Describing Postmodern
Since this blog was set up to create a space for “emerging/postmodern conversation in the CGGC” it is important to consider what we mean when using words like “emerging” and “postmodern”. Although it is difficult to provide a definition for the phrase “emerging church”, many of the conversations that have taken place here have helped illustrate how that idea is understood. While equally difficult to define, we have not talked as much about what is meant when we use the term “postmodern”.
To help get this conversation started, I want to provide a few coordinates that are helpful to me as I think about what is meant by the word postmodern. Since a complete analysis is beyond the scope of this post, there are many items I have overlooked. Questions/answers, discussion, and subsequent posts can provide additional ways for understanding our current historical moment.
Seeking a Definition
Over the past few months there have been several conversations about anonymous posting on this blog. As these conversations took place, it became evident there was not agreement about the appropriateness of posting anonymously on this site. Some responded to these posts based upon the assumption that it was common sense that people should not post anonymously. Others responded based upon the assumption that anonymous posts were okay. This disagreement, while very minor in the context of items like the recent posts on “Evangelicals for Darfur”, provides a basic illustration of one way to understand our current postmodern moment in which there is not universal agreement about what is appropriate in a given context.
Taking this example a step further, the conversation about anonymous posting can be connected to the wider use of the term “common sense”. When we say something is “common sense” we are suggesting that what is understood without explanation in one particular narrative (informed by different geographic locations, one’s education, family traditions, political/religious traditions, etc.) can be transferred to another and be readily understood. While this may have been true in a Modern era that was driven by universal understanding it is no longer the case in a postmodern context.
In his book The Postmodern Condition, Jean-Francois Lyotard provides the philosophical backing for an understanding of the postmodern era that highlights the loss of universals in the public arena. Understanding “postmodern” as a loss of a metanarrative (or all encompassing story that unifies each person’s existence) also suggests that we live in a time of competing narratives. Lyotard writes that “the grand narrative has lost its credibility.” In other words, we currently lack an agreed upon metanarrative that guides public life. Based upon Lyotard, this means that our public life is no longer dominated by a trust in the progress of Science, Religion, etc. This creates a context in which there is a multiplicity of competing narratives that strive for our attention within public life.
Several years ago someone introduced a distinction that has been helpful to me and may be of use to others as well. It is possible to distinguish between the terms postmodernity and postmodernism. Postmodernity can be used to describe our current historical moment while postmodernism can used to describe the philosophical theories of Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, and others. Therefore, it is possible to say that we live in a postmodern moment (postmodernity) without accepting the whole of postmodern theory (postmodernism).
One side note. Although there is no universal agreement about what is meant by “truth”, the rise of postmodernism did not end the importance or the pursuit of truth. We can simply read Pilate’s question directed at Jesus (“What is truth?”) to see that there has not been a universal acceptance of truth for over 2000 years. Some of the same debates that go on today regarding who controls the truth, etc., took place several hundred years between Greek philosophers before Pilate asked this question. I have encountered many, both in personal conversations and through their writings, who suggest that postmodernity equals the “death of truth.” I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our current historical moment.
Cultural Factors
Many events took place throughout the 20th century that shattered the sense of Scientific Progress leading to the decline of a metanarrative (both World Wars, the use of the Atomic Bomb, the Holocaust, etc.). Much has been written about the decline of the Christian culture in the United States since the middle of century. Other cultural events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Great Depression, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also helped many recognize that the Modern world dominated by routine, technique, and progress was slowly fading.
Why Clarity Matters
Imagine an open field. A sign has been posted that simply says “Come and play.” Some people make the assumption that the game to be played is football, so they bring the appropriate equipment and attitude necessary to play the game. Others read the same sign and assume they will be playing baseball. Others rugby. Still others come prepared for lacrosse, volleyball, and even a friendly game of tag. A few remember the good old days when the field was used as a running track. Some come ready to play competitively while others come for the simple enjoyment. Others come, not ready to play, but simply to watch.
When the group assembles, no rules are provided, no boundaries given. Chaos breaks out when those hitting the volleyball around are run over by a person trying to catch a football. Arguments erupt because everyone feels they have the right to be there because they have come to play – just like the original sign invited.
Even as the spectators notice the growing conflicts, no one wants to offer any guidance because “everyone has a right to play the game of their choice.” “Who am I to say that football shouldn’t be allowed here?” is asked by others.
Eventually, frustrations over the lack of guidelines cause most people to leave. Of course there will be a few diehards who love to play anything who will stick around until no one else is there. But ultimately, no meaningful games will be played and many people will never again respond to a sign that has the simple invitation “Come and play.”
Wrap-Up
When working from an understanding of postmodernity defined by competing narratives and metanarrative decline, this brief story illustrates what can happen if clear boundaries are not drawn. Whether a church, a non-profit organization, a blog such as this one, or any other context in our current moment, guidelines must be given in order to help people make a decision about their participation.
This is only one person’s views on the topic of postmodernity. Hopefully this will provide the starting point for a helpful conversation for those who are interested.
Brent
Labels: Postmodernism
14 Comments:
Thanks, Brent, for this clarification RE the distinction between postmodernity and postmodernism. Positively, this helps me remember not to take anything for granted in my conversations with "postmoderns." What I consider to be common sense, "of course" points of view, may not be shared at all by the other. Negatively, however, I have to say Lyotard's perspective really irritates me. So all of a sudden we've figured out that there are competing metanarratives? What a shocker! It's true that the failed Enlightenment philosophy of humanism has run aground on the rocks of quantum physics, global terror, and the revanche of religion, but Lyotard's conclusion that there is thus NO metanarrative is supreme hubris. Regardless of how many or how few share our view, as Christians we have to believe that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is true. That's like a doctor concluding that there is no such thing as "health" simply because she sees cancer and heart disease all day long. So I agree with you in rejecting postmodern philosophy while (grudgingly) coming to terms with our chaotic social -- and "postmodern" -- milieu.
I say that modernism is/was no more "Christian" than is postmodernism, in the same way that being American is no more Christian than, say, being Iranian. But there is certainly a perception of conformity that affects the discussion. Modernity is preferable simply because we understand it more. Let us not forget, however, that modernity produced such cheery novelties as communism, eugenics, and nihilism. Although we can't predict what postmodernism will produce (apart from chaos), modernity's record is spotty at best.
Ben
Thanks for the summary Brent. Well done.
BTW, I just realized that I had previously posted a summary on "What is Postmodernism?" over at my blog. It was originally a reply at an atheist website about postmodernism, so if you read it, bear in mind that my intended audience was atheists, not Christians. That affects some of what I say and what I emphasize in my description.
-Mike
Hi Pastor Brent,
Thanks for your efforts to define "postmodernism". Your summary was definitely helpful.
Just a thought I had this morning during my devotion time...
RE your comment:
"One side note. Although there is no universal agreement about what is meant by “truth”, the rise of postmodernism did not end the importance or the pursuit of truth. We can simply read Pilate’s question directed at Jesus (“What is truth?”) to see that there has not been a universal acceptance of truth for over 2000 years. Some of the same debates that go on today regarding who controls the truth, etc., took place several hundred years between Greek philosophers before Pilate asked this question. I have encountered many, both in personal conversations and through their writings, who suggest that postmodernity equals the “death of truth.” I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our current historical moment."
Therein lies the problem I see with postmodern thought and the "emergent" response to it. It is evident that Pilate at least acknowledged that "truth" EXISTS!
So often, in postmodern thinking, I am not hearing the question, "What is truth?", but rather, "IS there truth?". Big difference.
Even the distinction between "virtue" and "value" is an indication of this. Do you think that same distiction would have been made by Jesus??? Would He have told his disciples:
"Values are private while virtues are public. So I guess I would say our virtues are deeply impacted by the given narrative in which we are a part."?
(I'm not implying that you, yourself, are supporting this as a positive stance. But some would argue this in support of relativism)
The drift away from absolute truth is the danger I see permeating our culture. I heard a comment yesterday on a radio show that we, as a nation, (and especially damning for Christians), are "losing our fear of God".
How can a church that calls itself Christian appoint a bishop who lives an actively gay lifestyle? Why are Christians not trembling before God when they see the sanctity of marriage crumbling before their eyes?
How can Christians support "pro-choice" i.e. the murder of a human being with a soul? Have they not read how John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth, leapt for joy at the approach of Mary, who carried Jesus, still a "fetus", within her??? How can a Christian support embryonic stem cell research?
Sorry for the rant. It just frustrates me when we refuse to see what is so plain before us!
My pastor speaks out plainly against these sins. He doesn't much care if we want to hear it or not. I would urge the pastors here to search their hearts and prayerfully consider preaching the Truth in love to those of us who look to you for guidance. Trust the Holy Spirit to convict our hearts by your words. If we are committed to Christ, we won't walk away from the truth, even if it hurts.
And if we do walk away, so be it. Many walked away from Him also.
I hope this doesn't come across as too "harsh"...or self-righteous. It's very early, and my self-editing function is not yet operative. ;-)
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
PS. Just a note of thanks for allowing me to participate on this blog. I am learning much from your thoughts and comments.
Ben writes, "So all of a sudden we've figured out that there are competing metanarratives? What a shocker!"
I see the point you are making. But, our current moment seems to have less agreement about what those dominant narrative actually are. Throughout the modern era, while not accepted by absolutely everyone, there appears to have been a wider faith in science and progress.
I've come to see the story of the Emperor With No Clothes as a great parable of our times. Everyone knows the emperor is naked, but it takes a small child to announce what everyone sees. We seem to live in an age where it's finally okay to announce the truth - there is no agreed upon metanarrative. Previously, that notion went mostly unstated regardless of who knew it was true.
Felicia writes: "Even the distinction between 'virtue' and 'value' is an indication of this. Do you think that same distiction would have been made by Jesus???"
I guess I see this as a helpful distinction. I am not suggesting that one thing is permitted in private while another is permitted in public. Ideally, there will be consistency between the two spheres of life.
There are quite a few articles and books that refer to the therapeutic dimension of our culture. Some interpret the current "therapeutic culture" as one in which items that should be discussed in private are elevated to the public realm.
For me, this goes back to the decline of an accepted metanarrative. When there is no dominant element guiding life, then people will introduce all sorts of inappropriate elements into public life.
I obviously read and participate in online blogs. But, I've seen way too many people who seem to think that we should care about their personal and private lives. I'll admit, I've read some of these - although I don't make it a habit. But ultimately, I don't think private blogging is helpful in our current context. Some things should be private - at home and between friends and family. There is no need for something private to be elevated to the public sphere. Those who blog in this way aren't bad people and I am in no position to judge them. I just don't see how that one practice contributes anything to public life - in fact I would say it could potentially damage public life.
So, did Jesus make that distinction? No. But do I find that distinction consistent with how I read scripture and live my life as a Christian? Yes.
Hey Felicia,
I have to concur with Brent (in disagreement with you) that postmodernism does not deny the existence of truth, but simply asks the question "what is truth?" and reaches a different answer than Modernism did. I studied postmodern philosophy in college (i.e. Derrida, Rorty, Gadamer, Foucault, etc.) and I didn't really encounter the caricature of utter denial of truth that you seem to associate with it. I wonder if perhaps you're hearing a few things that postmoderns say, and interpreting them in the most extreme way possible, rather than really hearing what they are meaning by what they say. (The only other possibility that I can think of beyond that for how you've gotten this false impression of postmodernism is that you've listened more to what critics of us pomos say about what we believe than what we're actually saying ourselves.)
Also, you say:
"How can a church that calls itself Christian appoint a bishop who lives an actively gay lifestyle? Why are Christians not trembling before God when they see the sanctity of marriage crumbling before their eyes?
How can Christians support "pro-choice" i.e. the murder of a human being with a soul? Have they not read how John the Baptist, in the womb of Elizabeth, leapt for joy at the approach of Mary, who carried Jesus, still a "fetus", within her??? How can a Christian support embryonic stem cell research?
Sorry for the rant. It just frustrates me when we refuse to see what is so plain before us!"
But why stop there Felicia? Why not ask how Christians can possibly support this unprovoked war in Iraq when Jesus so clearly says "love your enemies"? Why not ask how Christians can possibly support economic policies that favor the rich over the poor when Jesus so clearly commands us to care for the "least of these"? How can Christians continue to be complicit in the oppression of women when Paul so clearly says "In Christ there is neither male nor female"? And how can Christians so readily cheer on people like Ann Coulter who says that God has given us the earth to "rape, pillage, and do with as we see fit" when Genesis so clearly tells us that we are to be good stewards of Creation and Jesus tells us that "God so loved the world" (and Paul, in Romans, makes it clear that this includes the whole of creation)?
Why narrow your view of absolute biblical truths to just the two hot-button conservative issues? Why not have a more robust biblical worldview? People will accuse postmoderns and emergents of not taking the bible seriously enough, but by their neglect of theae other biblical values, I am more inclined to believe that conservative Christians are actually the ones who don't really respect the full truth of the bible.
But that's probably too inflamatory to say here, so maybe I should just be quiet now.
Sorry,
-Mike
Hi Mike,
You may be right. Perhaps I am listening more to critics of postmodernism than to, as you call them, the "pomos"[cute! :-)] But I also see the pomos back away from the term "absolute truth"...wanting to create in truth a fluidity that adapts itself to its circumstances.
I certainly can't argue philosophy with you---although Foucault would make an interesting case study; my area of study was psychology---but if what I see on this blog is an indication of emergent thought, I stand by my statements. Yet, I'm always willing to listen, and if proven wrong will humbly apologize for the inappropriate characterization.
So, Mike, "What is truth?".
Does absolute truth exist, or do we need to apply it differently depending on the "narrative"?
*******************************
Mike said: "Why narrow your view of absolute biblical truths to just the two hot-button conservative issues? Why not have a more robust biblical worldview?"
Excellent question. Why not indeed?
You're right, MIke, as Christians we need to take seriously ALL that Jesus commands us to do. One of the most powerful sermons my pastor ever delivered was on Matthew 25:31-46. For me, it was life-changing. I had heard that passage scores of times before. But for some reason, on that particular day, it hit me square between the eyes....JESUS MEANS IT!
He really, truly expects ME to feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, care for the sick, etc. It's not a parable. It's real life.
So, YES!, Mike. Absolutely we should have a "robust biblical worldview". And, that is one of the positive aspects of the emergent movement. From what I understand thus far, emergents seek to live out the command to care for our brothers and sisters in need as if we were serving Jesus in them-----'cause we ARE.
However, here's the difference, in part, between the issues I mentioned and the rest. As a Church, most of us would agree with your list.
BUT, as a Church, many support the gay lifestyle. And it is causing even further division in the Body. It strikes at the heart of society in a way the other issues do not.
I feel I have to emphasize again that I am NOT a homophobe. I have friends and co-workers who are homosexual, and who I love and respect. I truly CAN love the person while hating the sin. I hate the sin because I understand that it draws them away from a relationship with the Lord.
And if anyone were to treat them with cruelty or contempt, I'd be the first one to defend them.
.....But..............I would not accept a practicing homosexual as bishop of my Church. I would not stand silently by if my denomination sanctioned gay marriage.
All this to provide an extended example of absolute truth. The biblical truth here has nothing to do with "metanarratives" or the "story you find yourself in", or relative truth.
It's just plain wrong.
Much of what pomos and emergents espouse is good stuff. Teaching Christians that we are called not only to believe the Gospel, but to live it out, is awesome. And I commend you on it.
But, I'm not convinced that emergents are not in danger of losing a firm grasp on the absolute doctrines of faith and morals also taught by Jesus.
I'm fully prepared for you to convince me that I'm wrong.
Lastly, I need to also reiterate that I see here on this blog, men and women who love the Lord and strive to serve Him with all their hearts. My comments are not meant to criticize any individual. Rather, they express my concerns about the emergent movement in general. And, like I said, I'm no expert, and am grateful for the opportunity to learn from you.
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
PS. I'm NOT a member of the Ann Coulter fan club. :-)
"So, Mike, "What is truth?"
Do you really expect a philosophy graduate to be able to give you a succinct answer to a question like that? ;)
Let's just say it's complicated.
"However, here's the difference, in part, between the issues I mentioned and the rest. As a Church, most of us would agree with your list."
I wish that were true Felicia. I don't know what it's like in your Church, but in the conservative evangelical circles I was raised in, almost no Christians would agree with my list.
For example, the majority of Christians in my former church (a conservative Baptist congregation) were decidedly pro-war (some even celebrated when the Iraq war started) and my former pastor was convinced that the only way to resolve the differences between the "Christian" West and the Islamic world was through violent conflict.
Likewise, this same pastor believed that any public policies that helped the poor were essentially "Socialism", and that the best way to help them was instead to simply be good consumers and buy lots of stuff so as to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. (Call it trickle-down charity.) He was not alone in this perspective. This is the view I grew up with and one that I probably would have affirmed myself about 10 years ago.
As for the oppression of women, this is still a huge issue the vast majority of conservative churches that restrict the roles of women in ministry and suppress the calling of God in their lives. Personally I see this as a justice issue, but the fact is that many churches (including your own) don't even think it's a problem at all.
And finally, many conservative Christians still consider environmentalism to be an anti-Christian "liberal" issue. At best its an issue that is ignored, if not out right opposed.
I think things are slowly changing, that more Christians are beginning to realize the biblical importance of these issues, but even still, I think the majority of conservative Christians still tend to equate "morality" solely with sexual ethics and abortion.
But that being said, I'm still not going to engage with you on this topic of homosexuality. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to go there with you here.
-Mike
RE:
Felicia asked:"So, Mike, "What is truth?"
Mike replied: "Do you really expect a philosophy graduate to be able to give you a succinct answer to a question like that? ;)
Let's just say it's complicated."
For you Pastor Mike...
"O Truth, O Light of my heart, let not my own darkness speak to me! I had fallen into that darkness and was darkened thereby. But in it, even in its depths, I came to love thee. I went astray and still I remembered thee. I heard thy voice behind me, bidding me return, though I could scarcely hear it for the tumults of my boisterous passions. And now, behold, I am returning, burning and thirsting after thy fountain. Let no one hinder me; here will I drink and so have life."
St Augustine, "Confessions" Book XII, ch. x, 10
;-)
It appears that the postmodern word "metanarrative" (the big or main story) is the same as the modern word "worldview" (the big picture).
Of course not everyone in the world agrees on what the metanarrative or wordview is or should be. However, as Christians, we should look to God's word to inform us about His metanarrative, we need to try to see God's worldview.
The Bible is in itself a metanarrative. It is the big story of God working in this world. It begins with God's creation of the universe, and ends with God's judgement and redemption of the universe. The Bible contains humanity's history and future. We live in between it's pages.
Unfortunatly, many people do not know God's story. Some edit God's story to suit their own taste. Some deny God's story. Some have made up their own stories. Many people are confused as to which story to believe.The question then becomes, how do we as Christians live out and communicate God's story?
-Andrew Griffith
Re: Mark Driscoll
Reading the conversation about Driscoll reminds me of why I think it's good to keep a conversation going about our postmodern moment.
While Haggard and Driscoll are currently in the foreground, we should remember that this whole thing is taking place against the background of the wider culture of postmodernity.
While this doesn't justify or excuse the statements, I'm surprised that people are shocked that something like this could happen. The days of a universal understanding of faith are long gone. Even the emergent movement - which oddly enough is trying to unify to some degree - is a fractured group.
Why are we shocked? Sin is real. Universals (or metanarratives, depending upon how you want to use the term) are remnants of the modern era. These events are just additional announcements that we live in a different world.
I've posted this under the old conversation because it doesn't directly address the content of Mike's original post.
Brent
Good points Brent. I was struck by another way that this controversy highlights the difference between modern and postmodern approaches to faith. On the one side we have an authoritarian pastor of a large mega-church. Driscoll is a prime example of top-down, absolutist, personality-driven modern Christianity. (I say those merely as what I think are accurate descriptors, not as accusations.)
On the other side, the people trying to confront Driscoll about his behavior, is a loosely associated network of relationships within the emerging church conversation. Paul is the guy behind the protest at Mars Hill. He is married to Rachelle who leads a small emerging community in Seattle. Rachelle is mentored by Rose, who wrote the open letter to Driscoll. Rose is also on the board of Off the Map, which hosts the Conversation at the Edge blog where a lot of this debate has taken place. Her open letter was posted at Scot McKnight's blog, and Scot is a strong supporter of the emerging church and has a large online audience. Rose is also married to Rich, who is my church planting coach, and Julie and I have both been following this controversy closely and blogging about it at our various sites. Rich and Rose both pastor a church near Seattle that gets a lot of wounded people coming to them after a bad Mars Hill experience, so through them I get to hear a lot of the behind-the-scenes stories about Driscoll and MH.
It's all connected. None of us are terribly influential. None of us have mega-churches, newspaper columns, or massive church planting networks. We're powerful only in relationship. We have a voice only by joining voices. I could be wrong, but that strikes me as being a more "postmodern" approach to power & influence.
Andrew wrote (going back to this previous discussion)
"The Bible is in itself a metanarrative. It is the big story of God working in this world. It begins with God's creation of the universe, and ends with God's judgement and redemption of the universe. The Bible contains humanity's history and future. We live in between it's pages."
Going back to this discussion about postmodernity, I am curious to hear how far we can take this single-mindedness we've inherited from the modern era (Bill is correct that the Pope is Catholic).
Is the equation Bible=Christian worldview too narrow? What about creation? What about the beauty of relationship? What about God's ongoing revelation?
While we can discuss returning to Winebrenner's Sola Scriptura position, does that fit the current postmodern era?
Just thinking...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home