Post modernism is often thought of as a movement that has relativised truth. That truth is not as important as experience or, "what's true for you may not be true for me". Personally, I think this unfairly caricatures Post modernism. The reason this may seem to be the case for me and some of my PM friends is that above truth and indeed even what we experience is harmony. That includes the hamony between what one believes and what one experiences or how one lives. I think this is also called orthohomony (right harmony) as opposed to orthodoxy (right belief) or orthopraxis (right practice or action).
This has meant the rejection of "truths" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures, where the authurity for that truth comes purely from the status of truth giver. It has also meant the rejection of "rituals or practices" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures for the same reasons.
I don't think this post modern era is the rejection of truth rather it is the rejection of confidence. This rejection of confidence has lead to (for me & I suspect many others) an increase in doubt. Doubt being the gap between belief and experience. This is a problem for many churches who rely on all members agreeing on a set of beliefs or practices. For more evangelical churches who major on orthodoxy and tend to interpret experience through their belief system, and more mainline churches who major on orthopraxis. The doubtful person will interpret belief through their experience and experience through belief, importantly they must be in harmony with each other.
Post moderns are post confident because they have seen the damage done by the confidence where someone is sure that they are right and all others wrong. Examples include slavery, crusades, etc. These are almost always due to a blind confidence in what poeople believed or were doing. There was no doubt or questioning.
I'm wondering in fact doubt feeds compassion. The more confident and right someone is the less compassionate they seem to be. Could this be because they believe they understand a truth that explains why someone is suffering be that because of the individuals own actions or because some supernatural force has inflicted that on them. If you know that then others doesn't If you know why someone is suffering don't need to act. If you are doubtful confused and are not sure of the big story you are faced with just one suffering person and compelled to act. If you have a meta-narrative why then you are not compelled to act.
Apologies if these thoughts are a little rambled and unstructured. I kind of vomited the sentences out.
This has meant the rejection of "truths" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures, where the authurity for that truth comes purely from the status of truth giver. It has also meant the rejection of "rituals or practices" handed down by religious leaders and other authority figures for the same reasons.
I don't think this post modern era is the rejection of truth rather it is the rejection of confidence. This rejection of confidence has lead to (for me & I suspect many others) an increase in doubt. Doubt being the gap between belief and experience. This is a problem for many churches who rely on all members agreeing on a set of beliefs or practices. For more evangelical churches who major on orthodoxy and tend to interpret experience through their belief system, and more mainline churches who major on orthopraxis. The doubtful person will interpret belief through their experience and experience through belief, importantly they must be in harmony with each other.
Post moderns are post confident because they have seen the damage done by the confidence where someone is sure that they are right and all others wrong. Examples include slavery, crusades, etc. These are almost always due to a blind confidence in what poeople believed or were doing. There was no doubt or questioning.
I'm wondering in fact doubt feeds compassion. The more confident and right someone is the less compassionate they seem to be. Could this be because they believe they understand a truth that explains why someone is suffering be that because of the individuals own actions or because some supernatural force has inflicted that on them. If you know that then others doesn't If you know why someone is suffering don't need to act. If you are doubtful confused and are not sure of the big story you are faced with just one suffering person and compelled to act. If you have a meta-narrative why then you are not compelled to act.
Apologies if these thoughts are a little rambled and unstructured. I kind of vomited the sentences out.

