Postmodernism. Tackling The Beast.
6 Feb
Postmodernism. I approach this subject with much fear and trembling for two reasons. First, because it is such a broad movement spanning 500+ years and effecting every level of society. Second, because people are all over the map on their opinion of it, with views ranging from “I have no clue what you are talking about” to “postmodernism doesn’t actually exist” to “postmodernism = relativism.” Having said that, I think it’s worth trying to explain and wrestle with because if it is true, I think it has profound implications for the world and our lives. So here goes my feeble attempt.
In the modern era logic, science, and the idea of “pure reason” were in. Philosophers spent most of their time reasoning and deducting. Scientists were objectively experimenting. Newton was forming his solid and unchanging “laws” of the universe and the gospel was boiled down into “four spiritual laws” as well. Religion was on trial for claiming “super” natural phenomena. Theologians were systematizing their theology. The arts were struggling to be taken seriously. People like Spoch were highly respected: rational and unemotional. “Don’t give me any experiential mumbo jumbo” was a phrase you might hear some wise person utter. We loved shows like Dragnet, with agent Joe Friday saying “just the fact’s ma’m, just the facts.” The great thinkers and writers of the day were confident that we were creating a better world. At the turn of the 20th century a popular saying was “every day, in every way we are getting better and better.” Science, technology, and reason would lead us there.
However, two world wars and a great depression were enough to begin the eroding of peoples faith in the modern experiment. Was the world really getting better and better? Was there even such a thing as “pure reason” or being truly “objective”: the way the scientist claimed to approach his experiment or the philosopher claimed to arrive at his deductions. Some people began to think these premises might be questionable, and it followed that the idea of something “after” or “post” modern was birthed. These were people who lived through the modern era, and experienced it so deeply that they were changed by it, and became something else entirely: postmodern. On this basis postmodernity isn’t necessarily “antimodern” or “better than modern” just “emerging from modern.”
In a postmodern world it’s not that logic and reason are out, but are rather taken off their pedestal, and placed alongside story, imagination, and experience in the search for truth. It’s not that science is out, but instead is humbly placed in the context of a very mysterious universe with a very “other” God that we have trouble wrapping our tiny brains around.
The implications for this new way of thinking are far reaching. The arts are being revitalized as a legitimate voice in the search for truth. Mystery is not sneered at, but celebrated. The arrogant humanism and individualism (think of our hero’s spock or the lone ranger) that modernity birthed are being replaced by a profound sense of “we” and a desire for relationship and community. Science is one of the voices, as opposed to the only voice. Supernatural things aren’t disregarded on the spot. The bible isn’t approached the way a skeptical detective approaches a crime scene, but is instead approached in a more relational and humble manner.
In many ways the Wizard of Oz serves as an appropriate metaphor for the rise of the postmodern world. In the story our friend Dorothy becomes the unlikely hero, journeying through an unknown world with imperfect friends. While the almighty Oz (confident, know it all, and loud) is revealed as a fraud. He is, and has been all along, only a humble seeker like them.
I hope this at least gives you a taste of what postmodernism may be. Hopefully it launches you into your own study of where our world has been and where it may be headed.
Funny you should mention the Wizard of Oz. I read it over Christmas. I have had this hankering to read classic fairy-tales lately. Next will be Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie.
And if you want a firm grasp of postmodernism, by all means, read postmodernists. But supplement that reading with some people who consider themselves outside the camp.
Modernism:
Man can know truth apart from divine revelation; e.g., reason replaces revelation. It began with the French Revolution and was carried on through the Enlightenment. It made atheism an intellectually valid option AFTER Christianity had taken the world by storm. Big names include Voltaire, Thomas Paine, all the founding fathers who were Deists, George Orwell, George Bernard Shaw, and Thomas (or is it Alduous?) Huxley.
Christian opponents include Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, and the oft-quoted C.S. Lewis.
Postmodernism: Not that man can know truth by divine revelation, but that man simply CANNOT know truth. Began in the 60’s with the drug culture (which only makes sense if you think about it). The relationship between postmodernism and ‘relative truth’ really is undeniable, I think. The emerging church is an attempt to reach out to this kind of people, but this kind of people simply will not be reached. You don’t cure insanity by becoming insane.
I don’t mean to be overly critical of the emerging church, but let me make this comment. I think everyone here has a high respect for Will Martin, don’t they? He’s the kind of guy who believes the right things and also “lives worthily” of it, isn’t he?
Well, I remember he was always talking about this study of the Song of Solomon put out by a guy named Tommy Nelson. This very Tommy Nelson happens to be preaching at a conference at school as I write these very words. Mr. Nelson made this remark concerning the emergent church:
“It consists of alot of people who just don’t want to be told what to do and what to believe.”
Considering the titles of such books as “A Generous Orthodoxy” and remarks in which a black, square-rimmed, glasses-wearing ‘preacher’ calls into question just how essential the virgin birth is to our religion, I think Mr. Nelson’s assessment is spot on.
Is there anything wrong with Calvin, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Tozer, etc. etc.? These guys were prophets. Let’s read THEM along with the Word of God.
Frankly, I get tired of having always to be ‘relevant’. All I hear is, “That Hansel is SO hot right now.”
Kyle. For shame. Again with the straw men. The emergent church is a wide-spread and varying thing. Yes, there are many in the emergent church who would hold to the things you mention (such as McLaren), the very definition of “emergent” is up in the air. Some see it as a revision of accepted doctrine (what you mentioned), some see it as a change in ecclesiology (what church is / how church functions), and some see it as a change in evangelism (determining the best way to spread the gospel). Quite a few people in the emergent church (including myself) are not interested in playing “Lone Ranger” with beliefs, but rather are far more interested in the community-based approach to determining and living out doctrine.
Re: Tommy Nelson: Would it be better if people just believed what others told them? Huh?
Also, what exactly is wrong with the phrase “generous orthodoxy”? I believe that McLaren is trying to address the problem of elaborate doctrinal checklists, not purporting universalism. As I understand it.
Brett, I’m glad to see that you’re engaging postmodernity openly. I think many of your assessments are right. It’s had many effects on the American church that I think are beneficial – questioning modern ecclesiology and missionology (is that a word?), an increased emphasis on the community over the individual and revitalizing the arts (hurrah!), just to name a few. The way I understand it, postmodernity (although there are many different forms and understandings of it – perhaps I should refer to it as “one of the postmodernities”) fought back against the modernist worship of propositional truth, and believed that there are other (equal, perhaps better) forms of truth. Truth is lived out, rather than declared by mouth.
Anyway, that’s my two cents.
Thanks for your comment Brett
Is much appreciated and encouraging.
Emeth x
Re:Tommy Nelson: No. It would be better if, not believing what someone told them, they didn’t remake the religion in their own fashion. The gospel is not an agenda of social justice or social compassion. It is the message of the cross of Christ.
And excuse me, how is criticizing propositional truth not a direct attack on the Word of God found in the Scriptures?
Here’s a better question: How can truth be known without proposition? LIFE is lived out, Brittany; TRUTH is proclaimed by the mouth. Nobody can discern that I believe in the resurrected Christ just because I abstain from sex, watch my language, etc. etc. Only when I tell an observer, propositionally, what I believe, will my beliefs become sweet to them, because until a proposition enters the picture, my beliefs can only remain unknown.
In the beginning was the…? And the… was with God, and the… was God. Any of this ringing a bell?
You will find nary an emergent answering a question straightforwardly, which is why you had to qualify your assessment of “A Generous Orthodoxy” with, “…as I understand it.” It is merely a “wind of doctrine”.
Sorry Brett. Better to be up front about my position than tiptoe around it.
Oh, yes, I remember: “In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God, and the WORD was written down …”
Bzzt. WRONG! “And the WORD became FLESH.”
Flesh!
You seem to be directly attacking the verse I quoted. Whatever happened to, “you shall know them by their love for one another”?
I am not saying propositional truth is useless or has no place. We communicate and create meaning (sociologically speaking) through language. (After all, I’m an English major. I should know this!) It is not, however, the only kind of truth. After all, if a person claimed Christ with their mouth, but failed utterly to live it out, how would their “truth” be sweet to anyone? It would only be a disgusting lie in the ear of the hearer. BOTH are necessary kinds of truths.
This is turning into a faith vs. works thing, isn’t it?
Well, it doesn’t have to.