Nielsen’s Nook

One of the things post-modernism has exposed for us is the bankruptcy of modernism. However, in doing so post-modernism, at least in its most consistent and extreme forms becomes self-referentially incoherent. That is, in making the assertion that we cannot know anything certainly the post-modern asserts that he may know that much at least certainly.

As I have recently written here, most of the Evangelical expression of Christianity, in particular those groups that have fought modernism (”I think therefore I am”) have become theological modernists (”I think therefore I believe”), continuing to reduce the Christian faith to pithier and pithier propositions. OF COURSE this does not mean that I think the rational has no place in Christian faith (give me some charity here), but it is to speak to the anemia that from at least my vantage is of pandemic proportions in the theology and practice of the aspect of Christendom that we would describe with the adjective Evangelical.

In so far as “evangelical” means Gospel centered as it was handed down to us in the scriptures by those who came - and died - before us and as long as that Gospel centeredness is not merely propositions about a person and a history, but is focused on the adoration of the Person who makes history possible and gives history it purpose, then I consider myself evangelical and care very deeply about things evangelical. My wife, who blogs at per caritatem, recently turned me on to a thought provoking article by James K. A. Smith, a professor at Calvin College. Dr. Smith wrote this article entitled, “Is the Future Catholic?” (which I commend to you for contemplation) on a blog sponsored by Baker Academic called the church and postmodern culture: conversation.

In “Is the Future Catholic?” Smith asserts that post-modernism is just as singularly rationalistic as modernism, just with different skin on. The problem as he sees it is not modernism or post-modernism but the lack of holistic worship. In other words, both post-modern and modern worship is reductionistic (anemic). The solution then is not novelty, according to Smith, but culling pre-modern worship for those aspects of liturgy that would return contemporary worship to its God-given holistic (fully human) form.

At the very least, Smith’s article is worth pondering. Even in recent church history of the last 150-200 years we have seen the fall-out of the church defining herself over against something.  Foucault reminds us that in doing such things we inevitably take the “other” on, becoming like it uniquely.  Rather, the Church must regain her first love, defining herself solely by the one she was created to adore wholly. Christ alone must define his people.  I think there is much that can be learned and applied to our contemporary worship in myriad ways.