The following list describes the desired traits that non-Christian young people desire to see in Christians, particularly among their elders as compiled by the authors of “unChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity....And Why It Matters.” When I presented quotes from this book on my blog last year, I suggested that we as believers should extend the same considerations to those who follow patriarchy as well as to young unbelievers. I would like to use this list (from pp 194-5 of the book) as a point of departure for relating to young adults in general. Those interviewed suggested that these considerations would improve their receptivity to the Gospel message from Christians, both young and old.
1. Listen to me. 2. Don't label me. 3. Don't be so smart. 4. Put yourself in my place. 5. Be genuine. 6. Be my friend with no other motives.
I’ve made reference to this passage from Sire’s book in a previous post because I think that it captures something very important and is almost a litmus test of how postmodern the emergent church really is and how postmodern and self-oriented the patriocentric belief system proves to be. Individuals in both groups become intensely personally offended if not threatened when their ideas and beliefs are criticized. I have not found this to be true of most modernists. It is not a personal offense to them if you reject their truth. They may call you a bigot or a fool, but it’s been my experience that your rejection of their ideas does not really become a personal thing for them. They don’t find their personal integrity to be at risk if someone rejects their beliefs. Such is not true with patriocentrists or emergents, because it is my impression that most of those in each group perceive a challenge as quite personal.
I advance this thesis: That when a Christian’s beliefs are not truly rooted and grounded in the Word of God and when their beliefs are not resting in faith in God’s integrity and truth, defending faith becomes a personal matter. I believe that when beliefs are built on shifting sands of man’s ideas apart from God, only drawing some elements from the Word of God, challenging those beliefs that are believed as a matter of personal preference only apart from some external evidence, postmodernists perceive criticism and challenge as a deeply personal offense. The postmodernist perceives rejection of their beliefs that are validated only by their preference as tantamount to saying "You're stupid for believing such a thing." The more personal the nature of the idea (such as sexuality), the more personal and offensive is the challenge, something perceived as a denial of that individual's personhood. This is certainly not the only cause for FEELING threatened or personally rejected when beliefs are challenged, but for some fringe groups within in patriarchy and the emergent churc, I believe this postmodern response is the primary motivator of their aggression.
Traditional, secular existentialism arose to solve the inevitable problems of nihilism as an adequately workable philosophical view of the world which arose to solve the problems of naturalism, all philosophies which seek to solve the problems of mankind without having to rely upon God and the Blood of Jesus to do so. As Blaise Pascal once wrote, every man has a God-shaped void within him that only God can fill, and when it goes unfilled, man experiences not only guilt but a sense of this “loss of transcendence.”
As a consequence, any philosophical viewpoint that does not acknowledge God, sin and the forgiveness of sins will inevitably result in unanswered questions. If these views could be represented as a set of mathematical equations, there is always an error, and there are some elements of the equation that can never be solved. Existentialism developed as a means of solving the equation for nihilism, but in the working out of existentialism’s equation, it still produces errors. It may be able to solve for “X,” but in the summation, you may find that in solving for “X,” the philosophy opens up into a new inability to solve for “Q” and “P.”
It ends up "solving" theological and philosophical problems by scapegoating and demonizing the alternatives, merely shifting focus away from the dilemmas themselves. This is just a form of avoidance of the mysteries and those aspects of belief that we cannot prove objectively. In effect, it doesn't "sovle" problems of belief by offering logical views towards a solution but rather avoids them by creating a different set of problems as a distraction. People often criticize patriarchy for this, creating a crisis and false dilemmas by scapegoating something, then marketing a ready made set of ideas and practices to solve the drastic problem. In reality, they just create different problems. At least in terms of pragmatic considerations, followers of emergent theology are generally much kinder and more pleasant to one another and to others than are the patriarchalists. Yet both are man's attempt to use man's influence and means to overcome the problem of the loss of transcendence -- the idea that mankind is okay with God and the universe.
Theistic existentialism did not develop from the same roots as secular existentialism, though they make similar errors.The Christian version of existentialism works back to Kierkegaard who was trying to solve some of the problems of the dead orthodoxy of Danish Lutheranism (according to Sire) and “holes” in Immanuel Kant’s ideas. Each man answered the dilemma of his day. Kierkegaard’s philosophy separated the realms of faith and reason, making them separate matters.In the wake of anti-intellectualism in Evangelical Christianity around the turn of the 20th century and the morality focus of the social gospel, Kierkegaard’s ideas found a new usefulness.Simply reduced, theistic existentialism is more concerned with human nature and man’s relationship to God and the world as opposed to the nature of God as the focus.It is man-centered, not God-centered.
Before moving on to new territory, I want to finish up some loose ends related to both patriocentricity and the emergent church. Both groups share a foundational problem from my perspective, one that also sometimes challenges my own life by virtue (?virtue?) of coming of age in what was quickly becoming a post-Christian culture. That problem is “Theistic Existentialism” by virtue of the fact that their religions see man as central to life rather than seeing God as central to life. It is a subtle distinction but an important and an original one, dating back to “You shall be like God.”
These matters discuss issues related to “WORLDVIEW,” and I am almost reluctant to use that term anymore. I’ve talked with several mothers over the past few years who feel that the term has been used to barrage and berate them within the patriarchy movement and within patriocentricity. One mom told me that she said she hates the term now and cringes when she hears it. This “hijacking” of so many other terms like this, terms that have been turned into though-stopping clichés or buzz terms that shut down critical thinking through the cultic technique of loading the language. Terms like worldview have become cult programming for some, much like seeing the Queen of Hearts or like hearing one’s full name spoken in a particular way in the two film versions of the “Manchurian Candidate." The stimulus (the word “worldview”) becomes associated with punishment, an expected response or shame induction for many people who have escaped and renounced patriocentricity. (And note that the term “patriocentricity” came about to differentiate it from the legitimate term “patriarchy” and all that it represents.)
A few months ago, a para church organization called a few critics "internetassassins" and threw around all sorts of other connotative terms. (I'm assuming that the term "internetassassin" refers to one who makes unfavorable comments about another on the internet.) Perhaps I'm naive, or getting old, but I remember a day when you could passionately debate with someone without the debate becoming personal in nature. I suppose this is more of the way Modernists confronted controversy, and now those rules don't work in our postmodern world. James Sire in "The Universe Next Door" states that for the existentialist, because truth is grounded in one's experience, "knowledge becomes inextricably bound to the knower." Criticize my knowledge and you've criticized me. Push me towards the logical conclusion of my argument, and if I lose the argument, I've been mortally wounded somehow - literally. Because knowledge is based in my experience, then truth is based in my experience. If my experience is insufficient, then I lose worth and value on a very personal level. The inexperience of a novice becomes a personal flaw and a shameful thing rather than an opportunity to come into greater understanding of truth and maturity. Nihilism is the only logical and ultimate end.
