UNDERSTANDING POSTMODERNISM
.JPG)
Ideas of Truth and Revelation -- A Preliminary Discussion of
Issues Pertaining to the Feasibility of the Homiletic Task in the Contemporary
Epistemological[1]
Context
This paper constitutes a lecture I gave in 2008, as a Fellow and Scholar of the Society of Oxford Scholars, to the American Society for the Study of Religion, at Oxford University. It was subsequently published as a chapter in my book, Preaching Christ in a Postmodern Culture (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010).
There
is no consensus view of what postmodernism is, although key features of this
phenomenon may be identified. Postmodernism defines itself according to what it
is not: modern. But in what sense is it ‘post’? Any or all of the meanings: result, aftermath, afterbirth, development,
denial, or rejection of modernism presents a case. Perhaps it
is some combination of these meanings.[3] It
is not clear exactly what it is, because it resists and obscures the sense of
modernism. Its name suggests, in a literal sense, that it is a new age which
has surpassed the age of modernism. Any age is identified and defined by
evidence of historic changes in the way people see, think and produce. Such
changes relate primarily to art, theory and economic history. It is obvious
that changes have taken place in these spheres.
The
word postmodern is part of the academic parlance of today. It is part of the
vocabulary of literary criticism and more general communication.[4]
However it is not at all clear precisely what the term means. Daniel J. Adams
says that there are, ‘Few terms as commonly used, and just as commonly
misunderstood as postmodernism.’[5]
For some, such as Lawrence Cahoone, postmodernism represents ‘the defeat of
modern European theology, metaphysics, authoritarianism, colonialism, racism,
and domination.’[6]
For others, postmodernism is a radical intellectual movement intent on
subverting civilisation.[7]
Postmodernism has even been described as ‘a goofy collection of hermetically
obscure writers who are really talking about nothing at all.’[8]
Charles
Colson is a writer who represents a particular strand of opinion that offers a
bleak picture of postmodernism. He claims:
Today, all the
major ideological constructions are being tossed on the ash heap of history.
All that remains is the cynicism of postmodernism, with its false assertions
that there is no objective truth or meaning, that we are free to create our own
truth as long as we understand that it’s nothing more than an illusion.[9]
Is this an accurate portrayal of
postmodernism? Alister McGrath is correct in his statement that ‘a full
definition of postmodernism is virtually impossible.’[10] Cahoone suggests
that it is a ‘mistake to seek a single essential meaning’ of postmodernism that
is ‘applicable to all the term’s instances.’[11]
Postmodernism is a problematic concept to
clarify primarily because the concepts associated with it are complex. It is
not a monolithic ideology. For example, there are several postmodern
perspectives in art (including film and music), architecture and so on.[12] David Ray Griffin
indicates that there are various postmodern theologies.[13] The term
postmodernism also pertains to some of the principal cultural and intellectual
movements such as feminism, pragmatism, existentialism, deconstruction, and
post-empiricist philosophy of science.[14]
Postmodernism is not easy to define: it is like looking at the negative of a
film and trying to see the image represented. It is associated more with what
it rejects than with what it positively affirms.[15]
For Adams, postmodernism is a concept ‘that has not yet discovered how to
define itself in terms of what is, but only in terms of what it has
just-now-ceased to be.’[16]
In addition, the attempt to clarify the
concept of postmodernism is further complicated by lack of consensus amongst
authors about how it ought to be defined.[17]
Postmodernism has been classified in manifold ways: as an era, a condition, a
state of mind or attitude, and a philosophical movement.[18] As
Cahoone credits Rudolf Pannwitz as the
first to use the designation in 1917. Pannwitz’s usage delineates the nihilism
of modern man as outlined by Friedrich Nietzsche.[22] Others credit
Frederico de Oniz with initiating the term postmodernismo
in 1934. Carl F. H. Henry says that John Cobb first coined the word, as it is
currently understood, in 1964.[23]
However, it must be said that postmodernism is generally understood to be a
philosophical word that refers to a movement that started in
Notwithstanding the difficulties of
defining postmodernism, some working definition is necessary. It can be said
with certainty that postmodernism refers to the period ‘after the modern world.[25]’ McGrath says it
is the ‘general intellectual outlook arising after the collapse of modernism.’[26] It is a reaction
to the modernism of Western civilisation.[27]
It is a counter-culture worldview that is inherently antithetical to the
Enlightenment’s confidence in universal rational principles.[28] As postmodern
doctrine is generally taken to be true in Western culture, it is apt to refer
to the present time as the postmodern era.[29]
Ronald J. Allen says that:
While postmodernism is an extremely diverse
phenomenon, people who identify themselves as postmodern typically eschew
understandings of the world that are universal (totalizing), assert relativity
in every form of awareness, seek to expose and critique privilege, and
celebrate particularity, diversity and pluralism in all life forms.[30]
Postmodernism is an influential worldview.
‘Postmodernism is a new set of assumptions about reality’, Dockery asserts.[31] ‘It impacts our
literature, our dress, our art, our architecture, our music, our sense of right
and wrong, our self-identity, and our theology.’[32]
As postmodernism is a reaction to
modernism, a basic knowledge of modernism and pre-modernism is helpful for
acquiring an understanding of postmodernism. As Millard J. Erickson states, ‘If
we would understand postmodernism, then, we must first understand the two
periods that preceded it, namely, the pre-modern and the modern.’[33]
Pre-modernism
as precursor and progenitor of modernism
Postmodernism’s
more remote predecessor, the pre-modern period, is generally thought to refer
to the pre-Enlightenment era incorporating the ancient and medieval periods.[34] What are the
essential features of this epoch? Erickson says the pre-modern world was
characterised by ‘belief in the rationality of the universe.’[35] In the pre-modern
period, reality was understood as an organic, organised and inter-related
entity. Furthermore it was perceived as dualistic.
Not only was there the immediately
identifiable natural world but there was also the less obvious, though
nonetheless real, supernatural domain. If God created and sustained the
universe then everything had a pattern and a purpose. This dualistic
rationality and spiritual order therefore permitted humanity a privileged place
in the hierarchical structure. Stanley J. Grenz notes, ‘God stood at the apex,
followed by the angelic hosts; humans found their place “a little lower than
the heavenly beings” (Psalm 8:5) but above the rest of the created order.’[36]
Phenomena in the pre-modern world were
perceived and explained by the purpose they served in teleological terms.[37] In theological
terms, that is the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world. In
other words, the pre-modern mind thought of the world as a reality designed by
God for a particular purpose. This is particularly true in the Western world,
where the great architect of the universe was thought to be the sovereign God
superintending the affairs of history to the ultimate fulfilment of his will.
This, incidentally, is by no means a discarded way of thinking in the church
today. Indeed many adherents of the three major monotheistic Abrahamic
religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) share this way of thinking. History
was seen as a linear process moving inexorably toward an ultimate climax. Henry
notes that the pre-modern age ‘held that nature and history reflect God’s
immutable ordering of the cosmos. Its worldview elaborated a distinctive
understanding of the nature and destiny of the human self in a meaningful and
purposive universe created and ruled by God.’[38]
Another essential feature of the pre-modern period was a fundamental realism
that believed in the objective existence of the world.[39] The world was seen
as actually existing in a manner external to the mind or independently from
anyone’s perception of it.
The pre-modern period held to a
correspondence theory of truth. Assertions were thereby deemed to be true if
they accurately stated the characteristics of the real nature of what they
sought to describe. The converse was also held to be true, and so statements
that did not accurately describe reality were understood to be false.[40] Ronald J. Allen
says that, ‘The modern preacher attempted to offer an understanding of
Christian faith that was consistent with Enlightenment presuppositions
concerning truth.’[41]
Modernism
as precursor and progenitor of postmodernism
In order to fully
understand how the cultural shift from modernism to postmodernism has taken
place, it is important to clarify what is meant by the modern age. We have
suggested that the modern age lasted two-hundred years (1789-1989).[42] But it was also
noted that others argue for an earlier date for the beginning of the modern
period, going back to René Descartes in 1641 when he promulgated the famous
statement, cogito ergo sum, ‘I think,
therefore I am.’[43] It is important to
trace the historical and philosophical developments which have led to the
emergence of postmoderns. Descartes’ heralded the beginning of a whole new
movement in philosophy. Rationalism burst onto the scene and gave epistemology
a new framework for answering the questions: ‘what can be known?’ and ‘how can
it be known that anything is known?’ Descarrtes’ rationalism sought
epistemological answers through doubting everything. He resolved as a first
principle, ‘never to accept anything for true which he did not clearly know to
be such.’[44] Cartesian doubt,
and the rationalism that it spawned, opened the door for the scientific method
and suggested a whole new way of explaining all of reality.[45]
The Enlightenment was in part a reaction
to the premodern preoccupation with superstition, supernatural speculation and
revelation. It is important at this point to say that fundamental philosophical
changes occurred in the area of epistemology which predated and predetermined
the socio-cultural shift. These new insights supported the view that reality
could be explained in ways that excluded the necessity for believing in a
supernatural being in control of reality. While a positive development for
science, for religion, rationalism was threatening to explain away any need for
God at all.[46]
The rationalism of Descartes opened the
door for scientific investigation and the whole array of scientific enquiry
gave a new sense of hope to a world that had been locked into a worldview that
explained reality with premodern superstitions and supernatural speculation.
Some were even heralding science as having replaced religion as a source of
absolute truth. Graham Johnston says, ‘People no longer needed to cling to
superstitions or even biblical revelation because now, through empirical study
and scientific rationalism one could conclusively determine what was true and
real.’[47]
Empiricism
Empiricism is a
branch of philosophy based on observation, experience, or experiment rather
than on theory. Descartes promulgated his philosophy in the 1600s, but a new
epistemological system, Empiricism,
emerged in the eighteenth century. The Empiricists, including John Locke
(1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753) and David Hume (1711-1766), were not
content to reason strictly on the basis of so-called self-evident truths.
Instead they sought answers to the problem of knowledge through experience,
especially the senses. Although David Hume is included among the Empiricists,
he is best known as a sceptic. In his brand of empiricism, he doubted that
anything can be known for sure. In fact, he advanced the idea that one cannot
prove the existence of anything outside oneself.[48]
Scepticism
Scepticism is an
area of philosophy that questions the possibility of knowledge. This movement
through the history of philosophy from Rationalism, through to Empiricism to
modern Scepticism demonstrates the pathway that postmodernism has taken to
arrive at the culture of today. Rationalism replaced revelation by suggesting
that reason is on a higher order of knowing than accepting what to some may
have seemed like superstition. Rationalism purported that reason alone is
sufficient to discover truth, while Empiricism held that all knowledge proceeds
from sense perception.[49]
Modern scepticism is not so much a philosophical period, as it is a method for
doing epistemology.[50]
Polluck and Cruz point out that, ‘Historically, philosophers have often
motivated the simple epistemic tasks with the help of sceptical arguments.’[51] Even Descartes
began his reasoning by doubting. Much of what philosophers have done in the
past has been motivated in some way to answer the sceptic. Postmodernism
appears to have drawn much of its thinking from the wells of scepticism that
have been dug in each period of philosophical development.[52]
Romanticism
Some people became
dissatisfied with the mechanistic view of reality which was a feature of the Enlightenment.
Thus Romanticism emerged countering the Enlightenment assumption that reason is
the most important faculty, with the assumption that emotion is the essence of
humanness.[53] Romantics
encouraged the idea of getting in touch with the inner self; that lives only
have meaning in the inner world of emotions. They criticised civilisation as a
force that enslaves. They gloried in the past and sought to bring humanity back
to nature away from technology and materialism.
Their view of nature in harmony however,
was completely refuted by
Existentialism
The materialism
that emerged did not provide the kind of hope and satisfaction that people
craved. In response Existentialism emerged as a new worldview that offered
meaning to individuals even in the light of the assertions of materialism.[55] Existentialism is
the philosophical theory emphasising the existence of the individual as a free
and self-determining agent. This new worldview, although accepting that there
is no inherent meaning in life, asserted that life can be made meaningful by
making choices. Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) argued that, ‘what matters is the
subjective choice, the leap of faith, one’s commitment to the absurd’.[56] Veith asserts
that, ‘romanticism and existentialism paved the way for today’s postmodern
worldview’.[57]
Existentialism makes little sense without
understanding something of the major shift that occurred through Kant and
Hegel. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) represents the ‘climax of eighteenth-century
rationalism and empiricism.’ Kant asserted that, ‘the mind does not actually
perceive things as they are in themselves.’[58]
He contended that things are perceived as they appear to the senses but the
thing itself, in its essence cannot be known.[59]
In other words, there is a great divide between what is perceived; the
‘phenomenal’ and the object actually being perceived; the ‘noumenal’. Kant was
trying to formulate a way of countering the scepticism of Hume, but what he did
in fact was create even greater difficulties for everyone who followed after
him.[60]
The optimism of the Enlightenment period
was all but gone by Kant’s time. During the golden period of the Enlightenment,
there was a sense that humanity had finally come to the place where it could be
said that one can know something for sure. There was a future goal of finding a
sort of unified field theory for philosophy, some circle within which all that
is known could be categorised. This goal was also shaping science. Physicists
were searching for the unified field theory that would unite electricity, magnetism,
gravity and every other ‘field’ occurring in nature. Philosophers wanted the
same thing, but Kant intervened in this ideal by creating a huge gap between
what is perceived and what can be known for sure.
Hegel
Hegel (1770-1831)
attempted to bridge the gap with his concept of ‘synthesis’.[61] What Hegel
formulated, borrowing from Kant’s ideas, was a revolutionary concept. Instead
of beginning with antithesis or Cartesian doubt, he asserted, ‘let us think in
terms of thesis---antithesis, with the answer always being synthesis.’[62] That has
implications for the pursuit of knowledge, suggesting that all truth is
relative. Instead of living with concepts of ‘either this or that’ this
hypothesis suggests ways to say, ‘both
this and that’.
Schaeffer calls this period in
philosophical development, ‘the line of despair’.[63] By using the word
‘despair’ he is not suggesting that there is no hope for the philosopher or for
humanity, but there is a sense of despair over ever being able to bridge Kant’s
phenomenal-noumenal gap. There is despair that one may never be sure of knowing
anything. In short there can be no certainty of the possibility of going beyond
surface depth. Up to this point philosophers were optimistic, but after Kant
and Hegel, there was a move to try to pick up the pieces and move on.
Kierkegaard tries to help the project, offering the chance to bridge Kant’s
nuomenal and phenomenal gap by a leap of faith. He argued that it is possible
to have an experience that will validate existence and give some meaning to
life. With the synthesis of Hegel still lying on the surface of the
philosophical landscape, however, all that could be hoped for was some sort of
relative truth. Even after Kierkegaard’s attempt to leap the, ‘broad, ugly
ditch’, philosophers were still concluding that nothing can be known for sure.
In the postmodern period there is a shift
toward denial of objective reality and the rejection of any possibility of
absolute truth. Alvin Plantinga summarises postmodern repudiation of modernism
by noting the rejection classical foundationalism, the correspondence theory of
truth, a representational theory of language, objectivity of thought and
belief, and inclusive theories of reality or ‘metanarratives’.[64] These ‘modern’
views, which postmodernists reject, are representative of the various intervals
of optimism toward the pursuit of truth and objectivity in the modern period.
The modern era has both comparisons and
contrasts with the pre-modern period. One of the striking contrasts between the
pre-modern and modern worlds is that the modern world was essentially
humanistic. Humanism, as the name suggests, puts man at the centre of reality
rather than God. In spite of the fact that many people believed in God, the
deity was not viewed as the starting point for understanding the universe.
Henry suggests that the modern world ‘transferred to itself the attributes that
had long characterised the traditional deity.’[65]
The philosophy of René Descartes made a
significant contribution to this development and he is rightly understood (by
many) as the founder of modernism. He declared the cognitive domain of the
human mind’s conviction of its own existence as the place where understanding
reality began. Thus, as already noted, there was a significant shift of emphasis
from God to man.[66] As Richard Tarnas
explains, ‘In effect, Descartes unintentionally began a theological Copernican
revolution, for his mode of reasoning suggested that God’s existence was
established by human reason and not vice versa.’[67]
The modern period was also naturalistic.
Some scientists practised ‘doxological science’ where their work was performed
to the glory of God. But most intellectuals ‘gravitated toward naturalistic
explanations of everything.’[68]
The universe was viewed as a self-contained unit and reality was restricted to
it alone.[69]
One of the essential features of the
modern period was its central belief in the power of human reason.[70] They believed that
human reason could lead to an objective understanding of knowledge and reality.
This view is encapsulated in John Locke’s statement ‘Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything.’[71] Thus modern
Christian apologist, for example, attempted to offer an understanding of faith
that was consistent with Enlightenment presuppositions concerning truth.
Interestingly, Richard Bauckham suggests that the most defining characteristic
of the modern period was the pursuit of freedom in individual autonomy.[72]
The modern world was primarily optimistic
and as such it was convinced of the inevitability of progress. It put its faith
in pedagogical progress. Learning, science, and technology would help solve
most of the problems facing the world. Thomas Oden refers to this belief as
‘technological messianism.’[73]
The modern mind believed in the ability of man to deliver the utopia to which
he aspired. This belief rested on a more fundamental presupposition that had
faith in the inherent integrity of knowledge. It assumed a direct correlation
between knowledge and improvement.
The modern era was also distinguished by
Foundationalism. That is the view that ‘the world rests on a foundation of
indubitable beliefs from which further propositions can be inferred to produce
a superstructure of known truths.’[74]
Whether these foundations were self-evident truths or sense data, it was on the
basis of such foundations that one could understand reality.[75] For Descartes,
these primary and absolute principles were lucid and definite ideas: for David
Hume they were sense experience.
The modern period was one of epistemological
certainty. D. A. Carson says:
...the assumption for many thinkers in the
period of modernity was that certainty, absolute epistemological certainty (and
not just a psychological feeling), was not only desirable but attainable.[76]
Another essential feature of the modern
period is its confidence in metanarratives to explain reality. Metanarratives
are universal stories or accounts of reality that show how things really are.[77] Cahoone states
that metanarratives are ‘philosophical stories, which legitimate all other
discourse.’[78] They demonstrate
how knowledge and experience are interconnected and how they may be explicated.
Jean-Francois Lyotard asserts that belief in metanarratives was the most
essential feature of modernism.[79]
World religions (obviously including Christianity) are seen as metanarratives
as are philosophies and ideologies such as nationalism and Marxism. Hegel’s
theory of universal spirit is one example of a philosophical metanarrative.[80]
The passing of modernism
McGrath notes,
‘Although a number of writers still maintain that modernism is alive and
active, this attitude is becoming increasingly rare.’[81] Most of these
writers believe that modernism is in a serious tailspin and that the inexorable
outcome will be its ultimate demise.[82]
It would be wrongheaded to infer that every
aspect of modern consciousness is dead or that all social and political
achievements of the last two centuries are lost. Modernity is not dead in the
sense that all its repercussions and consequences are over, but in the sense
that the ideological engine propelling the movement of modernity is broken down
irreparably.[85]
Oden argues that many good aspects of
modernism are still extant in literature, aesthetics, architecture, music,
politics, civil liberties, medical advancements and new technologies.[86]
The
essential differences between modernism and postmodernism
The Enlightenment
project brought new hope for many, seeing progress as inevitable and a bright
future brought about through technological development. To Enlightenment
thinkers, science became supreme and they believed that everything could be
explained scientifically. In reaction to the premodern concepts of the gods and
demons intervening and confusing lives, they argued that science provided
answers to phenomena previously explained only by superstition.
It is important to clarify the essential
differences between modernism and postmodernism because, as
It is better, I think, to distinguish
postmodernism from what might be called the correlatives
of postmodernism. In other words it is more useful to define postmodernism
fairly carefully, and then changes that fall outside that definition do not
constitute postmodernism or serve as evidence of it or justify any particular
thesis about postmodernism. The only alternative, as I have said, is so
amorphous an approach that postmodern culture means nothing more than changing
culture.[88]
Postmodernism is characterised by loss of
confidence in the ability of reason to deliver the utopia that it seemed to promise.
There is also a denial of the objectivity of knowledge. Knowledge is subjective
and, therefore, relative and this involves a rejection of absolutes. Confidence
in the inevitability of progress has been displaced with scepticism (if not
cynicism). Foundationalism has been rejected and metanarratives have been cast
aside as discredited worldviews. Language has come to be understood as a human
construct. Tolerance is the spirit of the age and the acceptance of
philosophical pluralism reflects this.
Loss
of confidence in reason
The modernist mind
believed in the power of reason. The modernist, therefore, had a faith in
reason to deliver an objective understanding of knowledge and reality. That
conviction and confidence which characterised modernism has been displaced with
a disillusioned cynicism. McGrath says, ‘There has been a general collapse of
confidence in the Enlightenment trust in the power of reason to provide
foundations for a universally valid knowledge of the world, including God.’[89]
D. A. Carson observes a certain ‘irony’ in
this trend. ‘The modernity which has arrogantly insisted that human reason is
the final arbiter of truth has spawned a stepchild that has arisen to slay it.’[90]
Rejection
of the objectivity of knowledge
Modernism’s belief
in the objectivity of knowledge has come to be viewed as a discredited theory.
Thus postmodernism denies the objectivity of knowledge because it asserts that
all knowledge is determined by cultural and social factors. In the words of
James B. Miller ‘In the postmodern context, all knowledge is viewed as cultural
artefact.’[91]
Postmodernism asserts that all knowledge
is theoretical and the idea of impartial, empirical facts is a modernist myth.
Thus the cognitive capacity of reason is an inadequate tool for objectively
evaluating the world. Tarnas notes, ‘Human knowledge is the historically
contingent product of linguistic and social practices of particular local
communities of interpreters, with no assured ‘ever-closer’ relation to an
independent a-historical reality.’[92]
Ronald J. Allen describes preaching as ‘interpretation’ and says, ‘We can never
have access to statements that correspond in a one-to-one fashion with reality.
We only have access to interpretation of the world.’[93] Thus he suggests
that, ‘the postmodern recognition of perception as inherently interpretive
suggests that conversation is an apt way to think of preaching: the sermon is
an event in which interpretation takes place through conversation.’[94] Recognising that,
‘The sermon is an interpretation of the gospel in the context of the
congregation’[95] should stimulate
the postmodern preacher to ‘find ways to listen to the congregation and to
bring their perceptions into the sermon.’[96]
Absolutely
no absolutes
Richard Rorty
says, ‘Tradition in Western culture…centres around the notion of the search for
Truth.’[97] This
‘truth’ is ‘something to be pursued for its own sake.’[98] One of the
consequences of the loss of confidence in reason and the denial of objective
knowledge is a rejection of absolutes especially the notion of absolute truth.
The failure of reason to find objective reality has led to a crisis in
confidence which has given birth to a cynical denial of absolute truth.
According to postmodernism the idea of
absolute truth is an oppressive tool used by the powerful to exploit the weak.[100] The modernist
perspective of absolute truth has led to the justification of the oppression
and exploitation of others. Christopher Norris claims:
Postmodernism derives much of its suasive
appeal from the notion that truth-claims are always on the side of some ultimate, transcendent, self-authorised
Truth which excludes all meanings save those vouchsafed to the guardians of
orthodox thought.[101]
Belief in the universal and absolute
nature of truth is seen as absurd in the postmodern perspective. The notion of
universal truth and its exclusive claims is questioned and thought to be
arrogant and intolerant.
Once we let go of absolutes, nobody gets to
have a position that is anything more than a position. Nobody gets to speak for
God, nobody gets to speak for American values, and nobody gets to speak for
nature.[102]
This has implications for Christianity. In
addition to denying the concept of absolute truth, postmodernism asserts that
‘all religion reflects a historically conditioned bias.’[103] Those with
Christian convictions are less likely to face logical refutations of their
beliefs than dismissal of them. Previously (in the modernist world) logic might
be employed to refute the claims of Christianity. Postmodernists, however, do
not contend in the same cognitive domain. Rather they dismiss Christianity’s
unique and universal claims as antiquated, arrogant and irrelevant. The notion
of transcendent truth is despised, displaced or trivialised by relative truth.
This has serious implications for the hermeneutics, exegesis and homiletics of
both sacred and secular texts.
Loss
of confidence in the inevitability of progress
Modernism placed
its confidence in science and education to deliver a better world. Two world
wars and numerous other conflagrations in which there have been acts of
genocide have radically altered this view. Continuing famine, poverty,
pollution and other calamities, together with racism and terrorism have
demonstrated that progress is not the inexorable outcome of advances in science
and education. The postmodernist, therefore, rejects what Oden calls ‘the smug
fantasy of inevitable historical progress.’[104]
Postmodernism acknowledges the modern era
witnessed significant medical and technological breakthroughs but says that it
has also brought ‘unparalleled potentiality for the demolition of humanity and
the planet.’[105] Again Henry
points out:
The twentieth-century—the century of
scientific progress—brought with it, among other debacles, World War I, World
War II, Marxist totalitarianism, Auschwitz, the increasing poisoning of the planet,
and bare escape from nuclear destruction.[106]
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
of mass destruction threaten humanity. Thus postmodernists view many of
modernism’s technological advances as ‘a threat to planetary life and
survival.’[107]
Postmodernism not only rejects the idea of
inevitable progress it also denies the modern faith in the inherent integrity
of knowledge. It does not accept that there is a correlation between man’s
knowledge and munificence. Grenz notes ‘In the postmodern world, people are no
longer convinced that knowledge is inherently good.’[108] There has been a
shift therefore, from the optimism that characterised the modern period to a
pessimism that is the hallmark of postmodernism. For Oliver, this ‘can reflect
cynicism in a world regarded as increasingly chaotic and out of control.’[109]
Rejection
of foundationalism
The view that
there is a perpetual substructure to knowledge (foundationalism) has been
critiqued and jettisoned by the postmodernist.[110]
Henry observes that the rejection of foundationalism is the unique ‘epistemic
premise’ shared by all postmodernists.[111]
Foundationalism, which bases reality on
universal truths and principles has been substituted by non-foundationalism.
This is a ‘widespread attempt to continue philosophy without recourse to the
kind of foundationalism found in classical modern philosophers.’[112]
Non-foundationalist philosophers in the school of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and
Rorty, dispute that philosophy can accomplish Cartesian certitude.[113] Thus philosophy
may have pragmatic advantages but it cannot convey universal validity.
Deconstructionism
The optimism of
the modern period was shattered by the nihilistic attacks of Friedrich
Nietzsche (1844-1900) in the late nineteenth-century, though the final blows
would not be felt until the 1970s.[116]
Stanley Grenz wrote, ‘The immediate impulse for the dismantling of the
Enlightenment project came from the rise of deconstruction as a literary
theory, which influenced a new movement in philosophy.’[117] Jacques Derrida
is credited with being the ‘father of modern deconstruction’. He is a
philosopher who he has had a major impact in the field of literary criticism.[118]
Deconstruction, as a movement, arose in
response to the ‘Structuralist’ theory of interpreting literary texts. This
theory suggested that cultures developed literature for the purpose of giving
meaning to their existence, to make sense out of the meaninglessness of
reality. The structuralists posited that all cultures utilise a common
structure and by analysing this structure and reading the texts with this
understanding makes sense out of experiences of reality.[119]
‘Post-structuralists’ (who later adopted the title ‘Deconstructionists’)
rejected this view and argued that no such structure exists. All literature,
according to this view, is dependent on the perspective of the reader. Meaning
is derived from the text by entering into a dialogue with the text.
Consequently there are as many readings of the text as there are readers.
Deconstructionists have given postmodernists a tool for the advancement of
their total rejection of the concept of objective truth.
Michel Foucault, another major proponent
of deconstructionism, has taken deconstruction to another level by arguing that
interpretations of truth are based on power. He suggests that at the root of
every text or history there is someone who is advancing their position in order
to oppress or subjugate those who are not in power.[120] Veith argues
that, ‘Postmodern existentialism goes back to Neitzsche to emphasise not only
will, but power. Liberation comes from rebelling against existing power
structures, including oppressive notions of “knowledge” and “truth”’.[121] Foucault’s
position indicts every historian and writer with the charge of bias, and that
bias is not only in order to further a cause, but ultimately to do violence to
some oppressed group or culture. He claims that, ‘every assertion of knowledge
is an act of power.’[122]
Foucault and other deconstructionists utilise a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’.[123] This means that
as they interpret a text, they approach it with the suspicion that there may be
a hidden agenda lurking somewhere in the background. Michel Foucault has argued
that, ‘the concept of liberty is an invention of the ruling classes.’[124] Taking his lead
from Nietzsche, he suggests that the citizens think they are free, but are in
fact being efficiently controlled by the ruling class. This is an example of
how postmodernists employ the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ in an examination of
culture and truth to determine power structures that underlie various
assumptions.
Rejection
of metanarratives
Jean Francois
Lyotard, one of the earliest defenders and commentators on postmodernism,
defined the movement in terms of their total rejection of ‘metanarratives’.[125]
Post-modernism signal the death of such
‘metanarratives’ whose secretly terroristic function was to ground and
legitimate the illusion of ‘universal human history. We are now in the process
of wakening from the nightmare of modernity, with its manipulative reason and
fetish of totality, into the laid back pluralism of the post-modern, that
heterogeneous range of lifestyles and language games which has renounced the
nostalgic urge to totalise and legitimate itself…Science and philosophy must
jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly
as just another set of narratives.[130]
Although the issues discussed represent
only a fraction of the ideas that could be considered under the title,
‘postmodern epistemology’, these particular concepts are fairly representative
of the key positions taken by postmodernists.
Metanarratives endeavour to support and
clarify the nature of reality. Postmodernism rejects metanarratives as
manipulative and exploitative. Jean-Francois Lyotard argues that postmodernism
is best defined as ‘incredulity toward metanarratives.’[131]
Postmodernism rules out metanarratives
because it discards all forms of ‘totalisation’ and any form of striving toward
rational coherence.[132]
It does not permit a reality that is coherent and intelligible if it
articulates an argument in a manner consistent with modernist absolute
assumptions. So the use of metanarratives to explain reality is seen as both
groundless and hazardous. Phillips and Ockholm state:
Postmodernism repudiates any appeal to
Reality or Truth. The very attempt to propose totalizing metanarratives that
define and legitimate Reality are denounced as oppressive.[133]
Postmodernism does not permit
metanarratives that claim to explicate reality because for it, absolute reality
does not exist.
Language
viewed as a human construct
Postmodernists
argue that people are trapped in a world where no meaning is possible because
humanity inhabits a ‘prison house of language’.[134]
This ‘prison’ is a metaphor for their view that words have hidden trace
meanings in them that communicate their opposite in order to oppress or exclude
marginalised groups. For example, they point out that the word ‘man’ is the
opposite of ‘woman’ and ‘freedom’ is the opposite of ‘slavery’. According to this
view the use of the word ‘man’ excludes and oppresses women. The words used
contain the ‘trace’ of the group being marginalised.[135] Postmodernists
support their argument by noting that a free society would not need a word for
freedom if there were no such thing as slavery.[136]
Deconstructionism may have begun as a literary theory, but it has become a very
sophisticated method of interpreting everything. Veith argues, ‘As it corrodes
the very concept of absolute truth, deconstruction provides the intellectual
grounding for the popular relativism running rampant in postmodern society.’[137]
Utilising this tool of deconstruction,
postmodernists have advanced new theories of truth. Jacques Derrida claims that
meaning is not simply ‘out there’ ready to be discovered. All that remains is
the perspective of the interpreter.[138]
Postmodernists renounce all claims to acquiring truth objectively. For them
there is no absolute truth. They interpret truth relatively as ‘social
constructs’, and Foucault at least suggests the hidden motive of power behind
all expressions of truth.
Philosopher Richard Rorty has abandoned
the correspondence theory of truth. During the Enlightenment, truth was said to
correspond with reality either by corresponding with innate ideas or sense
data. The very idea that truth could be so easily determined is anathema to
Rorty. He suggested abandoning the pursuit of ‘systematic philosophy’ and
replacing it with ‘edifying philosophy’, which keeps up the dialogue, but
ignores the search for truth.[139]
Instead of a correspondence theory of truth, Rorty has defined truth as ‘what
our peers will let us get away with saying.’[140]
In other words, truth does not correspond or even cohere with reality. It only
requires agreement from those equal in ability, standing and rank. Rorty, who
considers himself a Pragmatist, has also adopted a pragmatic view of truth,
suggesting that truth is, ‘what it is better for us to believe.’[141] Once again he has
abandoned modern conceptions of truth which require epistemic justification on
more objective grounds.
Grenz writes that, ‘The postmodern
worldview operates with a community-based understanding of truth.’[142] He goes on to say
that this worldview ‘extends beyond our perceptions of truth to its essence:
there is no absolute truth; rather truth is relative to the community in which
we participate.’[143]
Stanley Fish says, ‘Communication does not take place in a vacuum, but in the
context of the institutional community’.[144]
He argues that the meaning is not embedded in the text, but is derived in the
context of the interpretive community.[145]
In other words, even those who share the native language with the author cannot
predict the precise meaning of a given text without having experienced the same
context as the original author. For Fish and other postmodernists, the search
for authorial intent is a futile exercise. Instead they advocate searching for
meaning only within the interpretive community.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer argues that in the
recent past there were ‘hard and fast lines between philosophy and literature.’[146] This
differentiation has become indistinct in the postmodern period, as language has
come to be seen as a crucial constituent in how reality is understood. Horace
L. Fairlamb notes, ‘Postmodernism is the time for which language is the game.’[147]
In the postmodernist period, therefore,
language is understood as a social construct whose significance is not inherent
in reality. Seminal postmodern authors such as Jacques Derrida and Michel
Foucault have reasoned that language is capricious and notional, and does not
actually resonate any extraneous linguistic laws.[148] Language does not
correspond to an objective other and texts are seen as constructs that neither
describe nor define reality.[149]
Language is a continuous system of artificial sign systems.[150]
There is a connection between
postmodernism and deconstructionism.[151]
Deconstruction is primarily about unpacking the constructions or explanations
of language. Vanhoozer says:
It is about dismantling certain
distinctions and oppositions that have traditionally guaranteed to philosophy
its superior place among the humanities.[152]
Essentially, therefore, deconstruction
centres on the difficulty of linguistic representation.[153] As such, it is a
challenge to what Derrida calls ‘logo-centrism.’ This is:
…the belief that there is some stable point
outside language—reason, revelation,
Platonic ideas—from which one can ensure that Deconstruction theory asserts
that texts have no extra-linguistic basis or referent. As such the intended
meanings of the author are deemed irrelevant to the interpretation of a text.
If there are no legitimate interpretations of texts it follows one’s words ...
correspond to the world.[154]
Logo-centrism, therefore, rests on the
presupposition that one can speak truly.[155]
That any interpretation may have equal validity or, on the other hand, they may
be considered equally meaningless.[156]
As mentioned earlier this has clear implications for secular and sacred textual
analysis as the nature of hermeneutics and exegesis is fundamentally altered.
Henry states:
Texts are declared to be intrinsically
incapable of conveying truth about some objective reality. One interpreter’s
meaning is as proper as another’s, however incompatible these may be. There is
no original or final textual meaning, no one way to interpret the Bible or any
other text.[157]
The same could be said, for example, of
the Koran. Language in postmodern theory is merely a functional tool.[158] There cannot be
statements that are asserted to be true, in propositional terms, because it is
not possible to prove or disprove them. It is merely a matter of linguistics.
Cognitive comprehension, then, is merely a matter of individual perception and
no understanding is absolute.[159]
Philosophical
pluralism
Pluralism is a
phenomenon that predates postmodernism. Various religions and cultures have
always lived in close proximity. However, postmodernism has a particular
relationship with contemporary pluralism. Henry observes, ‘Postmodernity
approves pluralism as a necessary and desirable cultural and philosophical
phenomenon.’[160]
Philosophical pluralism contends that all
religions have equal validity. No individual belief system is superior, and it
is tolerant of most religions.[161]
It abhors any religious system that makes exclusive claims concerning truth. Oliver
says, ‘The postmodern attitude...rejects the idea that a rational belief system
can claim authority over all others.’[162]
It is entirely intolerant of unique and universal religious truth claims. Thus
the postmodern author, David Hall, states, ‘Dogmatism, totalitarianism, and
narrow intolerance are all directly connected with unjustified claims to final
truth.’[163] Philosophical
pluralism was not a feature of the modern period, as
A mere couple of centuries ago, most
societies recognized a single official reality and dedicated themselves to
destroying its opposition. You could get burned at the stake for suggesting
that there might be more than one version of reality. Today, in some
intellectual circles, you can get into trouble for suggesting there might be
only one.[164]
Postmodernism puts
empirical science into question
Naturalism (the
theory of the world that excludes the supernatural) as a system of belief has
successfully made the transition from the modern era to the postmodern period.[165] It remains
influential in spite of the fact that science no longer has the same
‘epistemological advantage.’[166]
Postmodernism, however, contests naturalism’s presupposition that the universe
is a self-contained unit.[167]
It challenges the assumption of science that it can explain the existence of
the universe by empirical means alone. Even the robust theories of David Hume
and Immanuel Kant are subject to being critiqued. Allen observes, ‘Hume’s and
Kant’s quite sophisticated objections that stood as intellectual orthodoxy for
the past two hundred years have been found to fail.’[168]
Thus William L. Rowe, writing from the
position of the analytic school of philosophy, has contended that the notion of
a self-contained universe can no longer be sustained by a philosophic
consensus.[169] Recent debate
about cosmology, especially the Big Bang theory, has raised questions
concerning why this particular kind of universe has emerged. Allen says ‘The
question of why we have this universe rather than another has arisen within a branch of science itself for
the first time in modern history.’[170]
This change within postmodernism is not exactly theism but it seems that the embargo on the potentiality of the
existence of God has been lifted.[171]
Thus the concept of postmodernism is
clarified by explaining areas of continuity and especially areas of
discontinuity with its historical and philosophical precursors and progenitors.
Postmodernism is essentially a philosophy that has responded pessimistically to
the optimism of the Enlightenment and its principled certitude. The postmodern
perspective of reality permeates contemporary culture and as such ‘postmodern’
is an appropriate appellation for contemporary culture.
Its loss of confidence in reason and its
rejection of the objectivity of knowledge distinguish postmodernism from
modernism. There are no absolutes, and there is widespread cynicism regarding
belief in inexorable progress. This spirit of disillusionment is evident in the
denial of the inherent goodness of knowledge. Foundationalism is forsaken and
metanarratives are dismissed as myths that serve the purposes of the powerful
in manipulating and exploiting the disadvantaged. Christianity is deemed to be
a metanarrative and is cast off as inadequate explanation of reality. The idea that
language has extra-linguistic referents is no longer accepted and philosophical
pluralism is espoused. The view that the universe is self-contained has been
challenged as an unwarranted assumption.
The title of
Stanley Grenz says that postmodernism
‘signifies the quest to move beyond modernism. Specifically, it involves a
rejection of the modern mind-set, but launched under the conditions of
modernity.’[172] This suggests
that postmodernism is a reaction to modernity and that it involves a cultural
shift that has its origins within modernity. The modern mind-set was born in
the age of the Enlightenment when ‘the triumph of reason and the mastery of the
human mind over the external world’ were thought to have delivered modern man
from the dark ages.[173] David Harvey points out that:
Enlightenment thought embraced the idea of
progress, and actively sought that break with history and tradition which
modernity espouses. It was, above all, a secular movement that sought the
demystification and desacralization of knowledge and social organisation in
order to liberate human beings from their chains.[174]
As this comment suggests, the pre-modern
period was often characterised by mystical and sacred explanations for reality.
The Enlightenment project sought to shift culture from what was considered
archaic and inaccurate understandings of reality in the ‘pre-modern’ period to
a modern age of Enlightenment. In a similar shift, postmodernism is an attempt
to move beyond modernism.
To
pick up on a thread from earlier in the discussion it should be borne in mind
that there is disagreement among scholars as to whether the term
‘postmodernism’ is an accurate term for the phenomena witnessed in contemporary
culture.[175] The term has met
with varying degrees of support and rejection even among those who first began
to write about the phenomena.
Since the 1970’s, the term postmodern has
been used in a variety of literary, philosophical, social and political trends
linked by their critique of established ‘modern’ values, assumptions and
institutions. Postmodernity in this sense refers to a broad range of
late-twentieth-century intellectual and cultural movements in the fine arts,
architecture, communications media, politics, the social sciences, literary
theory and hermeneutics, and philosophy that perhaps are more connected by what
they reject than by what they affirm.[177]
He argues that this paradigm which
understands postmodernity as a repudiation of modernity and the Enlightenment project
is reductionistic.[178]
He wrote that, ‘identifying modernity with the Enlightenment tends to minimise
other intellectual movements of the time, thereby granting it more influence
than it deserves.’[179]
He sees the Enlightenment project as unfinished and continuing and suggests
that this ongoing process of modernisation and globalisation should be called,
‘the culture of modernity’.
The changes in culture that have come
about as a result of modernisation and globalisation are profound.
Technological improvements have facilitated travel and thereby created a global
village. The boundaries between local, national and international communities
have become blurred. The changes that have resulted from worldwide
communication through television and the internet have also brought together
diverse cultures from every corner of the globe. It should be noted that
globalisation is not just a Western phenomenon. The cultures of the Eastern
world are interacting with the cultures of the Western world, so that both are
experiencing the influences of each other moving in both directions
simultaneously.[180]
Netland is not alone in contending that the word postmodernity inaccurately
portrays the phenomena being witnessed today.
Thomas Oden takes a similar view and
argues that the culture shift being currently experienced should be categorised
as ‘ultramodernity’ rather than postmodernity.[181]
The impact of modernisation and globalisation have pushed the boundaries of
modernity but the current cultural shift is moving away from some key ideals of
modernity while employing the forces of modern cultural change to bring about a
new cultural and social paradigm. It is reductionistic to suggest that
postmodernity is now the prevailing view of contemporary culture. It is not a
complete repudiation of modernity. The shift toward postmodernity is more
gradual. Global culture is experiencing a shift that repudiates some aspects of
modernity, while retaining and even extending other aspects of modernity to new
levels. In spite of these areas of disagreement the term ‘postmodernism’ will
be used to describe the current philosophical and cultural shift. Since many of
the proponents of this cultural shift have adopted the use of the term and as
the data demonstrates a degree of repudiation of modernity there is warrant for
using the term to describe the phenomena.
It is necessary, however, to identify the
kind of modernism that postmodernists are reacting to when they suggest moving
beyond modernism. David Harvey has pointed out that the epistemological
assumptions of the Enlightenment project are at the heart of a kind of
modernism that postmodernists reject. He has written:
The Enlightenment, for example, took as its
axiomatic that there was only one possible answer to any question. From this it
followed that the world could be controlled and rationally ordered if we could
only picture and represent it rightly. But this presumed that there existed a
single correct mode of representation which, if we could uncover it (and this
was what scientific and mathematical endeavours were all about), would provide
the means to Enlightenment ends.[182]
Grenz concurs with this analysis and
points out that foundational to the Enlightenment project was the assumption
that ‘knowledge is certain, objective and good.’[183]
These particular assumptions of the Enlightenment have been repudiated by
postmodernists. Enlightenment thinkers argued that certainty in knowledge can
be achieved through human reason alone and objectivity can be achieved by
observing the world as ‘unconditioned observers.’[184] In addition,
Enlightenment thinkers developed the idea that knowledge is inherently good. In
this they were optimistic in their assumptions. Grenz has noted that this led
them to the belief that ‘progress is inevitable, that science, coupled with the
power of education will free us from our vulnerability to nature, as well as
from all social bondage.’[185]
Postmodernists reject these epistemological assumptions of the Enlightenment,
but as already noted they have retained certain aspects of modernity so that
both postmodernity and modernity have a continuing influence on contemporary
culture. Epistemological issues provide a framework for understanding
postmodern thought and will influence the development of an approach to
preaching.
Alternative logic
In addition to
alternative views of truth, postmodernists have advanced an alternative view of
logic. During the Enlightenment it would have been unthinkable to assert that
two opposing views could both be true. Aristotle developed the systematic
principles of logic that most of the western world has subscribed to for
centuries. In deductive logic, Aristotle developed three principles: the law of
identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. The
law of identity states simply that: A stands for A. The law of
non-contradiction states that something cannot be both A and not-A at the same
time. The law of excluded middle says that something is either A or not-A.
Derrida and others have challenged this view of logic.[186] They are more
than willing to accept contradiction, and indeed seem to celebrate
contradictory logic as if it frees them from the constraints of modernity.
Why do they take this position? It seems
in part to reflect their total system of thought. They believe that truth is
culturally and socially constructed. As the argument goes, since there are no
absolute truths, people can hold to different ‘truths’. Veith points out that,
‘Existentialism provides the rationale for contemporary relativism. Since everyone
creates his or her own meaning, every meaning is equally valid’, no matter how
contradictory they may be.[187]
The common refrain is, ‘what’s true for you may not be true for me.’[188]
A critique of
postmodern epistemology
There are some
positive elements in postmodernism that may provide a basis for dialogue with
those who espouse religious views. It is important that any critique of
postmodernism should also identify the common ground between what appears to be
two diametrically opposed positions.
Postmodernists may be commended for their
sympathetic attitude toward the oppressed and marginalised. It may be affirmed
that truth has sometimes been used to oppress. There are elements of
deconstruction which have proved helpful in discerning ways that history has been
written to uphold the powerful and suppress the weak. Believers can affirm them
in that quest for more accurate historical analysis.
Michel Foucault’s emphasis on the use of
‘power’ to establish truth has some warrant and can also be affirmed. Those who
are in power are often guilty of manipulating the truth to suit their own ends.[189] Postmoderns can
be affirmed in their practice of employing a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ when
reading a text. Knowledge is conditioned by point of view. Everybody has paradigms
and ways of viewing reality that are often shaped by upbringing and culture,
just as experiences in life affect judgements and attitudes. Presuppositions
must be taken into consideration, and positions held must be carefully
evaluated with the understanding that what is held to be true may in fact be
‘tinted’ by the colour of the lenses used to view reality.
Postmodernists can also be fêted for their
celebration of diversity and disdain for prejudice. People of faith should
logically be the greatest champions of this enterprise. Postmodernists, along
with others, have levelled complaints against religion for the oppression of
marginalised groups and those complaints are not without warrant. For example,
Christian missionary enterprises have been somewhat culpable in various
colonial injustices. Colonising nations have stripped the raw materials of
their colonies and enslaved the indigenous peoples, attempting at the same time
to evangelise them. The criticism, that Christianity looks more like an oppressive
power than a religion of freedom and love, has merit. Christians have been
ethnocentric and prejudiced and indeed Christian nations continue to exploit
and abuse other nations in this postcolonial world where the corporate
benefactors of politicians set the agenda for economics without ethics.
Christians can affirm, with
postmodernists, that they are guilty of arbitrarily ascribing right and wrong
to certain acts, based solely on self interest rather than truly discerning an
absolute right or absolute wrong based on objective criteria.
Christians cannot claim to have a monopoly
on the debate on truth, and the nature of right and wrong. There is a great
deal of hypocrisy in the manner in which Christianity is practiced, and
believers have much to learn about morality. There has been a great deal of
emphasis in the Western Christian church on private (especially sexual)
morality, but less attention has been given to issues of social injustice and
structural inequalities. The very people who are most likely to protest about
moral relativism are often guilty of practicing moral relativism when it suits
their own self-interests.
Not every claim of postmodernism,
therefore, is without warrant. There is much that Christians can learn from
postmodernism. Many postmodern attacks against modernity are points of
agreement with faith, and are a welcome relief after generations of embattling
apologetics. For example, believers and postmodernists agree that science does
not have all the answers. Human beings are not just material objects, smart
animals which are evolutionarily more highly developed, but basically part of a
mechanistic universe. The main world religions affirm a grander metanarrative
than this, that understands God as the Creator and sustainer of the universe.
Christianity and postmodernism agree that
‘progress’ has its negative side: ‘science’s’ development of nuclear weapons,
for example. Christianity and postmodernism are agreed that there are some
things that cannot be known, based on perception alone. Believers would place
knowing God in this category. Postmodernists may not necessarily affirm the
existence of God but the allowance for non perceptual beliefs leaves room for
this assertion. Christians (and indeed other religious adherents; for example,
those of the other two Abrahamic world religions: Judaism, and Islam) and
postmodernists can agree that reason alone is insufficient for discerning the
veracity of truth claims. While postmodernists reject the idea that there is an
objective truth, and Christians affirm revelation, both find reason alone
insufficient, and in this there can be agreement.[190]
On the other hand, there are, undeniably,
serious areas of disagreement, such as the rejection of objective truth. The
basis for the rejection of objective truth takes as its starting point the
rejection of classical foundationalism. It should be noted that the rejection
of classical foundationalism, and attempts to find a more accurate form of
epistemic justification, is one of the most important issues in contemporary
philosophy.[191] Postmodernists
are not alone in their rejection of classical foundationalism; many
contemporary philosophers have also rejected it. However, they have not taken
the next step and rejected all objective truth. The postmodern rejection of
classical foundationalism is justified because classical foundationalism is
inherently flawed.[192]
However, for a postmodernist to reject all forms of epistemic justification is
unwarranted. Alvin Plantinga has written:
Postmodernists nearly all reject classical
foundationalism; in this they concur with most Christian thinkers and most
contemporary philosophers. Momentously enough, however, many postmodernists
apparently believe that the demise of classical foundationalism implies
something far more startling: that there is no such thing as truth at all, no
way things really are.[193]
Some of the tenets of postmodernism may be
affirmed, as noted earlier, such as the practice of deconstruction, especially
regarding the use of power to oppress those at the margins of society. As
already observed the fact that those in power sometimes oppress the
marginalised should arouse caution or even suspicion. But postmodern
deconstruction goes too far. If every text, history and statement must be
deconstructed, then deconstruction itself may also be deconstructed. As such
postmodern deconstruction is subject to its own ideological and methodological
rules.[194]
Derrida has reserved ‘justice’ as the one
area that is exempt from deconstruction. He argues that, ‘Justice is not
deconstructible. After all not everything is deconstructible, or there would be
no point to deconstruction.’[195]
It appears arbitrary to exempt justice, and it makes deconstruction
self-referentially defeated on two counts. Firstly, deconstruction as a methodology
could not survive its own deconstruction. Secondly, the exemption suggested by
Derrida seems to be another example of the use of power to assert truth.
Derrida’s tool is supposed to cut away power biases but he reserves the power
to exempt certain components (justice and deconstruction itself) from the
process. This is a fatal flaw.
Postmodernists also reject a
correspondence theory of truth, and representationalism (an important corollary
of epistemic justification). It has been stated that correspondence theory is
the belief that truth corresponds with reality. It may now be added that
representationalism is the view that truth represents reality. If what is
believed about reality has no foundations or cannot be epistemically justified,
then truth is called into question as well. Rorty’s definition of truth is
intrinsically flawed.[196]
Since he has rejected objectivity and a correspondence view of truth, he has
left himself an easy prey for his peers, such as Louis Pojman who stated, ‘I
won’t let him get away with saying that.’[197]
Rorty, by his own definition of truth, has painted himself into a corner, so
that his definition of truth is itself false. If for him his definition of
truth is, ‘what our peers will let us get away with saying’ and his peers won’t
let him get away with that definition, then his view of truth fails.
Rorty’s other definition of truth also has
significant problems. He has said that truth is, ‘what is better for us to
believe.’[198] This shows his
pragmatism. When taken to its ultimate logical conclusion this view of truth
leads to radical pluralism and relativism. If truth is what is better for one
to believe then there is nothing inhibiting one from creating truth to suit
ones self-interest. Alvin Plantinga has made a similar argument against this
view of truth. He offers three analogies of how this view of truth distorts
reality and ultimately leads to erroneous ways of thinking. In the analogy of
A.I.D.S., for instance, a person may decide to believe there was no such thing
as this disease. His colleagues may let him get away with saying that and it
may seem better to him to believe this way. According to Rorty, then, A.I.D.S.
no longer exists. Plantinga’s second example points out that in the
This postmodern view of truth is cast as
something socially constructed.[200]
The idea is that truth is created within a community or social group, and that
community’s truth is true for them. While an outsider may criticise their
version of truth, these criticisms are invalid, since it is true for them. This
radical reshaping of truth, apart from correspondence or coherence theory, has
sweeping implications for society and especially the Christian church and other
major religions. To radically redefine truth as it suits the individual or the
social group does violence to every institution and every member of society.
Postmodernists will argue that two cultures cannot effectively communicate with
each other because their languages are different.[201] Postmodernists
confuse the relativity of the term selection, ‘with an inability of language to
represent objective reality.’[202]
This is a huge leap. On this view of socially constructed truth, the argument
follows that belief in God is a social construct and therefore God’s existence
is dependent on the existence of the society that believes in God. In other
words if nobody believed in God, then God would not exist. Plantinga argues,
‘This claim on Rorty’s part will constitute a defeater…only if he also makes us
aware of some reason why we should believe it.’[203]
Rorty’s claims cannot survive their own internal inconsistencies and are
self-referentially defeating.
Rorty suggests that truth can be created
by making propositional statements. Plantinga critiques this idea. Believers
assert that God created the world. Rorty’s view is that statements bring truth
into being. Thus believers are responsible not only for making the statement
that God created the world, but also for creating the world.[204]
It has been already noted that there is
also a problem in postmodernism with respect to logic but this needs further
comment. The postmodernist attempt to deconstruct all of modernity has involved
rejecting the laws of logic, including the law of non-contradiction, which
states that something cannot be true and at the same time false. Rorty’s views
of truth allows for such contradictions between individuals and communities. He
is saying more than, there are different versions of the truth based on diverse
perspectives.[205] It is one thing
to say that a pre-modern culture may be epistemologically justified in
believing what their ancestors have taught them; it is quite another to say
that their version of the truth is true, when it stands in contradiction to the
objectively verifiable reality of modern culture. This is not to say that just
because of the Enlightenment, all modern truth is to be taken as a settled issue.
But modernity has given insight that cannot be rejected outright. Derrida would
argue that this statement is another example of the bias of power, the
arrogance of modernity. It is not that modernity has all the answers, but that
both cultures cannot both be right about the same issue. That violates the law
of non-contradiction: A cannot be A, and at the same time, not A.
This postmodern rejection of logic has
implications that go beyond evaluating cultures. In the arena of morality,
postmodern alternative ‘logic’ suggests that each individual culture and for
that matter each individual may choose what is right and wrong for themselves,
even when those moral choices stand in direct contradiction to other standards
of behaviour. Rorty’s view that ‘what works better for me’ means, in theory,
that an individual may say, ‘stealing works better for me than working’ and
that is an acceptable morality for postmodernists. Postmodernists are not
typically religious. However, their views of truth and reality allow for two
contradictory religions to make truth claims that are exclusive and accept both
as right and true. Thus postmodernism is internally and essentially
inconsistent, self-referentially incoherent and contradictory. It neither has
the coherence to convince nor the cogency to compel universal allegiance but
neither do any particular religion however global it may appear.
One final tenet of postmodernism deserves
to be critiqued; that is the rejection of metanarratives. Postmodernists reject
any all-encompassing story that seeks to paint the whole picture of reality.
Instead they posit mini-narratives or ‘petit-narratives’.[206] These are the
stories of individual cultures that explain reality for them, without
suggesting that they encompass other cultures or the whole world. Christianity
is a grand metanarrative because it explains reality in relation to the origin,
purpose and destiny of mankind and spans many cultures and all classes.
Postmodernists pour scorn on religious
metanarratives. However, if their scorn is primarily focused on forms of
oppression of the marginalised and the promotion of the self-interests of a
privileged few, then religion must work harder to demonstrate that the
religious metanarratives are different. This will involve much more than
improvements in personal piety; it will involve dismantling the structures of
globalisation, challenging institutional inequities, radically working toward
the transforming of international relations (especially in the area of world
trade) and the realisation that empowering others will involve a coterminous
disempowering of privileged elites, be they individuals, communities or
nations. People who say that Western Christianity does not oppress the
marginalised are either naïve or in denial about structural poverty. Much of
the prosperity of Western nations is based on the exploitation of peoples in
the third world. Much of this oppression is done by ‘Christian’ nations.
The Christian metanarrative is not
intended to maintain the power of privileged elites. Christianity’s unbalanced
emphasis on personal piety and its failure to emphasise social justice is part
of the problem. The church has spawned a child that is angry with the rhetoric
of love and the reality of neglect. Certain expressions of religion have been
oppressive and abusive and postmodernists have some warrant in holding them in
contempt. However, postmodernists have built their own metanarrative. Their
view of truth, reality, history and morality is effectively a metanarrative.
The postmodernist is guilty of the same charge levelled at the Christian
metanarrative insofar as it is a system of thought used to determine reality.
Postmodernists insist that their view has universal validity and application
and in so doing they are effectively defining it as a worldview which is a
metanarrative. At best they can say it is not an ‘oppressive’ metanarrative.
The postmodernist would contend that their view allows for different cultures
to make individual truth claims, but postmodernism is nevertheless a
methodological tool for interpreting reality, and as such, subject to its own
criticisms.
In this article postmodernism has been
explored from a historical and philosophical perspective with a view to
providing a critique of the epistemological views held by postmodernists. It
has been stated that postmodernism represents a challenge to the church in
general and to preaching in particular but it does not present an
insurmountable challenge to belief. It has been suggested that the seeds of
that system’s ultimate demise have been planted in its epistemology. It has
been established that postmodernism rejects objective truth claims, but it does
so, and indeed must do so, by making
objective truth claims. It deconstructs truth and reality, but insists that deconstruction
is exempt from deconstruction. Postmodernism argues for an alternative system
of logic, but by its own definition of logic, this alternative view of logic
would be both true and false. Postmodernism rejects metanarratives, but it must
do so by building a new metanarrative. In the final analysis, postmodern
philosophy appears to be self-referentially incoherent. Nevertheless, it
remains as a prevalent worldview, and presents both new challenges and new
opportunities.
The
popularisation of postmodernism
Reality and truth
have been called into question, not just by postmodern philosophers, but by
ordinary people. The advances in science with the theory of relativity,
super-string theory and the discovery of quantum mechanics and quarks, has caused
this new generation to wonder if they really know anything for sure. Postmodern
thought is becoming more widespread, and affecting society as a whole, and not
just in an academic context.[207]
Graham Johnston notes, ‘Postmodern thinking creeps into our lives not
necessarily through conscious choices but through a steady stream of
bombardment via movies, magazines, song and television.’[208]
Moral relativism is both a feature of
modernity and postmodernity. However it could be argued that moral relativism
in postmodernity developed a new dimension as a result of the epistemological
issues that have emerged in postmodernity. For example, in modernity the move
to supplant revelation with reason suggested that morality could be based on
rational grounds such as Kant’s categorical imperative. In postmodernity,
morality has no basis in either revelation or reason, but has become socially
constructed so that the community is entitled to affirm their own version of
morality without reference to any authority other than the group with which
they associate.
Popular television demonstrates the
prevalence of postmodernism even in the more cerebral shows. Stanley Grenz has
written a piece entitled, ‘Star Trek and the Next Generation: Postmodernism and
the Future’, in which he points out the shift in worldview between the older Star Trek series and Star Trek: The Next Generation. In the
Older show a key character was Spock, who was an alien (half Vulcan and half
human). His personal struggle between the Vulcan logical self and his human
emotional self is the centrepiece of the character and created some evocative
drama. He represented a human without emotions, totally scientific and
rational, a paragon of modernity. In The
Next Generation, the equivalent character is Data, an android that longs to
become human, but has capabilities that far surpasses all human beings.[209] His search for
humanity and his repudiation of emotionless rationality, Grenz argues, points
to the postmodern shift in society. Further comparisons can be made. In the
older series time was linear; in the newer series time is fluid and many of the
most interesting shows involve some form of non-linear, space-time fluctuations
that produce all sorts of interesting paradoxes. There is also a postmodern
flavour to the ‘Prime Directive’ which states that they are not to interfere
with other cultures. This brings to mind the ideas of Foucault and Derrida, for
whom every encounter with another culture has the prospect of imposing truth
upon others based on a bias of power.
The emergence of postmodernism can also be
seen in the legal arena. In the
How did postmodernism enter the
mainstream? It has already been noted that the mass media has contributed
toward a wider acceptance of postmodern views. However, many scholars have
attempted to determine how these philosophical views began to emerge in
mainstream culture. David Harvey represents the prevailing view that the
counter-cultural movements of the 1960’s with their anti-modernistic
perspectives give rise to postmodernism in contemporary culture. He writes:
Antagonistic to the oppressive qualities of
scientifically grounded technical-bureaucratic rationality…the counter-cultures
explored the realms of individualized self-realization through a distinctive
‘new left’ politics, through the embrace of anti-authoritarian gestures,
iconoclastic habits (in music, dress, language and lifestyle), and the critique
of everyday life.[211]
Areas
of further investigation
As mentioned in the title,
this paper is a preliminary discussion of issues pertaining to the feasibility
of the homiletic task in the contemporary epistemological context.
Understanding postmodernism is a necessary prerequisite to formulating an
apologetic strategy for effectively communicating with the contemporary mind.[215]
This paper has focused primarily on an initial discussion of the issues. It is,
therefore, a preliminary inquiry insofar as it provides a foundation for
further investigation of ideas of truth and revelation in the light of
postmodernism. This is a first step toward understanding the contemporary
challenge (its problems and possibilities) and selecting an approach to
preaching that is cognisant of the new epistemology. Thus calls for an
assessment of theological theories and preaching models beginning with a
comparative analysis of narrative, topical and expository preaching and also an
examination of inductive and deductive modes of preaching Christ in a
postmodern culture.[216]
[1] Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. When I refer to the
current epistemological context I am talking about postmodernism.
[2] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical
Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other
Wonders of the Postmodern World, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.
[3] Lakeland, Paul, Postmodernity: Christian Identity in a Fragmented Age, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997, x-xi.
[4] Guarino, Thomas, ‘Postmodernity and Five
Fundamental Theological Issues’, Theological
Studies, 57, No. 4, December 1996,
654.
[5] Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological
Understanding of Postmodernism’, Cross
Currents, 47, No. 4, Winter 97-98 p. 518.
[6] Cahoone, Lawrence, ed. From Modernism to Postmodernism: An Anthology, Malden: Blackwell
Publishers, 1997, 1.
[7] Postmodernism is characteristically
anti-Western civilisation and opposes what it views as abuses by the West.
[8] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism, 1.
[9] Colson, Charles and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? Nashville:
Lifeway Press, 1999, 48.
[10] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 2d ed., Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998,
114.
[11] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism, 1.
[12] Dockery, David. (ed.) The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1997. Previous edition: Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1995, 16.
[13] Griffin, David Ray, William A. Beardslee, and Joe Holland, eds. Varieties of Postmodern Theology, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1989. Some include
liberation, feminist, and contemporary Roman Catholic theologies
[14] Tarnas, Richard, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have
Shaped Our World Views, New York: Ballantine Books, 1991, 395.
[15] Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological
Understanding of Postmodernism’, 520; Allen, Diogenes, ‘The End of the Modern
World’, Christian Scholar’s Review,
22, no. 4, 1993, 340.
[16] Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological Understanding
of Postmodernism’, 520.
[17] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism, 14.
[18] ‘The term “postmodern” primarily refers to time
rather than to a distinct ideology.’ Dockery, David S., ‘The Challenges of
Postmodernism’, 13. Ward views postmodernism more as a ‘condition’ than as a
period. See: Ward, Graham, ‘Postmodern Theology’, The Modern Theologians, ed. David F. Ford, Malden: Blackwell
Publishers, 1997, 585. See also: Oliver, Martyn, History of Philosophy: Great Thinkers from 600 B.C. to the Present Day,
New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1999, 171, 189.
[19] Griffin, David Ray, William A. Beardslee and
Joe Holland, eds.Varieties of Postmodern
Theology, xii.
[20] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism, 14.
[21] According to Henry, much that
characterised modern theology ‘carries over into postmodernism’s postulations.’
Henry, Carl F. H., ‘Postmodernism: The New Spectre?’ The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.
David S. Dockery, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995, 38. See also: Wells, David F., No Place for Truth, Or Whatever Happened to
Evangelical Theology? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993, 61.
[22] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism, 3. According to Grenz, Nietzsche
(1844-1900) was the first to attack modernism, ‘but the full-scale frontal
assault did not begin until the 1970s.’ Grenz, Stanley J., A Primer on Postmodernism, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996,
5. See also: Tarnas, Richard, The Passion of the Western Mind:
Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World Views, 395.
[23] Henry, Carl F. H., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 35.
[24] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism, 2. See also McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 575.
[25] Allen, Diogenes, ‘The End
of the Modern World: A New Openness for Faith’, Princeton Seminary Bulletin, 11, 1990, 340. Oden, Thomas C., ‘The
Death of Modernity and Postmodern Evangelical Spirituality’, The Challenge of Postmodernism: An
Evangelical Engagement, ed. David S. Dockery, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1995,
24.
[26] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 113.
[27] Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological
Understanding of Postmodernism’, 519. Fairlamb is correct, postmodern
scepticism reaches ‘not only to modernism, but to Western philosophy as a
whole.’ Fairlamb, Horace L., Critical
Conditions: Postmodernity and the Questions of Foundations, Cambridge
University Press, 1994, 1.
[28] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 575. According to Christopher Norris,
postmodernism ‘is a “family resemblance” term deployed in a variety of contexts
(architecture, painting, music, poetry, fiction, etc.) for things which seem to
be related—if at all—by a laid back pluralism of styles and a vague desire to
have done with the pretensions of high modernist culture.’ Norris, Christopher,
‘Post-modernism’, The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, Oxford University Press, 1995, 708.
[29] Veith says, ‘If the modern era is over, we are all postmodern, even though we reject
the tenets of postmodernism.’ Veith, Gene Edward, Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture,
Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994, 42.
[30] Allen, Ronald J., ‘Preaching
and Postmodernism’, Interpretation,
January, 2001.34.
[31] Dockery, David, ‘The Challenge of
Postmodernism’, 14.
[32] Dockery, David, ‘The Challenge of
Postmodernism’, 14.
[33] Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, 160. Adams
writes, ‘One cannot speak of the postmodern without first speaking of modernity
and modernism.’ Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological Understanding of
Postmodernism’, 518.
[34] Erickson, Millard J., Postmodernizing the Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of
Postmodernism, 2d ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, 15.
[35] Erickson, Millard J., Postmodernizing the Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of
Postmodernism, 15.
[36] Grenz, Stanley J., A Primer on Postmodernism, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996. 61. See also: Grenz, Stanley, and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in
a Postmodern Context, Louisville: Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001. Also:
Franke, John R., The Character of
Theology: An Introduction to Its Nature, Task and Purpose, Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2005.
[37] Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, 160.
[38] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 36. See Erickson, Millard J. Christian
Theology, 160.
[39] Erickson, Millard J., Postmodernizing the Faith, 15.
[40] Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, 161.
[41] Allen, Ronald J., ‘Preaching and Postmodernism’, Interpretation, 35.
[42] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. See also:
Oden, Thomas C., Two Worlds: Notes on the
Death of Modernity in America and Russia, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1992, 32. Though Oden uses the term ‘ultramodernity’ rather than
‘postmodernity’, he does argue that a definite cultural shift began at the end
of modernity.
[43] Johnston, Graham, Preaching
to a Postmodern World, Grand Rapids: IVP, 2001, 24.
[44] Brown, Colin, Philosophy
& the Christian Faith, London: Tyndale Press, 1968, 50.
[45] ‘Cartesian’ here is the adjective which
alludes to René Descartes (1596–1650) the French philosopher and mathematician
or his philosophy. After a Jesuit education and military service, he settled in
Holland. Descartes’ Discourse on Method (1637) introduced themes which he
developed in his greatest work, the Meditations
(1641). Asking “How and what do I know?” he arrived at his famous statement
“Cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). From this he proved to his own
satisfaction God’s existence (he was a Roman Catholic) and hence the existence
of everything else. He believed that the world consisted of two different
substances—mind and matter (the doctrine of Cartesian dualism). He held that
mathematics was the supreme science.
[46] It should be noted that René Descartes had no intention of
promoting a philosophical system that excluded God from the equation. In fact,
Descartes reasoned from his own existence that a God must exist. See: Brown,
Colin, Philosophy & the Christian
Faith, 51.
[47] Johnston, Graham, Preaching to a Postmodern World, 25.
[48] Brown, Colin, Philosophy
& the Christian Faith, 68.
[49] Pojman, Louis P., What Can We
Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomas Learning, 2001, 16.
[50] The term ‘modern scepticism’ is used to differentiate it from
ancient scepticism that goes back at least as far as Socrates who frequently
began an enquiry: ‘We ought to investigate this.’ The Greek word means to
enquire or investigate. See: Pojman, Louis P., What Can We Know An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 27.
[51] Polluck, John L., and Joseph Cruz, Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, Landham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1999, 2.
[52] In postmodernism, ‘scepticism’ has been replaced with ‘suspicion’.
[53] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 35-36.
[54] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 37.
[55] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 37.
[56] Brown, Colin, Philosophy and
the Christian Faith, 129.
[57] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 35.
[58] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 35.
[59] Brown, Colin, Philosophy and
the Christian Faith, 91.
[60] Brown, Colin, Philosophy and
the Christian Faith, 96.
[61] Schaeffer, Francis A., Escape
from Reason, in The Complete Works of
Francis A. Schaeffer, vol.
[62] Schaeffer, Francis A., Escape
from Reason, in The Complete Works of
Francis A. Schaeffer, 233.
[63] Schaeffer, Francis A., Escape
from Reason, in The Complete Works of
Francis A. Schaeffer, 237.
[64] Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted
Christian Belief, New York: OUP, 2000, 422-423. See also: Erickson, Millard
J., The Postmodern World: Discerning the
Times and the Spirit of our Age, Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002, 117.
[65] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 37.
[66] Grenz, Stanley J., A Primer on Postmodernism, 2-3.
[67] Tarnas, Richard., The Passion of the Western Mind, 279.
[68] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996, 61.
[69] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 37.
[70] As Henry notes, ‘The intellectual order of the
world was relocated in human reasoning. This control over nature and history
would free humankind from…a predetermined universe.’ Henry, Carl F.,
‘Postmodernism: The New Spectre?’ 36.
[71] Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Peter H. Nidditch,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975, 704.
[72] Baucham, Richard, God and the Crisis of Freedom: Biblical and Contemporary Reflections,
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.
[73] Oden, Thomas C., ‘The Death of Modernity and
Postmodern Evangelical Spirituality’ 24.
[74] Jones, O. R., ‘Foundationalism’, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed.
Ted Honderich, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995, 289.
[75] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 61.
[76] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 59-60. Carson points out that, ‘this quest for
certainty was supported by seminal thinkers like Locke, Kant, and Hegel; it
reached out to embrace almost every discipline’, 60.
[77] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 63.
[78] Cahoone,
Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism,
482, fn.1. See also: Waugh, Patricia, Postmodernism: A Reader, London: Edward Arnold, 1992, 1.
[79] Lyotard,
Jean-Francois, ‘The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge’, From Modernism to Postmodernism,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 482.
[80] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 63.
[81] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 113.
[82] Anderson, Walter Truett. Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, 5. Carl F. Henry points out that many thinkers are convinced that
postmodernism has ‘the status of a major irreversible movement.’ Henry, Carl
F., ‘Postmodernism: The New Spectre?’ 35.
[83] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, 5.
[84] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, 5.
[85] Oden, Thomas C., ‘So What Happens after
Modernity? A Postmodern Agenda for Evangelical Theology’, The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.
David. Dockery, 395. See also: Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 40.
[86] Oden, Thomas C., ‘So What Happens after
Modernity?’ 395.
[87] Carson, D. A., Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church: Understanding a Movement
and Its Implications, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005, 78.
[88] Carson, D. A., Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church, 79.
[89] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 114
[90] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 100.
[91] Miller, James B., ‘The Emerging Postmodern
World,’ Postmodern Theology: Christian
Faith in a Pluralist World, ed. Frederic B. Burnham, San Francisco: Harper
& Row, 1989, 11.
[92] Tarnas, Richard, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have
Shaped Our World Views, 399.
[93] Allen Ronald J., ‘Preaching and Postmodernism’, 35.
[94] Allen Ronald J., ‘Preaching and Postmodernism’, 36.
[95] Allen Ronald J., ‘Preaching and Postmodernism’, 36
[96] Allen Ronald J., ‘Preaching and Postmodernism’, 37.
[97] Rorty, Richard, ‘Solidarity or Objectivity?’ in
Cahoone, Lawrence, ed. From Modernism to
Postmodernism, 574.
[98] Rorty, Richard, ‘Solidarity or Objectivity?’ in
Cahoone, Lawrence, ed. From Modernism to
Postmodernism, 574.
[99] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, xii.
[100] Often the ‘powerful’ are identified as
Christian, white, European males.
[101] Norris, Christopher, The Truth About Postmodernism, Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993, 301.
[102] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, 183.
[103] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New Spectre?’ 41.
[104] Oden, Thomas C., ‘The Death of Modernity and
Postmodern Evangelical Spirituality’, 24.
[105] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 37.
[106] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 37.
[107] Henry, Carl F. ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 37.
[108] Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism, 7.
[109] Oliver, Martyn. History of Philosophy: Great Thinkers from 600 B.C. to the Present Day,
173.
[110] Oliver, Martyn. History of Philosophy: Great Thinkers from 600 B.C. to the Present Day,
172.
[111] Henry, Carl F. ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 42.
[112] Cahoone, Lawrence. From Modernism to Postmodernism, 271.
[113] Cahoone, Lawrence, From Modernism to Postmodernism.
[114] Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological
Understanding of Postmodernism’, 526.
[115] Adams, Daniel J., ‘Toward a Theological
Understanding of Postmodernism’, 526.
[116] In an essay, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, ‘What is truth? A mobile
army of metaphors, metonyms and anthropomorphisms---in short, a sum of human
relations, which have been enhanced, transposed and embellished poetically and
rhetorically, and which after long use seem form, canonical and obligatory to a
people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what
they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which
have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer coins.’
Nietzsche, Friedrich, ‘Truth and the Extra-moral Sense’, The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kauffmann, New York: Viking,
1968, 46-47.
[117] Grenz, Stanley J., ‘Star Trek and the Next Generation:
Postmodernity and the Future of Evangelical Theology’, in The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed.
David S. Dockerty, Wheaton, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001, 113.
[118] Erickson, Millard, Truth or
Consequences: The Promise and Perils of Postmodernism, Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2001, 113.
[119] Grenz, Stanley, ‘Star Trek and the Next Generation: Postmodernity
and the Future of Evangelical Theology’, 78.
[120] Erickson, Millard J., Postmodernizing
The Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism, 86.
[121] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 48.
[122] Grenz, ‘Stanley J., Star Trek and the Next Generation:
Postmodernity and the Future of Evangelical Theology’, 79.
[123] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 54.
[124] Foucault, Michel. ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’, Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow, New
York: Pantheon, 1984, 78-79.
[125] Lyotard, Jean Francois, The
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, xxiii-xxv.
[126] Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural
Change, Cambridge Mass: Blackwell, 1989, 9.
[127] Erickson, Millard J., Postmodernizing
the Faith: Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism, 110.
[128] Harvey, David, The Condition
of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, 9.
[129] Harvey, David, The Condition
of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, 9.
[130] Harvey, David, The Condition
of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, 9.
[131] Lyotard, Jean Francois, ‘The Postmodern
Condition: A Report on Knowledge’
[132] Tarnas, Richard, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have
Shaped Our World Views, 402.
[133] Phillips, Timothy R. and Dennis L. Ockholm, Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern
World, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, 13.
[134] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 53.
[135] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to
Contemporary Thought and Culture, 53
[136] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to
Contemporary Thought and Culture, 53. It is an interesting argument, but
the data could equally support the assertion that human minds tend to organise
thought with contrasts in mind, not necessarily to oppress, but merely to
understand.
[137] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to
Contemporary Thought and Culture, 56.
[138] Erickson, Millard J., The Postmodern World: Discerning the Times
and the Spirit of our Age, Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002, 81.
[139] Grenz, Stanley J., ‘Star Trek and
the Next Generation: Postmodernity and the Future of Evangelical Theology’, 79.
[140] Rorty, Richard, Philosophy
and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979,
176.
[141] Rorty, Richard, Philosophy
and the Mirror of Nature, 10.
[142] Grenz, Stanley J., Primer on
Postmodernism, 8.
[143] Grenz, Stanley J., Primer on
Postmodernism, 8.
[144] Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 52.
[145] Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 52.
[146] Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, 19.
[147] Fairlamb, Horace L., Critical Conditions: Postmodernity and the
Questions of Foundations, 5.
[148] According to Cahoone, Derrida and Foucault are
the ‘two most famous instigators of what is called postmodernism.’ Cahoone,
Lawrence. From Modernism to Postmodernism,
336.
[149] Allen, Diognes, ‘The End of the Modern World,’
339.
[150] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 114.
[151] Grenz, Stanley J., A Primer on Postmodernism, 5-7
[152] Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is There a Meaning in This Text? 20
[153] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, 90.
[154] Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is There a Meaning in This Text? 53.
[155] Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is There a Meaning in This Text? 53.
[156] McGrath, Alister, Christian Theology, 114.
[157] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 36.
[158] Phillips, Timothy R. and Dennis L. Ockholm, Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern
World, 13.
[159] Tarnas, Richard, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have
Shaped Our World Views, 397.
[160] Henry, Carl F., ‘Postmodernism: The New
Spectre?’ 41.
[161] D. A. Carson distinguishes empirical or
cultural pluralism from philosophical pluralism. Empirical pluralism refers to
the growing cultural diversity in our society. Empirical pluralism is a reality
and not a philosophical viewpoint. Philosophical pluralism is the belief that
all religions are more or less true; no one religion is inherently superior to
others. Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 19.
[162] Oliver, Martyn, History of Philosophy: Great Thinkers from 600 B.C. to the Present Day,
173.
[163] Hall, David, ‘Modern China and the Postmodern
West’, in Cahoone, L. (ed.) From
Modernism to Postmodernism, 699.
[164] Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready-to-Wear
Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern
World, xi.
[165] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 77.
[166] Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, 86.
[167] Allen, Diogenes, ‘The End of the Modern World’,
342.
[168] Allen, Diogenes, ‘The End of the Modern World’,
343.
[169] Rowe, William L., The Cosmological Argument, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1975.
[170] Allen, Diogenes, ‘The End of the Modern World’
343.
[171] Allen, Diogenes, ‘The End of the Modern World’, 343.
[172] Grenz, Stanley J., A Primer on Postmodernism, 2.
[173] Lakeland, Paul, Postmodernity: Christian
Identity in a Fragmented Age, 13.
[174] Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural
Change, 12-13.
[175] David Lyon suggests the term ‘postmodern’ first
came into popular usage after the publication of Jean-Francois Lyotard’s, The Postmodern Condition. See: Lyon,
David, Postmodernity: Concepts in Social Thought, 2nd
ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999, 16.
[176] Lyon. David, Postmodernity: Concepts in
Social Thought, 16.
[177] Netland, Harold, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith
& Mission, Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 2001, 59.
[178] Netland, Harold, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission, 74.
[179] Netland, Harold, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission, 74.
[180] Netland, Harold, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission, 85-89.
[181] Oden, Thomas C., After Modernity…What? Agenda for Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990,
[182] Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural
Change, 27.
[183] Grenz, Stanley J., Primer on Postmodernism, 4.
[184] Grenz, Stanley J., Primer on Postmodernism, 4.
[185] Grenz, Stanley J., Primer on Postmodernism, 4.
[186] Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 52.
[187] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 38.
[188] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture, 38.
[189] Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 93.
[190] Christians and postmodernists are not necessarily two distinct
groups of people as many Christians are influenced by postmodernism and vice versa. Just as not all Christians
are five-point Calvinists, not all postmoderns subscribe to all the ‘doctrines’
of postmodernism.
[191] Pojman, Louis P., What Can We
Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, xiii.
[192] Many philosophers have observed this critical condition.
Foundationalism asserts that a belief is justified if it is self-evident,
incorrigible or evident to the senses. But this statement fails to meet its own
test. Furthermore, since foundationalism depends on fundamental beliefs upon
which other non fundamental beliefs rely, there appears to be an insufficient
quantity of basic beliefs to support all other beliefs.
[193] Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted
Christian Belief, 436.
[194] Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 97.
[195] Derrida, Jacques, Deconstruction
in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, ed. John D. Caputo, New
York: Fordham University Press, 1997, 131-132.
[196] Cited earlier as: ‘what our peers will let us get away with saying’
in Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 176.
[197] Pojman, Louis P., What Can We
Know? An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, 10.
[198] Rorty, Richard., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature,
10.
[199] Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted
Christian Belief, 430.
[200] This is the view of Stanley Fish and by extension Derrida and
Foucault. See: Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 52.
[201] Groothuis, Douglas, Truth
Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism,
Downers Grove, Ill,: InterVarsity Press, 2000, 94.
[202] Groothuis, Douglas, Truth
Decay:Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism, 95
[203] Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted
Christian Belief, 433.
[204] Notwithstanding the fact that the Genesis account of creation was one of the Judaic books of the
Pentateuch for two millennia prior to the advent of Christianity and continues
to be a Judaic sacred text. Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted Christian Belief, 436.
[205] Such as the colonial power’s version of reality as distinct from the
oppressed/colonised perspective. Walter Truett Anderson illustrates the shift
in worldview with an imaginary interview with three umpires who explain their
philosophy of umpiring: ‘One says, “there’s balls and there’s strikes and I
call ‘em the way they are.” The second umpire responds, ““there’s balls and
there’s strikes and I call ‘em the way I see ‘em”. The third says, “there’s
balls and there’s strikes and they ain’t nothin’ until I call ‘em.” Anderson
explains that the first umpire is objectivist. He operates on the basis of
naïve realism. The second umpire is constructivist. He sees the pursuit of
truth as something to work towards. The third umpire is a postmodernist. See:
Anderson, Walter Truett, Reality Isn’t
What It Used To Be: Theatrical Politics, Ready to Wear Religion, Global Myths,
Primitive Chic, and Other Wonders of the Postmodern World, 75.
[206] Lyotard, Jean Francois, The
Postmodern Condition, xxiii-xxv.
[207] ‘Culture’ here refers primarily to Western culture but postmodernism is growing in global culture as well. The emergence of modernisation, globalisation and urbanisation is bringing the ideas once espoused only in the university campuses to the far reaches of the globe. Certainly there are distinctions that could be made. In some local communities that are less affected by globalisation, these ideas will still remain foreign, but as the world becomes smaller postmodernism will begin to shape those local communities as well. See: Netland, Harold, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission, 81-90.
[208] Johnston, Graham, Preaching
to a Postmodern World, Grand Rapids: IVP, 2001, 15.
[209] Grenz, Stanley J., ‘Star Trek and the Next Generation:
Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology’, 75.
[210] Erickson, Millard J., The
Postmodern World: Discerning the Times and the Spirit of our Age, 13.
[211] Harvey, David, The Condition
of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, 38.
[212] Harvey, David, The Condition
of Postmodernity An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, 38.
[213] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Culture, 40.
[214] Veith, Gene Edward Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Culture, 40.
[215] I am not suggesting that preaching will be powerless or futile without such knowledge. God has in the past spoken through an ass to correct one of his prophets! Spirit-filled, Christ-centred expository preaching can accomplish God’s redemptive and transformative purposes even if the preacher knows nothing about postmodernism.
[216] I believe an inductive
approach to expository preaching would be most appropriate in today’s culture.
I would require considerable space to explain this. However, in brief, it could
be said that an inductive approach permits hearers of preaching to encounter
the Word of God in a manner that allows them to come to a shared ownership of
the conclusions, inferences and application of the sermon.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment