*Thank you Steph. and Kaitlin for inviting me and Meghan to the rally/worship. Unfortunately, I am working throughout this entire weekend. I do want to get over there again while your family is there since you guys were on a vacation last time I came by. I appreciate your invite.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to take a few minutes to look at this whole concept of post modernism. I must be honest, there are a lot of people in the world with a lot more knowledge than I have on this topic. I have done a little reading and research, but the majority of my knowledge in the area comes from discussion and experience with people who may hold postmodern views.
I'd like to start by saying that trying to have an educated discussion about what the definition of post modernism is will inevitably lead you into a frenzied twitching spell. As you discuss it, one of two things will happen. Either you will end up in a circular discussion where you feel like you are on a merry-go-round (the wit and intellectualism of the post modern person you are trying to understand will determine just how dizzying an experience that will be). Or, possibly the slightly preferred of the two, in an attempt to keep the conversation moving forward and not in a circular pattern, you find yourself and the person you are talking to repeating phrases like "well, 'X' is right for you, but 'Y' is true for me," or "Let's just say we can both be right."
So how do you bring someone like this to Christ? Christ either did or didn't live, either was or wasn't resurrected, Christianity either is or isn't true. This is obvious, but the problem is that to a truly post-modern thinker one answer is as good as another. Or worse yet, they are both true or both false AND at the same time! Your truth and evidence about Christ's life, death, and resurrection are just as valid as the non-believers evidence (or more often emotions and feelings) that Christ didn't die and rise from the dead.
Here is the main problem. As long as you are willing to believe that you are right and I believe I am right and our answers are mutually exclusive of one another, I would say one of us is wrong. The post-modern would not. This philosophy (I say philosophy because it is not a belief system) allows a person to, in good conscience, deny what humanity has known to be truth since the beginning of time. All we have to learn from are our senses (except for what God provides outside of that, but a post-modern person is no where near ready to try to take that one on).
This leads us into belief systems. Your belief system allows you to make decisions throughout your day. Most of humanity has always existed within the same developing belief system (This doesn't include morality, but rather questions of logic and physics, math, science, etc). But now we have post modernism claiming to have a "new" way to understand belief and truth. The post modern person may believe that the bat you swinging at him isn't there, but when you swing it, he'll still make the decision to duck. Why? If it's not there, what's the problem? Well, obviously they still function in the same belief system as everyone else and they know that the Louisville Slugger won't disappear just because they believe it should.
All post-modernism allows a person to do is to call upon a philosophy that will give them an excuse to live the life they want to live and make the decisions they want to make with minimum criticism from society and a clear conscience.
If your belief system breaks down under everyday scrutiny, what good is it too you? I realize that there is much more to it. Post-modernism comes into play in politics, business, relationships, etc. This philosophy is designed to help us all get along, understand and respect each other. It is political correctness gone mad. It is the daily life equivalent of the CEO's kiss up "Yes-man." No matter what you say, it's right. My point is that it is of no TRUE value in any arena of life. It may make everyone get along and play nicely, but you still haven't dealt with any root causes of problems.
So, how do you bring someone like this to Christ? Well, I don't know for sure. I haven't yet had the luxury yet, although I'm in the middle of a "work in progress." This is what I'm convinced of so far.
1. You cannot logically deduce with this type of person. Logic is, at best, of secondary importance.
2. You cannot preach to this person. If you are challenging them, they easily disregard it.
3. You have to genuinely care about the person. This is of utmost importance. You cannot just be looking for a convert. a) They will see through that. b) you will not last long enough if that is your only motivation.
Right now (subject to change), I think the best way to bring a post-modern to Christ is by letting him tell you what he believes. Then have him let you tell him what you believe. You are no better or worse. You then live out what you believe in your daily life. You let Christ do the changing of hearts. You must be constantly ready to answer and defend what you believe. When he/she is finally willing to experience worship, it must be real. Not, some liturgical tradition without meaning. I believe that through this experience a post modern person will over a period of time "choose" to give up much of his post modern mindset in favor of something concrete, and permanent in their life. They will be seeking something real, honest, and passionate to fill the void they have just created in their life. When God presents this opportunity, make sure you are willing to fill it appropriately with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
T
This is a link to Shirley Maclaine a sort of celebrity "Advocate" for the New-Age/Post-Modern movement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Let's talk, shall we? =)
I think you're unnecessarily putting a negative connotation on the word postmodernism. Truth is, postmodernism is a filler word, a "non-word" for a period of time that we're not quite sure how to define yet. (Some might say that's a fitting description of postmodernism, because it doesn't really come down on any side or offer any hard-line definitions ... that was a joke) But quite a bit of good work has been done on the theological side to get at what this all means and what the church's response should be. I'd recommend theologian Stanley Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism, for one.
Postmodernism can only be understood, I think, by what it is not. It is "not modern." Modernity (see the wiki here) preached that progress and knowledge were attainable and never-ending. One writer said that modernity was "marked and defined by an obsession with 'evidence'", visuality, and visibility (Leppert, 2004). Modernity is tidy and orderly, with structures in place to protect that tidiness and forward momentum.
One could talk for hours about whether or not modernity served us well ... that's not the point here. In recent years, scholars, theologians, scientists, sociologists, artists, etc., have observed that life is not tidy and rational (there are many "question marks"), that all knowledge is not attainable, and that continual "progress" is not perfect (take the atom bomb, for instance...).
This new category of thinking is what has garnered the name "postmodernism." While there are reactionary elements to it that are less than desirable (extreme relativism, for instance), it is mostly just a field of thought that is deconstructing and critiquing the modern era.
I feel like some of these definitions need to be stated before we can move forward in any helpful dialogue, or else "postmodernism" will carry false and unnecessarily negative connotations.
Also, I'm not sure it's quite accurate to imply that New Age and Postmodernism are the same thing ...
or that Shirley Maclain speaks for both. Good actress, poor spokeswoman for an entire concept.
:)
There are many aspects to post-modernism. But, none of those aspects can be defined by what they are not. I realize that my arguing that post-modernism cannot be defined in this manner is at the very heart of the modernity/ post-modernity discussion. But here's the problem. Nothing can be defined by what it is not, simply because there are an infinite numbers of things that an object/ idea/ concept are NOT. So defining anything in this manner is literally impossible. You get no closer to understanding what it IS. Therefore, I would again say that there is nothing to be gained by this line of thinking. You can get no closer to understanding what you are trying to understand. It's a very abstract concept with no real-life, real-world applications except for it's value in philosophy and debate.
However, it is very true that post-modernism is a filler word. It is used in many different ways, by many different people. This is primarily due to the fact that no one can / will actually put a definition to it. In fact wikipedia begins it's definition of post-modernism by basically saying it can't be clearly and well defined.
Since it is used as a filler word I would definitely concede that most people who follow post-modern thought are not extreme post-modern adherents. Rather, you have people who have allowed differing levels of this post-modern philosophy/ mind-set to permeate different areas of their thoughts and beliefs. I would argue that the primary areas in which you have this type of thought creeping into people's lives will often (but not always or exclusively) coincide with those areas in which people don't want to be challenged to change their thoughts or actions. Therefore this philosophy allows them the option to do what they want and they can justify it to them self. And since with this philosophy you are (usually) your own ultimate authority, your self is all you need to justify it to.
T
And since with this philosophy you are (usually) your own ultimate authority, your self is all you need to justify it to.
Is this any different now than it ever has been before? Haven't people always chosen their own way (served as their own authority) instead of choosing God's way? I'm not sure we can pin this phenomenon on postmodernity.
What if I told you that I like many of the aspects of postmodernity? I appreciate especially the forms of it that question the assumptions made by modernity (that I mentioned in my first comment here). Do you agree that many, if not most, of these presuppositions are questionable? If not, I can show you many areas where this is true. While I certainly don't take all of these questions to their extremes (ralativism or universalism, for instance), I appreciate that the questions are being askes.
Modernity opposes even the asking of these types of questions.
In the same way that postmodernity musn't be used as the "free pass" for all sorts of extra-biblical practices or teachings, it also must not become a scapegoat.
Good discussion, Taylor!
I'm not much a fan of Christians trying to interpret "postmodernism" as if it were a system to be interpreted. Postmodernism, insofar as it is emphasizes the subjectivity of things, is more often a tactic than a belief, usually applied to discredit other people's views and seldom applied to one's own.
The fact is that many postmodern assumptions, even unspoken or unrealized ones, rest on a thoroughly objective, modernistic bed (and here I'm using modernistic in the sense of "there is a true answer out there that is accessible and communicable"). Many of the people I grew up with might be called postmodernists in their deification of tolerance and their sort of muddled pan-acceptance of world faiths, but they believed VERY strongly in certain key objective truths - the Bible is full of contradictions and unreliable, and the theory of evolution and scientific understanding renders the supernatural superfluous. Argue against either of these positions from an objective standpoint, and the response from a postmodernist is not, "Well, that may be true for you," but nervousness and defensiveness.
Some have argued that "postmodernism" implies a return to acceptance of a more spiritual existence, and perhaps more of a readiness to accept Christ. However, the problem was never actually a refusal to accept the supernatural, but a refusal to submit one's life to the will of God - a problem faced by everone, Christian or not. That problem persisted before modernism and it will persist after.
But here's the problem. Nothing can be defined by what it is not, simply because there are an infinite numbers of things that an object/ idea/ concept are NOT.
Afraid I disagree, Taylor. Postmodernism (as the very name implies) is a reactionary philosophy that stands in opposition to modernity, so understanding what modernity is and what aspects of it have been found lacking by the postmoderns is essential to grasping what postmodernity is.
I would argue that the primary areas in which you have this type of thought creeping into people's lives will often (but not always or exclusively) coincide with those areas in which people don't want to be challenged to change their thoughts or actions. Therefore this philosophy allows them the option to do what they want and they can justify it to them self.
I agree with this, but (like Steve) I wonder if this postmodern or simply human?
What if I told you that I like many of the aspects of postmodernity? I appreciate especially the forms of it that question the assumptions made by modernity
I, likewise, appreciate the forum that posmodernity creates. In many ways it's much less antagonistic toward Christianity than modernity was. General acceptance of some spiritual reality is more common, for instance.
Postmodernism, insofar as it is emphasizes the subjectivity of things, is more often a tactic than a belief, usually applied to discredit other people's views and seldom applied to one's own.
Chris, I like that analysis. I think it gets to the core issue here.
Afraid I disagree, Taylor. Postmodernism (as the very name implies) is a reactionary philosophy that stands in opposition to modernity, so understanding what modernity is and what aspects of it have been found lacking by the postmoderns is essential to grasping what postmodernity is.
This is fine, but it still doesn't tell me what Post modernism IS. So, we can tell that it is NOT: concrete, absolute, or any of the other concepts inherent to Modernism...but that still doesn't shed light on to what it IS.
Here's a sideways thought - we're often told that we need to meet people where they are when it comes to sharing the Gospel. Granted, Paul pointed out the "unknown God" at Mar's Hill, and this fits the template. I'm sure Christians preaching to Jews argued differently (look at the prophecies and promises!) then somone preaching to Greeks. And yet...
I suspect that the whole postmodern/modern thing has been exacerbated by Christianity meeting people where they are - specifically modernists! We've attempted to convert people by flattering their intelligence - check out the Scriptures and build your case step by step logically as if interpreting a series of legal statutes, wrap your minds around a system that makes everything make sense! So Christianity became enmeshed with partial truths, untruths, and truths told unlovingly.
Let's not do this again with the current trends, please. If you find yourself saying, "Well, I can't flatter their intelligence, so I'll flatter their consciences!" it's all the same, and you'll wind up inviting folks into a perverted Christianity that'll be marginalized again as soon as the wind changes.
Folks in our "line of ministry" (simple church) ought to appreciate that a postmodern shift has occured. It was modernity that upheld Christianity as a "religious system" centered around property and events, and that continues to do so today.
Postmodernity brought an inherent distrust of hierarchies and "institutions," which is a logical starting point for the kind of "good news" we're telling people.
Shoot, when I describe "postmodernists" (and I should state here that few -- if any -- "postmodernists" would ever apply that label to themselves, or even know that it applies ... they just think the way they think), I'm describing myself. Call it nature or nurture or whatever, but I am far less apt to see things in black and white as, say, my dad is. This includes the Bible, which my parents grew up thinking was primarily a "law code" (great article here about views of Scripture). The whole three-pronged hermeneutical approach is a hyper-modern approach -- predictable, systematic, mathematical, even. I think most of us, through personal study and communal discernment, have moved away from that view to varying degrees.
That is one example.
I could go on about my (and my friends') view of what power and hierarchy does to people in the church (as well as in government and other places), the hesitance for young people I know to draw lines and categories as hard as their parents (like denominations, for instance), and various other results of the postmodern shift, but I won't.
As Chris implied, we could (and some do) react to this in inappropriate ways, either militantly opposing all that appears to fit our definition of "postmodern" or completely adopting every cultural cue into the church. Both are equally bad. But the church doesn't adopt culture, it engages it and critiques it. Engagement involves speaking the language of those with whom you are attempting to engage.
So these are important conversations to have. Let's not minimize (not saying we are) the dialogue.
Post a Comment