post/pre/neo/radical – more thoughts on post charismatic
3 Jul 2005
After all the comments on the previous post, I was going to write a long comment, but thought I’d move my responses to a new post.
I’m aware that in a discussion of this kind, it can degenerate into ‘we like this’, ‘we don’t like you’, ‘we’re right and you suck’, or rather that is how it is perceived.
There are some forms of church that I dislike intensely, and see them as destructive. Now I think I am a great deal of trouble when I find a dislike of all forms of church, except for my own. I guess that kind of christian is the one that bothers me the most :-)
Then there are some groups that I am ambivalent about. They are just not my cup of tea, and they don’t float my boat. And that fits most kinds.
I don’t want to be pathological, defining my faith by all the groups I dislike. I also don’t want to be exclusive, declaring vast swathes of the church irrelevant just because I don’t like them.
So language is slippery.
I am post-evangelical, in that I struggle with the control and command of the modern church, and the theology that is a propositional head trip into cognition as the only basis for reality. Yet much of the modern church is does not fit that stereotype.
Yet I want to be evangelical, I believe in the bible, in relationship with jesus, in mission, and social action (in the UK historical church action kind).
I am post-charismatic, in that I dislike the culture of charismania, that excludes thinking and reflection, that sees a thinking spirituality as something to be wary of, and is also about control and command.
Yet I want to be charismatic, I want to experience the spirit of God in dreams, visions, to pray for people and see God connect with them in power.
I want to be post-emerging church, in that I dislike the love of cool, the wanting to write off most of church history as a mistake, that see all forms of church as irrelevant that wants to deconstruct church into a series of private trendy god spaces.
Yet I want to be emerging, constantly asking, questioning, not thinking I have arrived or found the ‘correct’ theology or form of church, to be missional, holistic, and open.
I think we are reaching the limits of many of the prefixes we have been using.
Post….moving beyond, and now when used sounds cliched and arrogant, as if I despise all that was before.
Neo…more organic, but still with the sense that what I do is new, better
Radical…the transformation of all that was before, yet can seem arrogant, as if what it came out of was lame and ineffective.
Is it time for some constructive definitions, something beyond the modern/postmodern, post/neo distinction?
(Clue – The painting is a visual metaphor for this post)
Tagged: Key-Posts
17 comments
Trackback
Comment by Paul
9.32 am on 3 Jul 2005
Very enlightening, thanks Jase! We should all come fitted with a “washing instructions” label :)
Comment by ConradGempf
12.28 pm on 3 Jul 2005
iEvangelical
Spirituality Shuffle
Charismatic CS 2.0
TurboChurch X Professional
or how about changing tack… instead of being post-something, why not…
Pre-Whatever’s-Next Church
Seriously, though, and importantly, the struggling with ‘command-and-control’ and propositional and cognitive focii and so on is not really Post-Evangelical at all. Au contrar, you’re perfectly in line with what evangelicalism wanted to be about from the beginning. Thinking evangelicals always found it an oddity and paradoxical irony that we in evangelicalism — within modernity — defined ourselves by ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’, yet felt we had to protect ourselves with propositional faith statements. Even that’s not all bad. Jesus warns that not even everyone who says to him “Lord, Lord” is a good guy; and there’s always been good reason to take St Paul’s advice in Acts 20 about the church’s enemies arising from within — witness the dangers of folks like Rev. Moon arising in the Korean Presbyterian Church in deepest darkest modernity.
It’s no surprise that some people came to view those doctrinal statements as what evangelicalism WAS at its core, but they’re wrong. Echt Evangelicalism, as any evangelical would at least give lip-service to, was always about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and owning him as Lord of your life.
We don’t need to give evangelicalism a heart transplant, we just need to remove some of the 1950s-style make-up it got used to putting on every morning.
(Plus, I think we need to figure out how to say no to those who are too enthusiastic with the 2005-style make-up, like that’s a genuine improvement.)
Comment by marc
4.11 pm on 3 Jul 2005
I found at at previous church that evangelicals tended to define themselves as being right and everyone else is wrong.
Conrad – so maybe a reformation of the evangelical church to remove the make up is necessary or maybe that is the move from the modern church to the postmodern?
Comment by Sivin
6.16 pm on 3 Jul 2005
hmmm …. are you reading my mind? but you sure managed to “mouth” out some of my thoughts :-) Thanks
Comment by Chris(tine)
6.35 pm on 3 Jul 2005
Great post, Jason. Thanks for articulating these thoughts. One of the things I love about reading “post-evangelical/emerging/whatever” blogs is a greater willingness to look at labels and language than what I am used to encountering in Christians…
Comment by Matt
5.52 am on 4 Jul 2005
I like Bob Webber’s (i.e., the Worship guy, Younger Evangelicals & all that) idea that he calls “convergence.” It’s kind of like the eclecticism we see cropping up among the emergent folks, except it also values the uncomfortable contradictions of accepting the whole history of the whole church. “Emergent” that is merely “neo” or “post-XYZ” is still inherently a Reformation way of looking at our situation. True “convergence” gives us pause before we give the typical, “well that’s the way the church used to be” or “that’s the way some people do things” “but we’re past that now” response.
At the same time, we struggle because something different than what came before is happening in a way that we haven’t been able to define.
As for me, I’m “charismatic” without the “charismania.” I’m “evangelical” without the connotations that has in my country for flag-waving. And we struggle to figure out how to follow God when our words quit working…
Trackback by Fernando's Desk
8.22 am on 4 Jul 2005
Post-Charismatics, Neo-Evangelicals, Gunslingers And Zombies
Jason Clark is stirring up the pot on the question of applying post/neo/radical labels to existing branches of the church, like charismatics and evangelicals. For the most part, I like what Jason is saying, as well as the points Sivin Kit and the hist…
Comment by fernando
8.31 am on 4 Jul 2005
Thanks for this. I’ve blogged a few related ideas. The post/neo/radical tags are tiring to be, but I suspect we will see them for some time to come.
Comment by Becky White
9.59 am on 4 Jul 2005
Having tried to explain, this weekend, what my church (VCS) is ‘about’ to some non-christians with only very limited understanding of what evangelical christians are (rightly or wrongly they hear gay-hating, “murderer!”-shouting-outside-abortion-clinics, judgement, being completely out of touch with reality, Songs of Praise ;) … … …), this post makes so much sense… and then also confuses me again :)
I’m not sure what I am supposed to be called now, and I think if I said I was a post-modern post-charismatic post-evangelical neo radical they might ban their son from having anything to do with me and lock him away!
Seriously though, I loved your thoughts Jase… they clicked with me, because I want to reject so much of the church-baggage I grew up with which made me resent my beliefs and push away from church, but I don’t want to lose the heart of my faith. I don’t know that I can accept a label/tag right now because I feel that as I continue to move onward and upward :), it will change again and again, as I do.
Comment by gareth
10.06 am on 4 Jul 2005
ummm
am not sure about your rather polemical view on the emerging church… having been to about 10-12 in the UK and half a dozen in the US I see nothing that suggests they are abandoning history – in fact quite the opposite they are rediscovering the church traditions, re-learning old creeds and rituals, and there is also the recent resurgence of interest in the monastic movement.
They were also great believers in ecumenism and certainly do not dismiss all forms of church – most were trying to work through how to futher relations with other denominations and to increase their understanding of the wider church body!
And as for emerging church being all ‘private, trendy church spaces’ I would suggest that pretty much every church could fit into that catogary if it uses its own space and if people want to make that space something they enjoy and like…
However, I think that one of the gifts the emerging church brings to the wider church body is its move towards using public rather than private spaces, and the need to get out of our churches and break down this sacred/secular divide rather than re-enforce it.
I’m all for getting rid of these post, pre, neo etc… But at least lets not just descend into polemic in order to make a point – I know you can do something more salient than that.
Comment by Jason Clark
10.41 am on 4 Jul 2005
Hi Gavin, please read the post again, and the one before, I’m not critiquing the emerging church, just critiquing the stereotypes on all sides. If you read my blog before you’d see I value much of the emerginc church and list that at the end of this post.
Comment by Gary
12.20 pm on 4 Jul 2005
I’d been dwelling over these similar points of late here are some of my thoughts:
We strive to be released form the box called modernity (or whatever you want) yet we instantly and unknowingly seem to crawl into another box called something else, and shout “I’m free from the box” but we aren’t.
Yes the new pre terms we are using have rapidly become new lables and whilst we can call for new deffinitions you can bet your bottom dollar they will become the new lables, the new boxes if you were?
What is it to live in a label free society? Why do we feel we have to wear lables? I’m not saying I don’t cos I do and i’m deeply aware of it but to try and comprehend a world without lables, wishful thinking maybe?
Comment by graham
9.39 pm on 4 Jul 2005
Jason being polemic? :-)
Ah, that made my day!
Comment by graham
9.41 pm on 4 Jul 2005
Jason being polemic? :-)
Ah, that made my day!
Comment by Matybigfro
2.27 pm on 5 Jul 2005
I think looking at labels and language is really important.
About 3-4 years ago I feel out with a freind of mine because he was falling in love with the Post-rock genre of music(sad I know)(and that’s me I’m talking about not him) But I found his use of the term post-rock to be incredibly arogant as if the music I played and listened to had had it’s day, was dead, or just that he was better. I think when we look at the labels we give ourselves we equally need to be carefull. Also not just about offending other brother’s and sister’s in faith but about the way term’s and word’s are percieveed by outsider’s.
In our church we’ve found that christian (as a term of description) works for us with young family’s, yes some young parent’s (by this I mean middle class young parents of around the late 20’s early 30’s age) yes may have had bad experience’s of christians and christianity but on the whole allot of them are actually intereested in the strong moral standing that they see christianity repressent and looking to see how they can add that to they’re children’s lives.
however with the young adult’s 16-30’s aimed part of our church the term christian has so many conatation’s of religion and harshness and negative impact’s that we’re actually looking to not label ourselves in that way.
Having started looking at this issue i preffer broadeer terms than narrower one’s. At the end of the day most of the reason’s for creating divisions’ in society is to help one set of people make themselves feel better than another. so I look at term’s that can be shared with oterh christians but may not carry the baggage that they may have. that can give me links to them but not be seen as clone’s of they’re belief system. I particually love the term “jesus freaks” and reading about their stance and work in germany have been really stimulating. Also when i was young the way moby descibed himself as a follower of Jesus caught me.
I think one of the most interresting things I think about post-modernity is that behind allot of diffrent language and behavour there sometimes can be no difference between a charismatic, a evangelican a methodist or a roman catholic. That often we want the same things we want the holy spirit to be at work in our lives, want to see out pourings of his power in this world resulitng in miricles and healings. We want to see people impacted by the love of God, We want to see people come to know God and fellowship with him and other follower’s of jesus.
I’m challenged to find term’s that both are inclusive to other believer’s and non-beliver’s while not being afraid of my faith, my relationship with jesus and my spirituality.
Comment by Winn
6.26 pm on 5 Jul 2005
I not sure, but I don’t think that Jesus or Paul was pre, mid, or post-charismatic. They most likely didn’t think in those terms. Was there such a thing to think about then? When one calls oneself a post-charismatic or post-Pentecostal, or maybe even a post-third-waver, it seems to me that it is a “post†reflection about a cultural way of thinking about these three activities in the last hundred years of so. By that I mean that while God interacted in his church during these times and that interaction of God was within a culture which then reflected God’s interaction in a number of ways. One may be reacting to the “way†within the culture that God’s interaction was being expressed. Surely someone in the future will react to an “emerging†charismatic or “neo†charismatic expression of God’s interaction within that culture.
If we take care to define “charismatic†or at least the root word from the NT then we are all charismatic in that we are graced by God with his Spirit to become partners with God, truly human in this present evil age for the sake of his world. Surely we can not take on this assignment without the power of the Spirit?
It is by the Spirit that one speaks in tongues, receives healing, prophesies, etc. It is by the same Spirit that one feeds the poor, shelters the homeless, takes care of widows and orphans, etc. Both are “charismatic†in the true Biblical sense, at least that’s one person’s opinion, and in that sense I do not want to be post-charismatic. Charismatic seems to come with living in his Story.
Just some musings….
Winn
Comment by Nikki
4.02 pm on 3 Aug 2005
This thread caught my eye as I’m one of those are caught between being post evangelical but not wanting to be post charismatic. (And in response to the questions on your earlier post I’d love to meet with some others who are thinking this way aswell).
I’ll blog some more thoughts over on my space so as not to hijack the conversation here, but just wanted to say hello and that I relate.
Nikki
Comments are now closed.