Can We, Need We, "Tame" Postmodernism?
So here is the million-dollar question: Is postmodernism really an ally of the Christian faith? Have we just misunderstood it? Can we simply correct that misunderstanding and make our peace, yes, even our alliance, with what we thought was a dreaded postmodern dragon? Let’s see as we examine:
"Fertile Fields: Planting the Gospel in Postmodern Soil"
by David Timms
The Lookout, November 14, 2004
Christians seem to have developed two strains of approach to postmodernism. One approach is that in-your-face style found in things like "There’s No Such Thing As Objective Truth, and It’s a Good Thing, Too." (I have blabbered on about that in another article. If you are really a glutton for self-punishment, you can have a look at that.)
But a very different approach to making your peace with postmodernism consists of trying "tone down" postmodernism and cover up some of its rough edges. This is what happens in "Fertile Fields." Professor Timms is convinced, or wants to convince us, that postmodernism is morphing into something good.
Postmodernism was synonymous with relativism – "Decide for yourself what’s right." It looked like the child of situational ethics and the rebellious days of the late 1960s. But there’s good news. That child is growing up. And what looked initially selfish and irresponsible is emerging as an adolescent with wonderful potential."
As he goes on to say, "We will likely find that the values emerging from adolescent postmodernism will create fertile soil for the gospel and the future of the church." (These guys seem to be madly in love with the word "emerging.")
You must understand that postmodernism is a view that is "growing up." All that bad old talk about relativism was just "baby" postmodernism cutting his teeth or learning to walk. Now that postmodernism is a young man, he turns out to be not such a bad fellow after all.
That’s a wonderful little story - and we know how the postmoderns love "stories" - but it happens to be false - even though postmoderns are not too clear on what that might mean. As Stanley Grenz summarizes the real situation
The postmodern understanding of knowledge, therefore, is built on two foundational assumptions: (1) postmoderns view all explanations of reality as constructions that are useful but not objectively true, and (2) postmoderns deny that we have the ability to step outside our constructions of reality.1
"Tiny" Timms fails to present any evidence that this situation has changed, is changing, or is about to change. That’s because, minus the relativistic view of truth, the whole postmodern project falls apart.
Professor Timms says "certain characteristics are turning this perceived adversary into an ally." He lists six of these. Some of them fall into the category of "nothing new." But two of them are as dangerous as a nest of copperheads.
Three of these are wonderful characteristics that are in no way the private property of postmodernism. The church has always been about transparency, transformation, and community. While these might have been goals not always reached, they were goals long before any ordinary church member ever heard the word "postmodern."
A fourth of these "characteristics" is a desirable goal if it is properly understood. This one is "encounter." Information about God is not the goal of the Christian faith. But it is worth saying, again (and again, for some) that it is not possible to know God in the fullest sense of that word without having knowledge of God. It is not possible to encounter an unknown God. If it were, the Apostle Paul could have left the Athenians in the bliss of ignorance.
But none of these characteristics mentioned so far are essential parts of postmodernism. Two of Timms’ "characteristics" are the problems points for postmodernism.
The first of these problems points is the matter of truth. A few comments on the details here are in order.
Postmodernists are skeptical of gimmicky statements and simplistic truths. "Three sure steps to a strong marriage" has a phony ring to it. If it was that simple, why do so many Christian marriages end in divorce?
Truths are truths, simple or complex. That rather depends upon the subject. While there probably are not "three sure steps" to anything as complex as marriage, if there were, and many Christian marriages ended in divorce, it could be that many Christians refused to follow the three steps!
. . . postmoderns prefer discovering truth in stories – their own stories and the stories of others. Furthermore, truth is more than something to know; it’s something to live. Faith is more than a system of belief; it’s a relationship.
Whether postmoderns like it or not, some of the truths of the Christian faith are presented in scripture in the form of stories - the parables of Jesus immediately come to mind - and some of the truths of the Christian faith are presented more directly - the didactic sections of Paul’s letters fit here. If you don’t like that, then you won’t like the Christian faith - sorry.
But here is another serious problem, one that shows "postmodernism" isn’t doing as much "growing up" as Tiny Timms seems to think. My "story" - and all the stories of all the postmodernists who will ever live - is not a source of truth. God is a Revealer of His truth; we are not "discoverers" of His truth. All the "stories" of human kind throughout the ages aren’t worth a rat’s tail in this regard.
Also, while it is quite true that Christianity is more than a system of belief, that does not imply that it is less than a system of belief. Apologists for the postmodern condition always seem to miss this important point.
The other problematic "characteristic" of postmodernism is the matter of tradition. There is nothing wrong with traditions, not necessarily, at least. But traditions can, as one rabbi once said, "Negate the commandment of God." It depends on what you want to do with traditions.
That’s why it’s a little disquieting to read:
The postmodernist is often interested in returning to roots – not the roots of 50 years ago, but, the roots of centuries ago, and to the writings of Augustine, the Egyptian desert hermits, and the later Christian mystics. They seek an anchor in classical Christian thought, tradition, and experience.
To that end, says Professor Timms,
Some churches are re-introducing ancient texts, statements, and practices in creative ways – banners, signs, and music. Others have started small groups to study the classics – Augustine, St. John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairvaux, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, and others.
Just a thought here, but before we get too enamored with Catherine of Siena, what about re-introducing the "ancient texts" of Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James - just to name a few "ancient texts" about which most younger people today know almost nothing! This is the correct place for "roots." I think it has been called "the restoration plea."
Those "later Christian mystics" - some of whom are named in the list after Augustine - don’t seem like the best way to help postmoderns understand the Christian faith. Postmoderns are already tending to the anti-rational, so giving them a dose of mysticism is a lot like giving an alcoholic a shot of whiskey!
It is good to understand those to whom we address the message of Christ. It is good to understand postmodernism, because some of those to whom we address the message of Christ are postmoderns.2 But understanding postmodernism does not mean that we should adopt its sub-Christian view of truth, or that we should try to pretend that it is just some kind of kissing cousin of the Christian faith.
Francis Shaeffer did not live to see the full encounter of the church with postmodernism. In many ways, however, he anticipated it. Under the title of "Pre-Evangelism" he said, "Historic Christianity has never separated itself from knowledge. It insists that all truth is one, and we must live and teach this even if twentieth century thought and theology deny it."3
In order to address postmoderns properly, the church should neither adapt its message to the core of postmodern thinking, nor should we assume that postmodern thinking already contains a fertile seed bed for the Christian faith. Instead, a pre-evangelism will be necessary to help postmoderns into a position where they can understand the essence of Christianity. In spite of postmodern hesitation about truth, we will need to, as Francis Schaeffer said, insist that all truth is one, even if twenty-first century postmodern thought and theology deny it.
1. Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Eerdmans: 1996), p. 43.
2. But it would be a serious mistake to think all of the audience for the Christian message will soon be postmoderns. People can be influenced by postmodernism without being full-fledged postmoderns, and some people will not accept the influences of postmodernism. That’s my prediction, anyway.
3. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who is There (IVP: 1968), p. 141.