Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?

[Scott]

I am no philosopher, nor historian, nor scientist. I am simply a teacher-shepherd looking to help people understand God and his kingdom, especially within our world today. Still, at times, I find it interesting to engage with these fields. So this week, I have begun reading James K. A. (or Jamie) Smith's work, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucaul.... And I have appreciated the little I have read concerning postmodern thought in these two books: God's Word in Human Words by Kenton Sparks and How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins.

 

This whole discussion around postmodernism is and has been a touchy subject within the church for the past decade, with not a few evangelicals identifying postmodernism as inherently evil.

 

But is it?

 

Jamie Smith comes from a very strong reformed background, teaching philosophy at Calvin College. Yet, as a philosopher, and still knowing his theological roots, Smith takes up the challenge to show how postmodern thought is not intrinsically wrong and can actually be helpful for the church as we move forward more and more in the 21st century.

 

It might sound shocking to some Christians, but I think he might just be on to something here. Well, others have argued a similar thesis - Brian McLaren, Peter Rollins, Rob Bell, et al. But many a evangelicals will not turn an ear to their thoughts. Hence why Jamie Smith becomes an important voice in this discussion.

 

The philosophical and cultural era previously laid (and still remains the framework for many westerners) is known as modernism. And, you know what? Such a philosophical and cultural construct is not all bad. But perhaps postmodernism could bring a helpful balance to the mix.

 

And so, in the book, Smith sets out on the path to a) explain the positives of postmodern thought and b) challenge much of the church's assumptions about postmodernism.

 

Thus far, here is one thing that really caught my attention. Smith notes that a philosophical construct can shift (such as what is happening with the shift from modernism to postmodernism), but the cultural impact of such a change might take some time to flesh itself out. Thus, though many cultural phenomena are wrongly connected to postmodern thought, much of what we experience in our culture (at least our culture in the west) is actually still the outworking of a modernist perspective.

 

Smith particularly remarks:

 

In other words, cultural phenomena tend to not (yet?) reflect the radical implications of postmodernism. This might be because postmodernism itself has shrunk back from its own implications in both intellectual and cultural spheres. The individualism and consumerism that characterize contemporary culture are fruit nourished by deeply modern roots. So also relativism owes much more to modernism than to postmodernism. (fn8, ch1, p19)

 

I'm not sure many have made such connections.

 

Thus, Smith goes on to claim:

 

One of the reasons postmodernism has been the bogeyman for the Christian church is that we have become so thoroughly modern. But while postmodernism may be the enemy of our modernity, it can be an ally of our ancient culture. (p23)

 

And his argument, from a more practical sense, boils down to this thesis:

 

I will argue that the postmodern church could do nothing better than be ancient [connected to the 'well-worn paths' of the ancient church], that the most powerful way to reach a postmodern world is by recovering tradition, and that the most effective means of discipleship is found in liturgy. (p24)

 

I find myself challenged that, if such is practically true and helpful, then I have a lot to learn and even see change in my own approach to theology and ministry. I suppose a postmodern culture, of which I am seated right in the heart of post-Christendom western Europe, could be reached by not going 'ancient'. But this gives me, or us (me with other brothers and sisters), much to reflect on.

 

I like the book so far. As I said, I've touched lightly into engaging with more philosophical constructs, though I am not sure I will ever go too deep. Still, I appreciated perspectives like Kenton Sparks' identification with the practical realism of postmodernism. And I suppose one as grounded as Jamie Smith (though I believe Sparks is just as grounded) has much to bring to the table in the realm of philosophical discourse.

[Dave Hostetler]

I think the argument about postmodernism is really about relativism.  If you have relativism, then you have no objective truth and everything falls apart.  You mention Rob Bell as one of these modern thinkers.  Unfortunately, I think Rob might end up getting a lot of people a ticket to hell.  He has dangerous ideas where God saves everyone that flies in the face of the the Word of God.  Some things may be subjective, but there are plenty that are not.

[Phil James]

Scottl, I especially appreciated the two chapters on Derrida and Lyotard in which he distinguishes what they actually espoused from the 'bumper sticker' misunderstanding of their positions that are held by many of their detractors.

It amazes me how well their thought dovetails into that of Van Til, et al.

[Scott]

Dave -

 

I am not sure how much relativism is an inherent part of postmodernism, or of modernism. I suppose relativism is, in some sense, part of a postmodern worldview. There is an emphasis on community and one only knows what one knows because of the community-tradition handed down. So this community has its own truth, that one has its own truth, etc. But this aspect of community-tradition can be positive. Of course, not if one holds to a more Cartesian, modernistic epistemological foundation where everything has to be rationally figured out. But the church is a community built of tradition. Not necessarily in an overly problematic version of tradition, as in most evangelicals understanding of the Roman Catholic tradition. Still, nonetheless, we stand on the shoulders of not just giants, but a body and bride and family that have been walking this road WAY before you and I showed up.

 

On Rob Bell. I suppose he might get some people a ticket to hell. I suppose I will as well, and John MacArthur, TD Jakes, Wayne Grudem, and maybe a few others. But I believe Bell has a voice that must be listened to. Not necessarily heeded at every point, but listened to. I think his book Love Wins hit the hammer on the nail with some of his points. Not every one, but definitely some of them.

[Dave Hostetler]

There is an emphasis on community and one only knows what one knows because of the community-tradition handed down. So this community has its own truth, that one has its own truth, etc.

 

Are you talking about relative truths here?  If so, one could argue that such a thing does not exist.

I understand that there are many who think that Bell is on to something special, but all it really makes me think about is Matthew 7:13-14. We should be wary to find ourselves on the wide path. Being too inclusive is most certainly a bad thing.

[Scott]

I was arguing that such an approach is the extreme postmodernist perspective, typically identified as anti-realism. I think a better postmodern approach is practical realism.

 

With your second point, I think a) you need to engage Matt 7 within its own historical framework first, but also b) I don't think Bell has put forth everything conclusively, but he certainly has pointed out holes in the various evangelical belief of eternal conscious torment.

[Dave Hostetler]

I think a better postmodern approach is practical realism.

Could you provide an example?

With your second point, I think a) you need to engage Matt 7 within its own historical framework first

I looked at Matthew 7 again in several different English translations, and where some put verse 12 ( the 'Golden Rule' ) in with 13 and 14, most see it as a separate teaching.  I'm not certain if you mean to say that it has some literal meaning only for those of that day, but even "The Message" puts this into the context of living a Christian life is a narrow road and only a few people will actually walk it.

b) I don't think Bell has put forth everything conclusively, but he certainly has pointed out holes in the various evangelical belief of eternal conscious torment.

I did a word search for 'eternal' ( Strong's G166 ) and discovered that it is used not only to describe the fire, punishment, sin and destruction, but also God, power, life and salvation.  So, to take away eternal punishment, you must also remove eternal life and God's eternal power.  Based on this, I would say that Bell's exegesis of scripture is either not well thought through, poorly done or deliberately dishonest.  I truly hope it is not the latter.