Christian thought today - Postmodern world view
The following is one of my theology assignments on the issue of Postmodernism. Postmodern thought is affecting theology (how we understand God) today. I think it is important to understand postmodernism and the challenges it presents to the Church today. It is also important to understand it as postmodern thinking affects our individual world views and this can cause a dichotomy in our thinking as Christians. author Jacqueline Hancock
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is not a homogenous movement. Therefore it is not easy to define. Peter Corney says “the concept of post modernity is like pea soup. There are so many different points of view.” (1995:46)
What also makes it difficult to define is that postmodernism just like modernism has grown out of the preceding models of thought and philosophy and thus to grasp all its meaning and content one needs to understand the journey and progress of thought through the last 500 years. Millard J Erikson puts forth this reasoning when he says “In general, postmodernism is understood as an intellectual movement growing out of and supplanting modernism. It can best be understood in terms of its contrast with the periods that precede it” (1998:14).
My understanding is that whilst postmodernism, like modernism has its roots in the proceeding intellectual movements, it differs from them in that rather than trying to build upon the same foundations of pre-modernism and modernism, it attempts to build by rejecting many of those foundations. 1 This view begins with Federico de Onis proposal when he states that postmodernism is “a reaction within modernism.” (Grenz 1996:15-16) but supersedes it to state; - what started within now has begun to form a paradigm of its own.
Reaction against modernism can be moderate or extreme. Erikson refers to the two extremes as ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ postmodernism. The ‘soft’ postmodernism on one hand tends to limit itself to the rejection of the extremes of modernism, namely “the dogmatic naturalism and anti-supernaturalism; the reductionist view of reason,…the limitation of knowledge to sense experience….the restriction of the understanding of human personality as a set of stimulus-response reactions… and the naïve objectivity that denies the effect of historical and cultural situations.”(1998:19)
The ‘hard postmodernism is linked to deconstruction, which first seeks to deconstruct the foundations by identifying all the present elements which they say Science and modernism overlooks, e.g. cultural factors, personal values etc. Then rejects any possibility of objectivity and rationality due to the presence of,’ these previously unidentified elements’. This then leads them to the conclusion that “there is no objective truth only that which is true for the interpreter (ibid: 19)
Grenz suggests that this type of thinking leads to the demise of the ‘metanarrative’ and the “universe” and gives rise to the local or tribal narratives and the ‘multiverse’. Here it is said that each culture has its own lenses, its own language games and its own theory of truth. We also find that no longer is the question “Is it true?” relevant or acceptable, but rather the questions; - “What use is it? And is it efficient?” Truth becomes relative to the situation and not relevant to the world as a whole. (1996:48)
Summary
The heart of postmodernism is a reaction to, or a rejection of, the foundational belief of modernism, which is expressed in the euphemism “Every day in every way things are getting better and better”. The postmodernist declares Things have not got better. Two world wars, Global warming, etc. bares this out.
This reaction/rejection is then focused on the following areas of ideology. The postmodernist would suggest:-
1)Humankind is not capable of being totally objective they are affected by culture, upbringing etc.
2)Knowledge therefore is not objective and not necessarily good, as it is often used for power.
3)All inclusive systems are impossible to arrive at from the starting point of ‘objective’ reason. Suggesting the abandoning of the attempt to construct them
4)There are often different ways to view things.
5)There is more to humankind than scientific processes.
6)There is a world that exists outside of the sensory, scientific paradigm i.e. the supernatural world and intuition. Paraphrased from Erikson (1998:18,19)
The Postmodernist Challenge.
The nature of the postmodern challenge to the Christian church is simultaneously positive and negative.
The negative challenge primarily comes from the postmodern view of non-universals, no mettanaratives and the relativism of truth. Christ died that all might be saved and that salvation comes only through him. Postmodernists would object to this ‘mettanarative’ and say that this story is only one of many.2 This singular focus on Christ and him crucified for the world cannot be denied by Christianity, it is the heart and soul of what we believe. How then can this truth be presented to a postmodern mindset.
I would suggest that Christians cannot proclaim it as a propositional truth and expect the audience to merely accept it. They need to be a community that lives it out, in power and in truth. The real manifestation of the love of Christ, in action through the Church community, will convince the postmodernist of the reality of the truth of Christ.
The other side of presenting this truth is to show the lack of reality and consistency within postmodernism itself. As Shaffer suggests we must take them to the limits of their paradigm before we can begin presenting our ‘truth’. 3 (Erikson 1998:154)
The positive side of postmodernism is that the Church is free from having to make theology fit the scientific paradigm. Many theologians have focused on ‘proving’ the Bible to be inerrant, rather than being the revelation of God through Christ. Put another way Christians were so preoccupied with finding facts to prove their case, that they often ceased ‘being’ the facts to prove Christ lives. Held to the model of proving ‘foundational facts’ Jesus became more historical, rather than relational.
Another positive factor of postmodernism is that Christians can now unabashedly do theology through their paradigm of Christ. In the modern era Christians often succumbed to the scientific and rationalist paradigm, at the same time denying any such use thereof. 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 defines the Christian paradigm. We understand our ‘narrative’, not through human wisdom, but through the Spirit. Our understanding is not dependant on any reigning philosophy, it never has been and now we are free to declare that stance. That is liberating.
The final positive that will be addressed is the benefits the church can derive from a postmodern holism, the rejoining of faith and reason. We can embrace the supernatural, the revealed wisdom and the historical record. Postmodernism encourages the Church to rejoin the mind, to the soul, to the spirit (Spirit).4
Summary
Postmodernism presents the same amount of challenge to the church just as any other ideology of the past. The Church must always be aware of the limitations of the culture it seeks to engage with and present the message of the gospel in the light of these limitations. The message remains the same only the presentation may endure change.5
1097 words Footnotes
1) An explanation of the foundations of modernism and pre-modernism can be found in (Erikson 1998:14-16) whilst the foundations of the two preceding eras are diverse, e.g. .pre-modern acknowledged the realms of naturalism and supernaturalism where as modernism focused on naturalism to the exclusion of the supernatural. Both however accepted the basic belief of first causes, of objectivity, the correspondence theory of truth, the referential theory of language and an all-inclusive explanation of events. It is to these foundations that this essay refers mostly.
2 Grenz addresses the need to maintain the metanarrative in Chapter 7 section entitled “Standing our ground: Rejecting the Rejection of the metanarratives” He also goes on to state that Christians believe that all local narratives do fit together to form one grand narrative (1996:163,164)
3 . Francis Schaeffer has this approach. “It is at this point that the person realizes the impossibility of living in a divided fashion, inconsistent with his basic philosophy, on the one hand, but also inconsistent with his own inherent humanity, on the other. Not until this point is reached can the traditional type of positive argument for the Christian faith be made.” P154
4) Grenz states that “the postmodern holism entails an integration of all the dimensions of personal life - affective and intuitive as well as cognitive.” (1996:14) I believe this enables the Church to be able to unabashedly do the same with its theology rather than to just try and fit theology into a ‘scientific’ type model.
5) This is basically the summation of Erikson’s approach to apologetics for postmodernism as found in his Chapter entitled “Can Deconstructed Horses even be led to water? ‘Acknowledging ones presuppositions and then attempting to eliminate as much as possible the subjectivity of the apologist. Moving the dialogue to some sort of objectivity. We need to first go across the bridge to the horse and enter into their paradigmatic view of the world, then we can bring them into our own paradigm’(1998:154-155)
Bibliography
References
Grenz, S. J. A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996)
Erickson M.J. Postmodernizing the Faith; Evangelical responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998)
Other Sources
Corney, P. ‘From Happy Days to the Simpsons.’ On Being (September 1995): 39-43 (volume/issue unknown)
Moore R. Friends - The key to reaching Generation X. (Ventura California, Regal Books, 2001)
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is not a homogenous movement. Therefore it is not easy to define. Peter Corney says “the concept of post modernity is like pea soup. There are so many different points of view.” (1995:46)
What also makes it difficult to define is that postmodernism just like modernism has grown out of the preceding models of thought and philosophy and thus to grasp all its meaning and content one needs to understand the journey and progress of thought through the last 500 years. Millard J Erikson puts forth this reasoning when he says “In general, postmodernism is understood as an intellectual movement growing out of and supplanting modernism. It can best be understood in terms of its contrast with the periods that precede it” (1998:14).
My understanding is that whilst postmodernism, like modernism has its roots in the proceeding intellectual movements, it differs from them in that rather than trying to build upon the same foundations of pre-modernism and modernism, it attempts to build by rejecting many of those foundations. 1 This view begins with Federico de Onis proposal when he states that postmodernism is “a reaction within modernism.” (Grenz 1996:15-16) but supersedes it to state; - what started within now has begun to form a paradigm of its own.
Reaction against modernism can be moderate or extreme. Erikson refers to the two extremes as ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ postmodernism. The ‘soft’ postmodernism on one hand tends to limit itself to the rejection of the extremes of modernism, namely “the dogmatic naturalism and anti-supernaturalism; the reductionist view of reason,…the limitation of knowledge to sense experience….the restriction of the understanding of human personality as a set of stimulus-response reactions… and the naïve objectivity that denies the effect of historical and cultural situations.”(1998:19)
The ‘hard postmodernism is linked to deconstruction, which first seeks to deconstruct the foundations by identifying all the present elements which they say Science and modernism overlooks, e.g. cultural factors, personal values etc. Then rejects any possibility of objectivity and rationality due to the presence of,’ these previously unidentified elements’. This then leads them to the conclusion that “there is no objective truth only that which is true for the interpreter (ibid: 19)
Grenz suggests that this type of thinking leads to the demise of the ‘metanarrative’ and the “universe” and gives rise to the local or tribal narratives and the ‘multiverse’. Here it is said that each culture has its own lenses, its own language games and its own theory of truth. We also find that no longer is the question “Is it true?” relevant or acceptable, but rather the questions; - “What use is it? And is it efficient?” Truth becomes relative to the situation and not relevant to the world as a whole. (1996:48)
Summary
The heart of postmodernism is a reaction to, or a rejection of, the foundational belief of modernism, which is expressed in the euphemism “Every day in every way things are getting better and better”. The postmodernist declares Things have not got better. Two world wars, Global warming, etc. bares this out.
This reaction/rejection is then focused on the following areas of ideology. The postmodernist would suggest:-
1)Humankind is not capable of being totally objective they are affected by culture, upbringing etc.
2)Knowledge therefore is not objective and not necessarily good, as it is often used for power.
3)All inclusive systems are impossible to arrive at from the starting point of ‘objective’ reason. Suggesting the abandoning of the attempt to construct them
4)There are often different ways to view things.
5)There is more to humankind than scientific processes.
6)There is a world that exists outside of the sensory, scientific paradigm i.e. the supernatural world and intuition. Paraphrased from Erikson (1998:18,19)
The Postmodernist Challenge.
The nature of the postmodern challenge to the Christian church is simultaneously positive and negative.
The negative challenge primarily comes from the postmodern view of non-universals, no mettanaratives and the relativism of truth. Christ died that all might be saved and that salvation comes only through him. Postmodernists would object to this ‘mettanarative’ and say that this story is only one of many.2 This singular focus on Christ and him crucified for the world cannot be denied by Christianity, it is the heart and soul of what we believe. How then can this truth be presented to a postmodern mindset.
I would suggest that Christians cannot proclaim it as a propositional truth and expect the audience to merely accept it. They need to be a community that lives it out, in power and in truth. The real manifestation of the love of Christ, in action through the Church community, will convince the postmodernist of the reality of the truth of Christ.
The other side of presenting this truth is to show the lack of reality and consistency within postmodernism itself. As Shaffer suggests we must take them to the limits of their paradigm before we can begin presenting our ‘truth’. 3 (Erikson 1998:154)
The positive side of postmodernism is that the Church is free from having to make theology fit the scientific paradigm. Many theologians have focused on ‘proving’ the Bible to be inerrant, rather than being the revelation of God through Christ. Put another way Christians were so preoccupied with finding facts to prove their case, that they often ceased ‘being’ the facts to prove Christ lives. Held to the model of proving ‘foundational facts’ Jesus became more historical, rather than relational.
Another positive factor of postmodernism is that Christians can now unabashedly do theology through their paradigm of Christ. In the modern era Christians often succumbed to the scientific and rationalist paradigm, at the same time denying any such use thereof. 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 defines the Christian paradigm. We understand our ‘narrative’, not through human wisdom, but through the Spirit. Our understanding is not dependant on any reigning philosophy, it never has been and now we are free to declare that stance. That is liberating.
The final positive that will be addressed is the benefits the church can derive from a postmodern holism, the rejoining of faith and reason. We can embrace the supernatural, the revealed wisdom and the historical record. Postmodernism encourages the Church to rejoin the mind, to the soul, to the spirit (Spirit).4
Summary
Postmodernism presents the same amount of challenge to the church just as any other ideology of the past. The Church must always be aware of the limitations of the culture it seeks to engage with and present the message of the gospel in the light of these limitations. The message remains the same only the presentation may endure change.5
1097 words Footnotes
1) An explanation of the foundations of modernism and pre-modernism can be found in (Erikson 1998:14-16) whilst the foundations of the two preceding eras are diverse, e.g. .pre-modern acknowledged the realms of naturalism and supernaturalism where as modernism focused on naturalism to the exclusion of the supernatural. Both however accepted the basic belief of first causes, of objectivity, the correspondence theory of truth, the referential theory of language and an all-inclusive explanation of events. It is to these foundations that this essay refers mostly.
2 Grenz addresses the need to maintain the metanarrative in Chapter 7 section entitled “Standing our ground: Rejecting the Rejection of the metanarratives” He also goes on to state that Christians believe that all local narratives do fit together to form one grand narrative (1996:163,164)
3 . Francis Schaeffer has this approach. “It is at this point that the person realizes the impossibility of living in a divided fashion, inconsistent with his basic philosophy, on the one hand, but also inconsistent with his own inherent humanity, on the other. Not until this point is reached can the traditional type of positive argument for the Christian faith be made.” P154
4) Grenz states that “the postmodern holism entails an integration of all the dimensions of personal life - affective and intuitive as well as cognitive.” (1996:14) I believe this enables the Church to be able to unabashedly do the same with its theology rather than to just try and fit theology into a ‘scientific’ type model.
5) This is basically the summation of Erikson’s approach to apologetics for postmodernism as found in his Chapter entitled “Can Deconstructed Horses even be led to water? ‘Acknowledging ones presuppositions and then attempting to eliminate as much as possible the subjectivity of the apologist. Moving the dialogue to some sort of objectivity. We need to first go across the bridge to the horse and enter into their paradigmatic view of the world, then we can bring them into our own paradigm’(1998:154-155)
Bibliography
References
Grenz, S. J. A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996)
Erickson M.J. Postmodernizing the Faith; Evangelical responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998)
Other Sources
Corney, P. ‘From Happy Days to the Simpsons.’ On Being (September 1995): 39-43 (volume/issue unknown)
Moore R. Friends - The key to reaching Generation X. (Ventura California, Regal Books, 2001)
Home
Outback Christians
Outback Kitchen
Outback Stories
Photogallery
Outback Kids
Free colour in pages
Outback Christians
Outback Kitchen
Outback Stories
Photogallery
Outback Kids
Free colour in pages
This paper follows on developing the implications of postmodernism as it relates to the faith of Christians.
Faith and reason in the light of evangelical revisionism and postmodernism
The advent of postmodernism has produced a change in the way we think. It has taken the very foundations of modernism and pulled them apart. The deconstruction of these modern foundations has serious ramifications because it has the capacity to alter the way in which we view our world. From art and architecture to language and literature all spheres of our lives face the possibility of redefinition due to the breaking of the old and the introduction of the new. The way in which we ‘reason’ and think about our world is altering! No area of reasoning is left untouched. This includes our very Christian Faith. How we view God and his message to the world is impacted in a very real way by postmodernism and the death of modernism. The ramifications of this impact are still being assessed by those inside the ‘faith community’ and the secular world at large.
.
The reactions to the challenge of postmodernism and its ramifications are varied. In secular society we find modernist’s pushing for the scientific model to remain, whilst others are quite happy to embrace the eclectic nature of postmodernism and form various new models. Inside the Christian world we find the same extremes of reactions. Greer highlights well the varying responses of the Christian world, where he contrasts the excoriating postmodern response to a more ‘nuanced approach.’
“A number of books have been published in the 1990’s and early 2000’s by Christians authors excoriating postmodernism and admonishing the Christian community to stand firm against the postmodern tide…where polemical works had previously targeted secular modernity as on of Christianity’s chief foes, the new foe is postmodernism”.(2003:14)
In contrast with these he presents the Christian scholars who take an approach that weighs the strengths and weaknesses of postmodernism at the same time as assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the antipostmodern crowd. Greer states that they see that “Postmodernism indeed has some positive qualities that could help the church overcome some nagging problems that have appeared unsolvable in recent decades”.(ibid) Grenz and Olsen are highlighted as having this approach.
Whilst Greer and Grenz highlights for us the existence of positive and negative qualities within the postmodern paradigm and the need for some careful balanced thinking. They also give us a good place to begin this careful analysis. Greer goes to great lengths to show that at the heart of the postmodern/modern conflict there lays a serious debate over the nature of truth.
I concur with Greer about the necessity to have an understanding of this debate and its ramifications because the concept of truth is a foundation to the way everyone thinks. At the heart of each persons world view there lies bedrock assumptions which form the foundation to all thinking and reasoning. These assumptions whilst not always called truths are ideas that people hold to be true. The foundational truth then gives shape and form to all the reasoning that proceeds. Even those who would assert there is no truth have made a truth statement. And the consequences of this statement are then born out in their lives. The area of Christian faith is no exception here. For the faith of Christianity lays upon several truth assumptions. For example: To believe in Christ as Lord and Savior one must first accept the existence of God. In contrast one who does not believe in the existence of God would not be able to accept Christ’s divinity and would therefore have to reduce the nature of Christ to ‘just another clever teacher’. Faith therefore is dependant on truth assumptions and how we then reason out our faith is to a great extent shaped by these basic assumptions.
It is important to grasp this concept for the negative side of both modernism and postmodernism begins in the area of truth definition and thus has serious ramifications for the Christian faith and the reasoning of the faith. If the foundations are crooked or broken they then lead to a broken view of God and his purposes in the world.
For this reason my discussion begins in the area of truth and the modern/postmodern debate about its nature. I also begin here because the postmodern concept of truth is very much a topical question not only amongst philosophers and Evangelical Scholars but also amongst everyday people such as those who responded to my question on the Darwin philosophy forum. Here I discovered amongst the many replies (Appendix A) that truth and the underlying truth assumptions of Christianity were often involved in their responses
It was R& B however who best highlighted the contrast between modern ideal of true and real and the postmodern stance of all truths are equal. He sees that Postmodernism gives Christianity an elevated stance in current thinking because postmodernism allows Christianity to be one truth amongst many. At the same time he rejects this postmodern assumption as he is a modernist at heart (Appendix A part 2). He says in regards to postmodernism:
“The great enemy of Christianity and kindred religious dogmas was, and is (wherever it’s not been stamped out), the rationality and humanism of the European Enlightenment(s). As I understand it, the current formulation of the postmodern agenda as an epistemological phenomenon gives Christianity et al much needed philosophical breathing space as an expression of truth amongst many, deserving of being treated with equal seriousness as evidence-based science” ( From the Philosophy Forum 26 Oct 2004 http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php)
He may be correct in that postmodernism does present some philosophical benefits, however in the area of being one truth amongst many Christianity receives no benefit.
One truth among many! What does this really mean?
Firstly we must understand that postmodernism is a philosophy which has grown from a reaction to and against modernism. (Appendix B) and thus its underlying assumptions of truth are actually often reactional and not specifically defining. Postmodern philosophers wanted to state that the modern scientific approach was incorrect. They state this firstly because the modern paradigm did not make good on its promises.1 Secondly they state this because the very aspects of life that the modern paradigm ignores are seen as integral part of humanity’s reasoning processes. Culture, language constructs, emotions and even the possible spiritual realm are all seen as having a part in the way we reason and understand our world.
Stating then that there can be many truths does not mean that postmodernism has actually found a way to redefine truth per see. However even if the intention was not to redefine truth their statement re there being many equally valid truths does in the end redefine truth in the minds of all who seek to embrace this thinking. Especially when you add the postmodern idea that there is no universality in the area of truth2. Once you have accepted that there are many equal truths you then must redefine the very nature of truth. Truth therefore in the postmodern paradigm becomes relative, not propositional or even necessarily provable. Truth then can become anything you desire it to be, as long as it holds true to your cultural context or faith system.3 We find then that no longer is the question “is it true?” relevant or acceptable, but rather the questions; - “What use is it” and “Is it efficient?”. Truth becomes relative to the situation and not relevant to the world as a whole. (Grenz 1996:48)
Once the fundamental understanding of truth being relative is accepted many consequences can arise. Firstly we loose the concept of universality. There can be no set of truths that are applicable on a global scale because of the diversity of cultures.
Secondly relative truth ultimately necessitates a constant redesigning of foundations and the reasoning placed upon it.4
Thirdly Grenz suggests that truth being relative leads to a centre less worldview. He addresses this idea in his book ‘Renewing the Centre’. A person who lacks any centre or foundation for thinking quickly becomes lost in a multicultural society. Life can become increasingly meaningless and despair can set in. (Perhaps this is why the western world has high suicide rates)
Since the Christian faith does lay claim to a universal story, and a universal remedy 5 it cannot support the postmodern stance of multiverse in contrast to universe. Also the Christian faith claims that there is only one way to the one true God and that is through Jesus Christ. If there is only one way then the consequences of that thinking lead the Christian to state that any opposing faith ideology (religion) cannot also be true. Hence the postmodern idea of ‘one truth among many and the resulting reletivization of truth cannot be maintained by the ‘classical understanding of Christianity’. To accept this paradigm the person of Christ and the universal claims of the bible would have to be reinterpreted. Thus the conclusion is that postmodernism as an epistemological philosophy offers no positive benefit to the Christian faith in the area of being one truth among many.
There is however a positive role of postmodernism in the area of truth in that postmodernism shows us the dilemma of accepting the modern construct of truth within the Christian faith. Greer discusses this dilemma in a section he titles ‘The dark side of absolute truth. .” He claims that Western Culture from the time of the Enlightenment has been trying to prove the Bible in a ‘modern construct’ of truth which is different from asserting that Jesus is the truth. He identifies this interpretation as:
“…absolute truth as an encyclopedic collection of abstracted principles that are understood to be timelessly valid and therefore immutable-not subject to change. Existing independently from the specifics of any given culture and from any given historical moment, these principles are transcultural and ahistorical” (2003:25)
At first it is hard to understand why the Christian faith cannot express itself through this paradigm. And before the advent of postmodernism many would not have understood that the modern paradigm was faulty or that errors even existed. It is only when we look deeply into the assumptions of modernism in regards to truth through the postmodern critique that we can begin to comprehend the problems.
.
The problem with the modern construct of truth in regard to the Christian faith is manifold. Firstly we find that the rich diversity of God and scripture needs to be reduced to a set of abstract principles 6 which are not dependant upon culture or historical moment. All understanding is to be ahistorical and transcultural.7
Secondly inherent in the idea of abstracted principles is the belief that they can be arrived at by autonomous objective human observers.8 Furthermore these principles must be provable and reproducible.
How compatible can all this be with the Christian faith? Some would affirm that it is compatible and many faith books have been written trying to do so. Charles Taylor’s book ‘The oldest science book”9 comes to mind and the many books written on Creation science and the compatibility of Evolution and Christianity. There has been much scholarly work done in the last century which tried to convey the Christian faith via the modern understanding. Not all of this work was bad. In fact there were many useful discoveries in the quest to prove the bible through the modern constructs. The field of archeology is a good example.
Ultimately though it is not compatible with the Christian faith for the following reasons.
1)The revelation of God in the Bible is not a set of abstract, axiomatic principles. God uses geological events, parables, philosophy, poetry, prophecy, history, culture, language the person of Jesus Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit to reveal his multidimensional nature and purposes.
2)The Bible at times, when viewed through the modern lens, presents us with anomalies, and at times even appears contradictory. Any honest assessment by the Christian faith would recognize this dilemma. It is often pointed out by the secular society.
3)The sin factor. All mankind has sinned. Our ways are not God’s ways; our wisdom does not lead to knowledge of God as Paul points out in! Corinthians chapter 2. Therefore any ideology thought up by man must be inadequate.
4)The sin factor should help us to understand that Humans are not capable of being autonomous, objective observers. They are as postmodernism points out a product of their history and culture. Further more humans are emotional relational creatures and these factors have an influence in how we relate to and understand the world. Modernism reduces faith to single dimension, postmodernism produces a more holistic approach.
The conclusion then is that neither the modern nor the postmodern definition of truth is compatible with the Christian faith. Christianity can not remain as one truth among many and still be true to its Gospel. Christianity can also not establish its faith claims on the foundation of modernism and its definition of truth. And yet Christian Faith must have a foundation, it must have a definition for truth because it deals with a God who claims to be the truth. It must also establish a truth foundation because as I have stated before we all have underlying assumptions which we hold to be true. If we do not articulate these assumptions and understand the nature of the assumptions our faith structure will not stand the onslaught of any secular ideology. It will also not stand due to the fact that it has no support structure underlying it.
If postmodernism offers no hope in the area of redefining truth it does give Christianity breathing space in that it unshackles it from the modern construct of truth. Whilst its alternative is no effective replacement it does off Christianity the chance to find its foundations within its own cultural context. For Postmodernism supports the idea of cultures having truth. Further more it allows a more holistic approach to the formation of truth. It does this by highlighting interdependence, the emotional, the unseen, the idea of mystery and possibility of spirit, the relational and the idea that faith goes beyond knowledge. (Appendix B)
Postmodernism also presents the Christian faith with the opportunity to define its truth parameters within its own cultural and Biblical text. Now Christianity can present the truth as it really is. Not axiomatic principles, not truth in diversity, nor relative truth, but relational truth. For in the Bible truth is a person. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light.(John 14:6) We enter into truth when we enter into relationship with him. Further more we grow in truth through the ministry of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth (John16:26). Truth is alive and creative, not something to be examined under the microscope of modernism. It is through Christ that the world can grasp true wisdom, which is foolishness (1 Cor 2:10-16) to the humanistic approach modern or postmodern. Christ then can take centre stage in all discussions of faith and even reasoning. The Bible has much to say about wisdom, knowledge and understanding. This means the Christian faith has much to offer a world that has become lost in a sea of relativity.
Postmodernism presents the opportunity to let the Bible set its own agenda. This opportunity however must be seized determinedly as postmodernism does not inherently give place for the authority of scripture. Postmodernism is still humanistic to the degree that it views the Bible as being a work of mankind and not of God. The Christian faith must work out its apologetics in this area and present its case for the authority of scripture. The advantage here is that whilst postmodernism does not recognize it, it does leave ‘breathing space’ for the Christian faith to produce credence for this issue.
The scriptures then can take their place over the kingdom of faith and not be subservient to this kingdom.10 Overall a whole new vision and understanding of the Bible and of faith statements (Creeds) is needed. It is here that Grenz calls for an Evangelical Revsionism of the Christian Faith.
This Revisionism is the reassessment and reworking of not only theology and faith statements but also a time for re-establishing truth to a culture that has lost its way. This revisionism must encompass all areas of life that faith impacts. Our Creeds, our worldviews, our language and even our understanding of what it means to be the Body of Christ and the Church in this world.
Due to the advent of Postmodernism with its focus on the relational and the subsequent Evangelical revisionism response the Christian faith can now focus on the relational aspects of its gospel message. Christianity can proclaim that not only the dynamic relationship with a triune God but also a dynamic faith community relationship. In a world that is increasingly lost in fragmentation and even lonely despair a renewed Christianity can offer a place of belonging, a family that is united under the headship of Christ. The ideal of community of God, or body of Christ is further supported as the modern focus on individualism and the consequential theological emphasis on personal conversion is now being balanced by the postmodern Evangelical emphasis on the role of interdependent community.
The Sacraments too can benefit from the postmodern revisioning phenomenon
Modernism tended to produce a low view of the sacraments. Removing the mystery and power they were reduced often too a mere tradition or act of communal obedience. A postmodern society is more open to a sense of expectation, a sense of the working of God through his ordinances. The sacraments can also benefit by being placed back into the hands of the believers as postmodernism challenges the power structures of the traditional churches. Now with an growing emphasis on the ‘Priest hood of believers’ and an acceptance of the role of the laity at hand, Christians from traditional churches are being given the right to have communion at home or in small groups. Lay members are also being given the right to give communion in the worship service as well (Appendix D)
Conclusion
Postmodernism good or bad, like it or hate it has been instrumental in calling those of the Christian faith to reassess their faith and world view assumptions by the deconstruction of the modern agenda that infiltrated the Christian faith. Whilst postmodernism per see does not present a workable paradigm to do this is does give Christianity ‘breathing space’ to define its own paradigm.
This redefining is the work of Evangelical Revisionism. For the revisionism to be successful however it must firstly address the underlying assumptions of the Christian world view and the underlying assumptions of postmodernism.. As I have pointed out these assumptions are really concepts of ‘truth’. For there to be dialogue of faith with a postmodern society an ‘appologetic of truth’ must be established by the Evangelical theologians.
Once this is done, Evangelicals may ‘chart’ a new way forward. This new way must be founded on the correct understanding of ‘truth’, whilst remaining Christ centered, scripturally contextual and at the same time culturally relevant. With firm foundations that are securely placed on the person of Christ who is the truth the faith is assured to survive not only this current epistemological philosophy but any others the secular world may invent.
The Christian faith however will ultimately survive because God is above and beyond culture and its philosophical constructs. If we hold true to his revelation of truth and not succumb to the constructs of secular philosophy we will be able to maintain a true witness of he who is true - Christ Jesus. Ultimately God will prove himself true to any Generation through a Christian community that remains truly Christ focused.
End notes. (These would be footnotes, however I cannot understand how to get my program to print separate footnotes for each page. It keeps on printing the full list each page or odd and even pages.) Sorry for any inconvenience.
1) At the heart of postmodernism is a reaction to, or a rejection of, the foundational belief of modernism, which is expressed in the euphemism “Every day in every way things are getting better and better”. The postmodernist declares Things have not got better. Two world wars, Global warming, etc. bares this out.
2) They are forced to reject universality because they recognize that each different faith and every different culture upholds truths that are often diametrically opposed. They also reject universality because there is most often a humanistic assumption that there is no God over creation
It is also important to note that postmodern philosophers whilst rejecting much of the scientific modern paradigm still seem to often hold to the modern evolutionary ideal. The consequences of accepting evolution then results in there being no unifying story through history of man because all is chance. If there is any unifying concept it may be seen in humanity’s attempts to interfere in evolutionary process. Belief in evolutionary processes could be seen as a foundational truth statement which in turn gives shape to any philosophy attempting to build upon it with all its inherent consequences.
3) Even in Postmodernism there are boundaries to the understanding of truth. Derrida presents us with a system that seems to be widely accepted in postmodern thought. This brief synopsis is from Greer “Mapping Postmodernism”. Derrida insists that each person thinks with language, language precedes thought. Words and grammar serve as building blocks from which thinking takes shape. Thus reasoning is dependent on the peculiarities of a given language. Also each person is connected to a community of people they influence the individual and the individual influences them through the vehicle of language. (A circular system) (Paraphrased 2003:143-144)
Secondly “there exists no truth that stands apart from the influences of language and culture (called the transcendental signified or untraceable trace) which serves as the standard from which all other systems of truth are appraised. As a result truth becomes relativized - deconstructed - to cultures, subcultures and ultimately the interactions of two individuals.
4) Because individuals who hold to ‘relative truth theory’ are increasingly involved in multicultural environments and due to the ramifications of the information age ie. Being constantly confronted with information from other cultures. Their underlying assumptions of life are being modified as Derrida points out in the ‘circular theory’ of language and understanding. Each new set of information presents the opportunity for change.
It is also important to realize that many people of a postmodern persuasion would suggest that truth as a basis for foundational assumptions is not necessary and that we do not need solid foundations for reasoning. However I would contend that even these people hold assumptions of life which they unconsciously accept as truth as it can be seen by all postmodern philosophers who seek to communicate their ideology. They often use modern constructs to present their postmodern ideas which in itself highlights the acceptance of some modern assumptions. Take for example Derrida, he accepts as foundational that language precedes thought. But could the converse be true that emotions and bodlily desires exist before language and the desire to have felt needs met gives rise to language. (Personally I agree with Derrida in that language precedes thought but for a totally different reason. In the beginning God spoke.. Being designed in his likeness necessitates that we are language orientated.
5). The gospel message lays claim to having a universal appeal and to being the very revelation of the one true God.(1Cor 8:6) All mankind has sinned (Romans 3:23). This is not a cultural or tribal claim. Everyone has turned astray. The remedy for this is one savior, who paid the price for all (Romans 5:18), . This savior whilst revealed through a particular culture claims to be the way for all the nations (Is 14:26; Mat 25:32). In Revelations this is further supported as people from every tribe and tongue (7:9) are in heaven praising God. The message of the Christian faith is Global and unifying. This seems to fly in the face of the postmodern stance. Further more Christ himself lays claim not only to be the way but also the ‘truth’.
6) The Bible is not ahistorical or transcultural. In the belief of Jews and Christians alike the God revealed in the Bible is seen to progressively reveal himself through the history of the world, specifically through the nation Israel and then through the multicultural church. God uses the language and culture of the people to make known his revelation. At the same time God is not restricted to the limitations of history, time or culture. He presents new ideas to Abraham and then fulfills the proposal thus teaching Abraham something about himself. He uses prophets and prophecy to show that he exists outside the time constraints of humanity. He challenges cultural notions through the teaching of his son Jesus. (Nicodemus and the notion of being born again; life after death to the Sadducees.)
8) The idea of an autonomous objective observer is the modern construct which suggest that humans can arrive at propositional truth statements, or facts by their own reasoning abilities. These reasoning abilities are to be accessed apart from culture, emotions and any other outside influence. This is seen in the ‘Gods Eye’ illustration found in Greer’s book Mapping Postmodernism. (2003:25) “The person who has access to this encyclopedic collection of truths is understood to posses God’s eye, enabled to see and assess reality with the precision and exactitude of God himself. This is where the dark side of absolute truth resides.” (See appendix D for a more detailed discussion)
9) Charles Taylor an expert in ancient history and Language maintains that “the oldest book of which we have any records fills us in about things scientific rather than things relating to religion or laws. He also claims that today’s science books are basically attempts to tell stories about the universe by people who lack the power to investigate it properly and scientifically.” Quoted from the blurb - backcover.
Bibliography
References
Greer, Mapping Postmodernism (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2003)
Grenz, S. J. A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996)
Grenz, S.J. Revsioning Evangelical Theology, (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1993)
Erickson M.J. Postmodernizing the Faith; Evangelical responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998)
Taylor C.V. The Oldest Science Book in the World. (Slacks Creek, Assembly Press, 1984)
Other Sources
Clapp, R. A Peculiar People. The Church as culture in a postmodern Christian society (Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press, 1996)
Corney, P. ‘From Happy Days to the Simpsons.’ On Being (September 1995): 39-43 (volume/issue unknown)
Frazee. R. The Connecting Church. Beyond small groups to authentic community. (Grand Rapids, Zondervan 2001)
Mc Grath, A.E. A Passion for Truth. (Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press 1996)
Moore R. Friends - The key to reaching Generation X. (Ventura California, Regal Books, 2001)
Editor, Sweet, L/ The Church in Emerging Culture: Five perspectives. (Emergent ys Zondervan, 2003)
Thwaites, J. Renegotiating the Church Contract. (Paternoster Press, 2002)
Faith and reason in the light of evangelical revisionism and postmodernism
The advent of postmodernism has produced a change in the way we think. It has taken the very foundations of modernism and pulled them apart. The deconstruction of these modern foundations has serious ramifications because it has the capacity to alter the way in which we view our world. From art and architecture to language and literature all spheres of our lives face the possibility of redefinition due to the breaking of the old and the introduction of the new. The way in which we ‘reason’ and think about our world is altering! No area of reasoning is left untouched. This includes our very Christian Faith. How we view God and his message to the world is impacted in a very real way by postmodernism and the death of modernism. The ramifications of this impact are still being assessed by those inside the ‘faith community’ and the secular world at large.
.
The reactions to the challenge of postmodernism and its ramifications are varied. In secular society we find modernist’s pushing for the scientific model to remain, whilst others are quite happy to embrace the eclectic nature of postmodernism and form various new models. Inside the Christian world we find the same extremes of reactions. Greer highlights well the varying responses of the Christian world, where he contrasts the excoriating postmodern response to a more ‘nuanced approach.’
“A number of books have been published in the 1990’s and early 2000’s by Christians authors excoriating postmodernism and admonishing the Christian community to stand firm against the postmodern tide…where polemical works had previously targeted secular modernity as on of Christianity’s chief foes, the new foe is postmodernism”.(2003:14)
In contrast with these he presents the Christian scholars who take an approach that weighs the strengths and weaknesses of postmodernism at the same time as assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the antipostmodern crowd. Greer states that they see that “Postmodernism indeed has some positive qualities that could help the church overcome some nagging problems that have appeared unsolvable in recent decades”.(ibid) Grenz and Olsen are highlighted as having this approach.
Whilst Greer and Grenz highlights for us the existence of positive and negative qualities within the postmodern paradigm and the need for some careful balanced thinking. They also give us a good place to begin this careful analysis. Greer goes to great lengths to show that at the heart of the postmodern/modern conflict there lays a serious debate over the nature of truth.
I concur with Greer about the necessity to have an understanding of this debate and its ramifications because the concept of truth is a foundation to the way everyone thinks. At the heart of each persons world view there lies bedrock assumptions which form the foundation to all thinking and reasoning. These assumptions whilst not always called truths are ideas that people hold to be true. The foundational truth then gives shape and form to all the reasoning that proceeds. Even those who would assert there is no truth have made a truth statement. And the consequences of this statement are then born out in their lives. The area of Christian faith is no exception here. For the faith of Christianity lays upon several truth assumptions. For example: To believe in Christ as Lord and Savior one must first accept the existence of God. In contrast one who does not believe in the existence of God would not be able to accept Christ’s divinity and would therefore have to reduce the nature of Christ to ‘just another clever teacher’. Faith therefore is dependant on truth assumptions and how we then reason out our faith is to a great extent shaped by these basic assumptions.
It is important to grasp this concept for the negative side of both modernism and postmodernism begins in the area of truth definition and thus has serious ramifications for the Christian faith and the reasoning of the faith. If the foundations are crooked or broken they then lead to a broken view of God and his purposes in the world.
For this reason my discussion begins in the area of truth and the modern/postmodern debate about its nature. I also begin here because the postmodern concept of truth is very much a topical question not only amongst philosophers and Evangelical Scholars but also amongst everyday people such as those who responded to my question on the Darwin philosophy forum. Here I discovered amongst the many replies (Appendix A) that truth and the underlying truth assumptions of Christianity were often involved in their responses
It was R& B however who best highlighted the contrast between modern ideal of true and real and the postmodern stance of all truths are equal. He sees that Postmodernism gives Christianity an elevated stance in current thinking because postmodernism allows Christianity to be one truth amongst many. At the same time he rejects this postmodern assumption as he is a modernist at heart (Appendix A part 2). He says in regards to postmodernism:
“The great enemy of Christianity and kindred religious dogmas was, and is (wherever it’s not been stamped out), the rationality and humanism of the European Enlightenment(s). As I understand it, the current formulation of the postmodern agenda as an epistemological phenomenon gives Christianity et al much needed philosophical breathing space as an expression of truth amongst many, deserving of being treated with equal seriousness as evidence-based science” ( From the Philosophy Forum 26 Oct 2004 http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php)
He may be correct in that postmodernism does present some philosophical benefits, however in the area of being one truth amongst many Christianity receives no benefit.
One truth among many! What does this really mean?
Firstly we must understand that postmodernism is a philosophy which has grown from a reaction to and against modernism. (Appendix B) and thus its underlying assumptions of truth are actually often reactional and not specifically defining. Postmodern philosophers wanted to state that the modern scientific approach was incorrect. They state this firstly because the modern paradigm did not make good on its promises.1 Secondly they state this because the very aspects of life that the modern paradigm ignores are seen as integral part of humanity’s reasoning processes. Culture, language constructs, emotions and even the possible spiritual realm are all seen as having a part in the way we reason and understand our world.
Stating then that there can be many truths does not mean that postmodernism has actually found a way to redefine truth per see. However even if the intention was not to redefine truth their statement re there being many equally valid truths does in the end redefine truth in the minds of all who seek to embrace this thinking. Especially when you add the postmodern idea that there is no universality in the area of truth2. Once you have accepted that there are many equal truths you then must redefine the very nature of truth. Truth therefore in the postmodern paradigm becomes relative, not propositional or even necessarily provable. Truth then can become anything you desire it to be, as long as it holds true to your cultural context or faith system.3 We find then that no longer is the question “is it true?” relevant or acceptable, but rather the questions; - “What use is it” and “Is it efficient?”. Truth becomes relative to the situation and not relevant to the world as a whole. (Grenz 1996:48)
Once the fundamental understanding of truth being relative is accepted many consequences can arise. Firstly we loose the concept of universality. There can be no set of truths that are applicable on a global scale because of the diversity of cultures.
Secondly relative truth ultimately necessitates a constant redesigning of foundations and the reasoning placed upon it.4
Thirdly Grenz suggests that truth being relative leads to a centre less worldview. He addresses this idea in his book ‘Renewing the Centre’. A person who lacks any centre or foundation for thinking quickly becomes lost in a multicultural society. Life can become increasingly meaningless and despair can set in. (Perhaps this is why the western world has high suicide rates)
Since the Christian faith does lay claim to a universal story, and a universal remedy 5 it cannot support the postmodern stance of multiverse in contrast to universe. Also the Christian faith claims that there is only one way to the one true God and that is through Jesus Christ. If there is only one way then the consequences of that thinking lead the Christian to state that any opposing faith ideology (religion) cannot also be true. Hence the postmodern idea of ‘one truth among many and the resulting reletivization of truth cannot be maintained by the ‘classical understanding of Christianity’. To accept this paradigm the person of Christ and the universal claims of the bible would have to be reinterpreted. Thus the conclusion is that postmodernism as an epistemological philosophy offers no positive benefit to the Christian faith in the area of being one truth among many.
There is however a positive role of postmodernism in the area of truth in that postmodernism shows us the dilemma of accepting the modern construct of truth within the Christian faith. Greer discusses this dilemma in a section he titles ‘The dark side of absolute truth. .” He claims that Western Culture from the time of the Enlightenment has been trying to prove the Bible in a ‘modern construct’ of truth which is different from asserting that Jesus is the truth. He identifies this interpretation as:
“…absolute truth as an encyclopedic collection of abstracted principles that are understood to be timelessly valid and therefore immutable-not subject to change. Existing independently from the specifics of any given culture and from any given historical moment, these principles are transcultural and ahistorical” (2003:25)
At first it is hard to understand why the Christian faith cannot express itself through this paradigm. And before the advent of postmodernism many would not have understood that the modern paradigm was faulty or that errors even existed. It is only when we look deeply into the assumptions of modernism in regards to truth through the postmodern critique that we can begin to comprehend the problems.
.
The problem with the modern construct of truth in regard to the Christian faith is manifold. Firstly we find that the rich diversity of God and scripture needs to be reduced to a set of abstract principles 6 which are not dependant upon culture or historical moment. All understanding is to be ahistorical and transcultural.7
Secondly inherent in the idea of abstracted principles is the belief that they can be arrived at by autonomous objective human observers.8 Furthermore these principles must be provable and reproducible.
How compatible can all this be with the Christian faith? Some would affirm that it is compatible and many faith books have been written trying to do so. Charles Taylor’s book ‘The oldest science book”9 comes to mind and the many books written on Creation science and the compatibility of Evolution and Christianity. There has been much scholarly work done in the last century which tried to convey the Christian faith via the modern understanding. Not all of this work was bad. In fact there were many useful discoveries in the quest to prove the bible through the modern constructs. The field of archeology is a good example.
Ultimately though it is not compatible with the Christian faith for the following reasons.
1)The revelation of God in the Bible is not a set of abstract, axiomatic principles. God uses geological events, parables, philosophy, poetry, prophecy, history, culture, language the person of Jesus Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit to reveal his multidimensional nature and purposes.
2)The Bible at times, when viewed through the modern lens, presents us with anomalies, and at times even appears contradictory. Any honest assessment by the Christian faith would recognize this dilemma. It is often pointed out by the secular society.
3)The sin factor. All mankind has sinned. Our ways are not God’s ways; our wisdom does not lead to knowledge of God as Paul points out in! Corinthians chapter 2. Therefore any ideology thought up by man must be inadequate.
4)The sin factor should help us to understand that Humans are not capable of being autonomous, objective observers. They are as postmodernism points out a product of their history and culture. Further more humans are emotional relational creatures and these factors have an influence in how we relate to and understand the world. Modernism reduces faith to single dimension, postmodernism produces a more holistic approach.
The conclusion then is that neither the modern nor the postmodern definition of truth is compatible with the Christian faith. Christianity can not remain as one truth among many and still be true to its Gospel. Christianity can also not establish its faith claims on the foundation of modernism and its definition of truth. And yet Christian Faith must have a foundation, it must have a definition for truth because it deals with a God who claims to be the truth. It must also establish a truth foundation because as I have stated before we all have underlying assumptions which we hold to be true. If we do not articulate these assumptions and understand the nature of the assumptions our faith structure will not stand the onslaught of any secular ideology. It will also not stand due to the fact that it has no support structure underlying it.
If postmodernism offers no hope in the area of redefining truth it does give Christianity breathing space in that it unshackles it from the modern construct of truth. Whilst its alternative is no effective replacement it does off Christianity the chance to find its foundations within its own cultural context. For Postmodernism supports the idea of cultures having truth. Further more it allows a more holistic approach to the formation of truth. It does this by highlighting interdependence, the emotional, the unseen, the idea of mystery and possibility of spirit, the relational and the idea that faith goes beyond knowledge. (Appendix B)
Postmodernism also presents the Christian faith with the opportunity to define its truth parameters within its own cultural and Biblical text. Now Christianity can present the truth as it really is. Not axiomatic principles, not truth in diversity, nor relative truth, but relational truth. For in the Bible truth is a person. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light.(John 14:6) We enter into truth when we enter into relationship with him. Further more we grow in truth through the ministry of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth (John16:26). Truth is alive and creative, not something to be examined under the microscope of modernism. It is through Christ that the world can grasp true wisdom, which is foolishness (1 Cor 2:10-16) to the humanistic approach modern or postmodern. Christ then can take centre stage in all discussions of faith and even reasoning. The Bible has much to say about wisdom, knowledge and understanding. This means the Christian faith has much to offer a world that has become lost in a sea of relativity.
Postmodernism presents the opportunity to let the Bible set its own agenda. This opportunity however must be seized determinedly as postmodernism does not inherently give place for the authority of scripture. Postmodernism is still humanistic to the degree that it views the Bible as being a work of mankind and not of God. The Christian faith must work out its apologetics in this area and present its case for the authority of scripture. The advantage here is that whilst postmodernism does not recognize it, it does leave ‘breathing space’ for the Christian faith to produce credence for this issue.
The scriptures then can take their place over the kingdom of faith and not be subservient to this kingdom.10 Overall a whole new vision and understanding of the Bible and of faith statements (Creeds) is needed. It is here that Grenz calls for an Evangelical Revsionism of the Christian Faith.
This Revisionism is the reassessment and reworking of not only theology and faith statements but also a time for re-establishing truth to a culture that has lost its way. This revisionism must encompass all areas of life that faith impacts. Our Creeds, our worldviews, our language and even our understanding of what it means to be the Body of Christ and the Church in this world.
Due to the advent of Postmodernism with its focus on the relational and the subsequent Evangelical revisionism response the Christian faith can now focus on the relational aspects of its gospel message. Christianity can proclaim that not only the dynamic relationship with a triune God but also a dynamic faith community relationship. In a world that is increasingly lost in fragmentation and even lonely despair a renewed Christianity can offer a place of belonging, a family that is united under the headship of Christ. The ideal of community of God, or body of Christ is further supported as the modern focus on individualism and the consequential theological emphasis on personal conversion is now being balanced by the postmodern Evangelical emphasis on the role of interdependent community.
The Sacraments too can benefit from the postmodern revisioning phenomenon
Modernism tended to produce a low view of the sacraments. Removing the mystery and power they were reduced often too a mere tradition or act of communal obedience. A postmodern society is more open to a sense of expectation, a sense of the working of God through his ordinances. The sacraments can also benefit by being placed back into the hands of the believers as postmodernism challenges the power structures of the traditional churches. Now with an growing emphasis on the ‘Priest hood of believers’ and an acceptance of the role of the laity at hand, Christians from traditional churches are being given the right to have communion at home or in small groups. Lay members are also being given the right to give communion in the worship service as well (Appendix D)
Conclusion
Postmodernism good or bad, like it or hate it has been instrumental in calling those of the Christian faith to reassess their faith and world view assumptions by the deconstruction of the modern agenda that infiltrated the Christian faith. Whilst postmodernism per see does not present a workable paradigm to do this is does give Christianity ‘breathing space’ to define its own paradigm.
This redefining is the work of Evangelical Revisionism. For the revisionism to be successful however it must firstly address the underlying assumptions of the Christian world view and the underlying assumptions of postmodernism.. As I have pointed out these assumptions are really concepts of ‘truth’. For there to be dialogue of faith with a postmodern society an ‘appologetic of truth’ must be established by the Evangelical theologians.
Once this is done, Evangelicals may ‘chart’ a new way forward. This new way must be founded on the correct understanding of ‘truth’, whilst remaining Christ centered, scripturally contextual and at the same time culturally relevant. With firm foundations that are securely placed on the person of Christ who is the truth the faith is assured to survive not only this current epistemological philosophy but any others the secular world may invent.
The Christian faith however will ultimately survive because God is above and beyond culture and its philosophical constructs. If we hold true to his revelation of truth and not succumb to the constructs of secular philosophy we will be able to maintain a true witness of he who is true - Christ Jesus. Ultimately God will prove himself true to any Generation through a Christian community that remains truly Christ focused.
End notes. (These would be footnotes, however I cannot understand how to get my program to print separate footnotes for each page. It keeps on printing the full list each page or odd and even pages.) Sorry for any inconvenience.
1) At the heart of postmodernism is a reaction to, or a rejection of, the foundational belief of modernism, which is expressed in the euphemism “Every day in every way things are getting better and better”. The postmodernist declares Things have not got better. Two world wars, Global warming, etc. bares this out.
2) They are forced to reject universality because they recognize that each different faith and every different culture upholds truths that are often diametrically opposed. They also reject universality because there is most often a humanistic assumption that there is no God over creation
It is also important to note that postmodern philosophers whilst rejecting much of the scientific modern paradigm still seem to often hold to the modern evolutionary ideal. The consequences of accepting evolution then results in there being no unifying story through history of man because all is chance. If there is any unifying concept it may be seen in humanity’s attempts to interfere in evolutionary process. Belief in evolutionary processes could be seen as a foundational truth statement which in turn gives shape to any philosophy attempting to build upon it with all its inherent consequences.
3) Even in Postmodernism there are boundaries to the understanding of truth. Derrida presents us with a system that seems to be widely accepted in postmodern thought. This brief synopsis is from Greer “Mapping Postmodernism”. Derrida insists that each person thinks with language, language precedes thought. Words and grammar serve as building blocks from which thinking takes shape. Thus reasoning is dependent on the peculiarities of a given language. Also each person is connected to a community of people they influence the individual and the individual influences them through the vehicle of language. (A circular system) (Paraphrased 2003:143-144)
Secondly “there exists no truth that stands apart from the influences of language and culture (called the transcendental signified or untraceable trace) which serves as the standard from which all other systems of truth are appraised. As a result truth becomes relativized - deconstructed - to cultures, subcultures and ultimately the interactions of two individuals.
4) Because individuals who hold to ‘relative truth theory’ are increasingly involved in multicultural environments and due to the ramifications of the information age ie. Being constantly confronted with information from other cultures. Their underlying assumptions of life are being modified as Derrida points out in the ‘circular theory’ of language and understanding. Each new set of information presents the opportunity for change.
It is also important to realize that many people of a postmodern persuasion would suggest that truth as a basis for foundational assumptions is not necessary and that we do not need solid foundations for reasoning. However I would contend that even these people hold assumptions of life which they unconsciously accept as truth as it can be seen by all postmodern philosophers who seek to communicate their ideology. They often use modern constructs to present their postmodern ideas which in itself highlights the acceptance of some modern assumptions. Take for example Derrida, he accepts as foundational that language precedes thought. But could the converse be true that emotions and bodlily desires exist before language and the desire to have felt needs met gives rise to language. (Personally I agree with Derrida in that language precedes thought but for a totally different reason. In the beginning God spoke.. Being designed in his likeness necessitates that we are language orientated.
5). The gospel message lays claim to having a universal appeal and to being the very revelation of the one true God.(1Cor 8:6) All mankind has sinned (Romans 3:23). This is not a cultural or tribal claim. Everyone has turned astray. The remedy for this is one savior, who paid the price for all (Romans 5:18), . This savior whilst revealed through a particular culture claims to be the way for all the nations (Is 14:26; Mat 25:32). In Revelations this is further supported as people from every tribe and tongue (7:9) are in heaven praising God. The message of the Christian faith is Global and unifying. This seems to fly in the face of the postmodern stance. Further more Christ himself lays claim not only to be the way but also the ‘truth’.
6) The Bible is not ahistorical or transcultural. In the belief of Jews and Christians alike the God revealed in the Bible is seen to progressively reveal himself through the history of the world, specifically through the nation Israel and then through the multicultural church. God uses the language and culture of the people to make known his revelation. At the same time God is not restricted to the limitations of history, time or culture. He presents new ideas to Abraham and then fulfills the proposal thus teaching Abraham something about himself. He uses prophets and prophecy to show that he exists outside the time constraints of humanity. He challenges cultural notions through the teaching of his son Jesus. (Nicodemus and the notion of being born again; life after death to the Sadducees.)
8) The idea of an autonomous objective observer is the modern construct which suggest that humans can arrive at propositional truth statements, or facts by their own reasoning abilities. These reasoning abilities are to be accessed apart from culture, emotions and any other outside influence. This is seen in the ‘Gods Eye’ illustration found in Greer’s book Mapping Postmodernism. (2003:25) “The person who has access to this encyclopedic collection of truths is understood to posses God’s eye, enabled to see and assess reality with the precision and exactitude of God himself. This is where the dark side of absolute truth resides.” (See appendix D for a more detailed discussion)
9) Charles Taylor an expert in ancient history and Language maintains that “the oldest book of which we have any records fills us in about things scientific rather than things relating to religion or laws. He also claims that today’s science books are basically attempts to tell stories about the universe by people who lack the power to investigate it properly and scientifically.” Quoted from the blurb - backcover.
Bibliography
References
Greer, Mapping Postmodernism (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2003)
Grenz, S. J. A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996)
Grenz, S.J. Revsioning Evangelical Theology, (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 1993)
Erickson M.J. Postmodernizing the Faith; Evangelical responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998)
Taylor C.V. The Oldest Science Book in the World. (Slacks Creek, Assembly Press, 1984)
Other Sources
Clapp, R. A Peculiar People. The Church as culture in a postmodern Christian society (Downers Grove, Inter Varsity Press, 1996)
Corney, P. ‘From Happy Days to the Simpsons.’ On Being (September 1995): 39-43 (volume/issue unknown)
Frazee. R. The Connecting Church. Beyond small groups to authentic community. (Grand Rapids, Zondervan 2001)
Mc Grath, A.E. A Passion for Truth. (Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press 1996)
Moore R. Friends - The key to reaching Generation X. (Ventura California, Regal Books, 2001)
Editor, Sweet, L/ The Church in Emerging Culture: Five perspectives. (Emergent ys Zondervan, 2003)
Thwaites, J. Renegotiating the Church Contract. (Paternoster Press, 2002)
Outback Jack's