While this post may have some bearing on Brad’s question regarding Emerging/Emergent, I feel that the purpose of this post will be to look at a few characteristics of “postmodern” thought and then address how well these traits can carry over to an understanding of Christianity.
I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t looked at the EC movement closely until now. The reading that I’m having to do for a class, as well as some discussions that I’ve had with friends in the past few weeks, have greatly changed my understanding as to what “postmodernism” is and how it as a philosophical ideal can work alongside true Christian faith. While I do think I’ve gotten a better handle on what’s going on, I’ve also had some serious questions (and admittedly, some serious doubts) as to what good “postmodernism” (you’ll notice I’m using quotes; I’ll explain in a bit) can hold for Christian faith.
Foremost in my mind during the writing of this post is the book Colossians Remixed by Walsh and Keesmaat. While I agreed with many of their conclusions, I found them to be reinventing the wheel to use “postmodern” thought to deal with a “postmodern” audience. I’d recommend this book; though not because I agree with what they say, and certainly less with how they say it. I’d recommend it simply because it will make you engage the whole “postmodern” paradigm in a way that will rock your world. Second, I ran across an OU grad here who spent some time in the Philosophy Department there. He has come to the conclusion that many Christians are confused as to what the term “postmodern” refers to; and after reading the aforementioned book, as well as having other discussions, I’d have to agree with him. And with that thought, we will now turn to an academic understanding of what “postmodernism” is characterized by; we’ll also cover why I’m using quotes.
“Postmodernism” didn’t begin in the church; so, for the sake of this discussion, let’s strip any and all religious meanings from this word. We’re going to look at in a pretty academic light. The following points are thoughts of mine, pulled from the book and discussions.
1. Walsh and Keesmaat quote Foucault (one of the French guys who cooked it all up) as saying that “postmodernism” is a “rejection of metanarrative.” Simply put, this means that there is no great story that gives meaning to life. But aside from that, we must not see things in terms of “story.” There is no beginning; there is no end. There is no plot; there is no purpose. We do not share the grand stage of life and time with anyone, because there not only is there no script to act by, there is also no stage to share. We are not marching in a long line of saints because there is no line that matters.
2. Walsh and Keesmaat also pointed out that the idea of objectivism is a fraud. The idea of objective truth is nothing more than a construct created by those in power to reign in the masses and keep everyone in relative lockstep; the masses are easier to control when they believe the same thing. Ultimately, the only ground for truth (and by this I mean personal truth, for there can be no universal) is based in our experiences with others. Any overarching claim to truth represents one attempting to gain control over you and what you believe. Also, any claim to a metanarrative could be construed as the same.
3. Individualistic consumerism seems to be the norm as well; as we continue to become a consumer-based society, we become defined as individuals by what we believe. Just as we move through a shopping mall, buying items individually and taking them home, we do the same in the marketplace of ideas. We borrow one aspect of this view, another piece of that view, some perspective from over here, and weave them into our tapestry of belief. We demand the right to browse, shop, try, and if necessary, return and gain a refund. We are also expected to respect the rights of others to the same.
What I have just described seem to be the highlights of “postmodernism,” so far as I understand it. I have been using quotes because I feel that postmodernism as I have just described it does not correspond with the Christian “postmodernism” so many claim. This point also came out of another discussion. Some Christians seem to have adopted a bastardized halfway-postmodern view to characterize a reactionary movement by some believers today against what are perceived to be modern constructs in the church, tradition, and Biblical interpretation.
And so, in some degree, we can nail down philosophical postmodernism as Foucault was quoted above: the “rejection of metanarrative.” But what about Christian postmodernism? Not so easy. The term “postmodern” in the Christian church today seems to have been grabbed by many groups of people who are frustrated with the church as it is and has been; and so they break away and look for new ways of doing things; therefore, for the rest of this post, I’m going to refer to this phenomenon as “not-modernism.”
Not-modernism seems to be akin to someone shouting “Fire!” inside a crowded shopping mall, and then everyone running for the exits; regardless of whether or not the exits are on opposite ends of the building or directionally opposed to each other, people just want to get out. Where are we going? Not there. Where do we want to be? Not here. How should we do this? Not like that. It’s a massive re-imagining of faith and culture with thousands of visionaries who have rejected the previous methods and beliefs and are under no united banner, except for their avowed dislike of how things have been done.
1. Do not-moderns reject metanarrative? From what I have seen, no; much of the significance of faith seems to come from the fact that across the ages, God has been working on behalf of his people. However, not-moderns also seem to focus on the smaller stories of culture and how these have impacted contemporary understandings of the metanarrative of salvation-history. Just as the grand story is instructive, so are the “mini-narratives” along the way. Sometimes, the mini-narrative of our own lives affect our view more than the meta-narrative; however, the meta-narrative does remain key to the worldview of the individual in some respect, even if it is no more of a backdrop to the mini-narrative.
2. Not-moderns are also frustrated with precise truth claims and struggle with “objective” understandings of how things are; science is done away with, as are other givens taken for granted. Personal experience with other people become the sole ground for truth in a person’s life; therefore, the authority of the Bible and tradition is disregarded and the focus shifts to finding truth in community and in the person of Jesus. Since the end understanding of the truth will not be unanimous, the corporate focus shifts to how you find truth in community, not the truth that you arrive at.
3. Since the focus of truth moved to how you find it (as opposed to what you find), people are free to believe what they will inside of an ever-loosening framework of faith. The community becomes full of accepted people, not because they believe similar things, but because they believe at all and are “idea shopping” within the community. As Book says to Mal in the BDM: “I don’t care what you believe. Just believe in it.”
A strict adherence to postmodernism, in my view, is not compatible with Christian faith.
Not-modernism can be more; however, I am concerned by its vulnerability to social syncretism and it’s lack of focus on holiness (as Brad mentioned in a comment regarding his original post). By its nature, it focuses more on social issues than doctrinal. This is good, but only as long as the long-held doctrinal beliefs fueling the social outworking of gospel are upheld. If these are called into question, I fear for what could result. There seems to be a definite lack of accountability; and while the movement seems to be good in some aspects, one must remember that it is but a baby with no internal checks and balances on its growth.
I look across the centuries of faith and see heroes who stir my faith. I see people who make great declarations of faith and unabashedly praise their Creator. I see people who went to the stake for what they believed; and I look in our own century and see people who are, even in our own time, imprisoned and martyred for their faith. The most recent author I have read who struck the core of my heart goes by the name of C. S. Lewis. Everyone I have read since… I wonder what they believe, and indeed… They don’t seem to know themselves. I respect their struggles; people across the ages have had struggles of belief. However, people in the past have fought to resolve their struggles. I see people now who are content with their questions enough to believe that there is no answer that can be found.
Could a not-modern look an emperor in the eye and say, “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise?” I really have no idea… It’s a shame that I have to look back decades and centuries to find heroes of the faith that inspire me to go beyond where I am now.
Where have the heroes gone?
