Post-Modern Church of the Future".

You may read it by doing a google search of this title. Be sure to enclose it in quotation marks.

Paidion,

Thanks for sharing that article with us.


Homer,

I don't have too much time to answer your question (studies beckon), and make a list as per your request. However, I'll try to briefly explain myself further.

Now, I understand that there is much theological debate concerning whether the account of what the Christians do in the Book of Acts is prescriptive or descriptive, but it is clear that the early Church had a large impact on the world. In Acts 2:40-40 there is a passage describing the behaviour of Christians as they gathered together as a church. Some of the activities that they were engaged in were: learning from the apostle's doctrine, breaking bread, praying, sharing in all things, visitng one another, eating with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favour with all the people. And what was the fruit of this type of church conduct? "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). In my view, if this is not how the church should function, it is at the very least a good model/example to follow. We can't argue with their success.

My point here is that the church has since added a lot of other stuff to its meetings, probably with very good intentions. I'm not suggesting that the added things are illegitimate, or anti-scriptural, but that they may be unnecessary appendages and since they are unnecessary they can be removed in order to be more relevant to our culture at no cost to biblical obedience or faithfulness to God.

I know I'm still not answering what some of these "things" are, but they're not that hard to identify. I'll try to do so at another time if you're still curious to know.

Sincerely,
Michael.

Michael,

Thanks. I would like to know what you or any others think on this.

Are you looking for evangelical traditions that don't seem to have scriptural precedent?

How about:

- Altar calls/sinners prayers.
- communion emblems
- "seeker-sensitive" worship services
- tithing

For starters..

That's good Christopher, but how would you "do" communion?

Hi Homer,

I don't necessarily object to the way communion is done in the modern church, but I think it is a tradition. I don't mind it though. I've had many a great moment with the Lord during that time.

However, if I had my drothers, communion would be during a meal and would take place in smaller home fellowship groups instead of the worship service. And the meal would be capped with a small glass of wine with some words of remembrance, just as the Lord did. I believe that is the way the early church did it (Acts 2:46-47, 1 Cor 11 ). I think of the "last supper" as just that. Jesus and the disciples were eating dinner when he gave the famous 1st "eucharist". To me, there's just something more intimate in breaking bread among friends in smaller group setting rather than the ritual of passing a plate of juice and crackers around with 300 others in the room. I think the modern church is missing out in some respects.

Just my opinion.