In our Liturgy and Suffering course, we are going through Postmodernist thinkers as Jim Farwell, our professor, is setting up a way of approaching suffering, and theodicy in general, so that we do not deal with it superficially or just stuff the topic intoÂ… what? (and other stuff).
As Dr. Farwell spoke in class today, I thought of the differences between the “pop-postmodernist” ideas floating around and the stuff presented by postmodern thinkers such as Derrida and Lyotard (among others).
The “Emergent” conversation going on presently among some Christians is quickly dividing into two basic camps. Those who see themselves in the honest postmodern camp and who characterize themselves as having a “conversation” are of one camp, and in the other camp are those streaming toward the newest fad and who want to replicate the successes of some Emergent churches, they are striving to build a “movement.” This latter group is building structures that seem diametrically opposed to the openness of honest postmoderns (or something like that).
“Emergent” is a conversation, not a movement. The success of Emergent, it seems to me and if it truly is what the “conversation” camp is making it out to be, then cannot be an attempt to place it into Modernist structures or within the trajectory of such other movements as the “Seeker” church movement, etc. An honest Emergent, it would seem, does not see the conversation developing onward and into the next big thing, the next movement, the NEXT work of God, but of considering that other which is outside the framework of Modernism – seeking to converse about that which has not yet been considered. I think, anyway.
There is, of course, yet anther way.
Postmodernism and the developing very Modern Emergent “movement”
4