Posted by: watchman146 | May 16, 2008

On Being a Pomospiritual Pastor

I made that word up.

Being a pomo isn’t easy in the church these days. There are a lot of negative stereotypes and bad connotations seem to fill every conversation. Matt Scott’s having to explain himself (click here). Perhaps his explanation will help those of you who are lost with my Postmodern Faith series.

I’m not a pomo (I don’t think). I like the Apostle Paul and I don’t like French post-war philosophers. I can still preach a whole sermon without referencing some anime storyline. I don’t need candles to experience God’s presence and my soul patch exists out of pure laziness. If I am a pomo, I remain securely in the closet.

However, I do appreciate what they stand for and what they are trying to do.

What do you think?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Posted in spirituality | Tags: , , , ,

« Brian is Alive
Beer Before Kids? »

Responses

Hi, I followed your trackback here from Matt Scott’s blog. I think I might be a pomo, but I’m not sure. French philosophers leave me cold.

I’m fascinated by your comment about the Apostle Paul. I’ll agree that he’s not a pomo [ooh; that pun's wearing thin]. But he’s not a mod(ern) either. I don’t think he could preach (or even understand) most of the sermons we listen to; I don’t think he’d automatically understand the structure of our services/meetings/gatherings.

By: Andrew on May 16, 2008
at 5.52 pm

Andrew, thanks for swinging by! I think you are right about Paul. he worked on a different level than all the people that claim his patronage.

By: watchman146 on May 16, 2008
at 6.20 pm

Yeah, I think we have a propensity to hijack people like Paul and mold them around our ideals, post modernists do it, modernists do it, I’m sure the enlightenment thinkers did it. We’re all wrong about things, and knowing that is what separates Pomo’s from modernists.

Anyways, while I claim to be a pomo, I likewise am not a fan of the said French philosophers, post modernism is far closer to my thoughts than modernism, but our end goal should be moving beyond post modernism (because it has it’s drawbacks) without reverting to modernism.

By: Matt Scott on May 16, 2008
at 8.23 pm

Pomo’s coming out of the closet all over the place around here!

Maybe they should have their own parade??

Paul lived in the first century and was, like all of us, heavily influenced and shaped by the culture(s) he lived in.

He did not understand things apart from it.

He also had an agenda.

Let’s not forget that.

We all do. I think.

I have no clue what I am. Corey calls me a Neanderthal. Is that Ne-an for short? Am I a ne-am Christian?

Get The Shack from you wife (take control of your home) and read it and quit posting about all this mo stuff! Jeesh!

By: tobyneal on May 17, 2008
at 7.25 am

I don’t read philosophers. Tell me what I am, Corey. Can I be a Christian Absurdist?

By: After the Blackbird Sings on May 17, 2008
at 7.40 am

My little quilt patch is both absurd and pomo

By: After the Blackbird Sings on May 17, 2008
at 7.41 am

Whether a pomo or mod or a ne-an (toby, which you are not), I came to the conclusion yesterday that each of these is nothing more than an approach to something — a framework.

Like — language is not the **thing** we are discussing, language is a symbol for things, and through it we mutually agree what those symbols mean.

Postmodernism and modernism and deism and theism and atheism are not absolute stances on what is or isn’t. They are frameworks for approaching something. Nothing more. Nothing magical.

I don’t think we have to swear by one or the other unless we’re trying to make a point about something. I think we should all try to grasp a healthy dose of each framework, so that we can better answer our own questions.

One hundred percent of atheists believe there is no God. One hundred percent of Christians believe there is a God. Now let’s realize that these beliefs are approaches to whether or not there is a God, and both views contain worthwhile assumptions, right? These views, as symbols of what is or isn’t, don’t change what is or isn’t.

They’re frameworks for understanding what we do not know, and one group says “faith” isn’t “knowledge.” The other group says, “disbelief” is not a virtue. Now try to become all the people in-between, for a moment, and understand that we’re all right, and we’re all wrong, and that to say anything positively from any position is to be dogmatic.

I’m a cha.

A change-ist.

By: gary on May 17, 2008
at 8.58 am

^^^ Mind blown.

Profound stuff Gary. Keep it up!

By: Matt Scott on May 17, 2008
at 4.19 pm

1 - How is anything that Gary said profound?

2 - “…to say anything positively from any position is to be dogmatic.”

Really?

By: Brian on May 19, 2008
at 8.13 am

Sweet, I wasn’t given any kind of gay avatar.

I was worried I’d get pink, or purple, or triangles, or a rainbow or something. You know, like some kind of cosmic godsmack for being anti-gay.

WHEW!!!!

By: Brian on May 19, 2008
at 8.15 am

D*mn it. You’re right, G*d has spoken. Since H* has given me a gay avatar, I will hence forth be a h*m*s*x**l.

By: After the Blackbird Sings on May 20, 2008
at 8.54 am

**oa, I *i**’* **o* i* *a* **ue. I *a* **a**i** a *o*e.

*ou**e **e*!!!!!!

By: Brian on May 20, 2008
at 3.28 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories