a collaborative friendship in Chicagoland seeking to understand and engage our emerging post-Christendom culture
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Question #2: The Emerging Church and the Holy Spirit
Okay, here's the next question for open discussion:
How do we as postmodern/post-charismatic/post-noncharismatics view an active relationship with the Holy Spirit?
Let's hear your thoughts!
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Do the intellectual terms such as postmodern or postcharismatic indicate that we can no longer believe in an outside reality of the Holy Spirit's presence and work in our lives?
I wouldn't think so. The prefix "post" means "after" or "beyond" not "against".
Thus a post-modern would be someone who has moved beyond modern rationalistic reductionism, which I would think would allow for more recognition of the Spirit's presence and work in our lives, not less.
And as for post-charistmatic, I think it might designate someone who has moved beyond their roots in the charismatic movement and wants to avoid some of the excesses and abuses found there without completely denying the presence and work of the Spirit.
But that's just a guess. I'm a post-noncharismatic myself, by which I mean that came from a non-charismatic background, but I have since come to a much more open and robust view of the Holy Spirit. However, I have not swung all the way to being a full-blown charismatic either. I value charismatic churches, but it doesn't really fit my own personality or ministry calling at this point.
BTW, who are you anonymous? Please feel free to tell us all a little bit about yourself.
I personally believe that the emergence of thought away from the modernistic view of spirituality actually allows for more of an openness to the Spirit's moving.... especially when you consider that much of the Spirit's moving is personal, and not always corporate. Doesn't mean the Spirit is going to move one person to do something unholy and another not - just that the Spirit's impact is dynamic not universal.
So, with that - I would think that postmodern (I really hate that word now) ideals are more receptive to the works of the Spirit than recent years....
3 comments:
Do the intellectual terms such as postmodern or postcharismatic indicate that we can no longer believe in an outside reality of the Holy Spirit's presence and work in our lives?
I wouldn't think so. The prefix "post" means "after" or "beyond" not "against".
Thus a post-modern would be someone who has moved beyond modern rationalistic reductionism, which I would think would allow for more recognition of the Spirit's presence and work in our lives, not less.
And as for post-charistmatic, I think it might designate someone who has moved beyond their roots in the charismatic movement and wants to avoid some of the excesses and abuses found there without completely denying the presence and work of the Spirit.
But that's just a guess. I'm a post-noncharismatic myself, by which I mean that came from a non-charismatic background, but I have since come to a much more open and robust view of the Holy Spirit. However, I have not swung all the way to being a full-blown charismatic either. I value charismatic churches, but it doesn't really fit my own personality or ministry calling at this point.
BTW, who are you anonymous? Please feel free to tell us all a little bit about yourself.
Welcome,
-Mike
I personally believe that the emergence of thought away from the modernistic view of spirituality actually allows for more of an openness to the Spirit's moving.... especially when you consider that much of the Spirit's moving is personal, and not always corporate. Doesn't mean the Spirit is going to move one person to do something unholy and another not - just that the Spirit's impact is dynamic not universal.
So, with that - I would think that postmodern (I really hate that word now) ideals are more receptive to the works of the Spirit than recent years....
Post a Comment