I must start by addressing the issue of postmodernism as a worldview. In my previous posts about this, I have been discussing the philosophical approach known as postmodernism in which we examine our world by questioning absolutes. However, some have developed an entire worldview that denies absolutes - they are taking the postmodern philosophy out of its intended context and using it almost like a religion. (Phrases like, "I don't believe in God/Buddha/Heaven because I am a postmodernist" should not make sense.) This abuse of philosophy goes by the name "postmodernism" and obviously stands in opposition to Christianity; so, when I said that the two could be reconciled I was not talking about this type of postmodernism.
(If you find that last paragraph confusing then take heart - you are on the right track. It is very frustrating that there are TWO things called postmodernism that are not exactly the same; things like this make my life difficult. Who allowed someone to name a worldview postmodernism? Isn't there a consortium of philosophers watching out for this sort of thing?)So, the approach that we call postmodernism (the one I have been talking about for a few weeks) teaches us not to accept absolutes and truths at face value. This approach causes us to question everything.
Don't think of it as a bad thing. A person of this nature will question the Lordship of Christ and the authority of scripture - but they will also question the philosophy of Nihilsm and modern claims of religious plurality. A non-postmodernist is the type who believes in whatever they hear without giving it any thought and that is very dangerous. Also, since we do not live in the middle ages we should not expect our churches to "strongarm" people into going to church - it's always OK for believers to ask questions.
Remember this?
Test everything. 
Hold on to the good.
Avoid every kind of evil.
-1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
Hold on to the good.
Avoid every kind of evil.
-1 Thessalonians 5:21-22
I'm not trying to be so audacious as to say that the Bible teaches postmodernism. But, notice that the believer is expected to ask questions about everything. When Thomas claimed that he would not believe in The Resurrection until he touched Jesus' body, he didn't have to wait long before Jesus showed up and invited him to touch his flesh. (This doesn't make him a bad person. Remember, the other apostles weren't too quick to catch on when the ladies arrived to tell them Jesus had risen.)
If postmodernism is a method of learning the truth then it can only point to what is absolutely true. The difficulty comes when we think postmodernism teaches us to deny absolutes - it does not. It specifically teaches us to be incredulous to them - which means that we can come to believe in those absolutes if our observations confirm them. Was there ever an actual believer who did not initially question the truths of the Bible - only to accept them in the end?
9 comments:
Blind faith can lead you off cliffs. Thanks for writing, I enjoyed reading this.
a more appropriate title for the "postmodernism" that some are claiming is invading our churches would be emergent. because you are right.. they are calling themselves postmodern and it is obvious they have no idea what that actually means... they just cling to it because they think it sounds relevant and catchy... the emergents are a dying breed and soon this to shall pass... but then it will just be replaced by some other version of heresy or apostasy... ha
great post as always adam
I think I'll list "Postmodernist" as my religion on Facebook...
Thank you for spending a whole post answering my question!
In defining postmodernism as "Incredulity to all metanarratives." you apparently are using a different definition of incredulity than the one I referenced, so that postmodernism on your view means merely questioning (and hopefully coming to conclusions about) all metanarratives. I agree that this solves the problem and shows your idea of postmodernism to not be in conflict with Christianity.
I think though that what you are describing is not Postmodernism, but what I call "critical thinking". I think pretty much every professional philosopher (and most Americans for that matter) would have no problem with the idea that we should question (and hopefully come to conclusions about) metanarratives. A very much smaller number of philosophers would say they were postmodernists.
So I have a second question: What makes what you call Postmodernism much different from what I call critical thinking? If its not much different, then it seems to me we shouldn't bother with the grand sounding title of "Postmoderism".
Thank you for the engaging writing.
Postmodernism cannot mean that we go against metanarratives because in order to do so we must create absolutes that stand in opposition to the ones we are shown - in doing so, we are simply being antithetical to the metanarrative rather than incredulous to it. There is a reason that the definition of postmodernism is not "unbelief in all metanarratives."
Yes, this is just critical thinking in some ways. Modernism seems like normal scientific study to me, but to the late medieval mind is was a new way to think - they no longer assumed "magic" ruled the world and began to use their brains to understand. People did not always question things in the same way we do, today, even if it doesn't seem remarkable to us.
Thanks for your interaction, Bruce, and thanks for asking the most important question!
Thank you also! I enjoyed the discussion :-). BTW My sister thinks its a shame I like to be anonymous online, so I'm Krystal Armstrong's bro, Austin. Keep up the good writing!
"Was there ever an actual believer who did not initially question the truths of the Bible - only to accept them in the end?"
More than likely, but based on emotional needs, special pleading and peer acceptance.
In my experience, those of us who examine any and all religious claims that make assertions about reality in plain view and really do proactively test that which can be tested (as we do on a daily basis for every other aspect of our human lives) with practical and critical analysis and reject such religious claims based on a distinct lack of evidence to support them rarely, if ever, "accept" the Tanukh, the Bible, the Koran or the Book of Mormon in the end.
Someone once did a "demographics of atheists" study displaying trends and tendencies regarding conversions and deconversions both to and away from religious social groups.
I'll have to see if I can find that and provide a link.
It really was interesting.
Another good piece, Adam.
The introduction to Merold Westphal's "Overcoming Onto-theology" is well worth reading on this subject.
I like to make a distinction between different kinds of postmodernism. If 'postmodernism' is a denial of absolute truth, then nothing is more opposed to the truth of Christianity. If 'postmodernism' is just the understanding that there is for mankind no absolute access to absolute truth, then Christianity has always been 'postmodern.'
Thanks, Adam.
Mark
My question Andy lies with this portion of your thoughts: "we can come to believe in those absolutes if our observations confirm them."
Yes, but don't we need to believe in them tentatively, in one aspect -- we are still open to correction on anything -- even after we are convinced of things called "absolutes"?
For example, applying the Golden Rule, to treat a skeptic like we would like a skeptic to treat us ... we want a skeptic to consider the truth of something other than what the skeptic now believes. In return, we should get it out there on the table, shouldn't we, that we are also open to considering the truth of something other than what we believe. What do you think?
Post a Comment