The problem with postmodernity

Grant Sandercock-Brown deconstructs a cliché

he problem is I’m not a postmodern. It’s not a matter of choice. I’d like to be an emergent postmodern Christian (as a label, it has much more cachet than solidly evangelical). It’s just that I can’t be.

It’s not a lack of understanding. It’s not that I object to postmodernity’s vague beginnings. It doesn’t really matter whether it started with Nietzsche or architecture or Foucault. It’s not that there are as many definitions of it as there are writers on it. It’s not even that I got marked down in an essay for failing to differentiate between postmodernity and postmodernism (apparently postmodernity is “postmodernism expressed”).

The problem is that, unless I have misunderstood the various theories on postmodernism, at its heart it is a rejection of absolute truth. To the postmodern, there is no overarching meta-narrative that gives meaning to our existence. And therein lies the rub. For me, the Christian story is, in fact, that very meta-narrative. For me, truth is not relative or subjective. And I would humbly suggest that that is the case for all who confess “Jesus is Lord.” What I am saying is that one can’t be a postmodern and a Christian. It just won’t work. It’s not a paradox you can hold in tension but an eternal impossibility. Jesus is the truth. God is.

I may have misunderstood the term of course. If by “postmodern Christian” you mean that you are anti-institutional, suspicious of religious dogma and a fan of relational leaders rather than autocrats, that is something different. It probably just means you are under 40 or at least wish you were.

That is not to doubt the effect on the Christian tradition of modernity and whatever it is that is following modernity. There is no question that Protestantism bought into modernity wholesale. In fact, the Reformation may have even been the midwife for the whole enlightenment enterprise. That’s why Protestants were so surprised and affronted when science, the best and biggest expression of the enlightenment, like a dog grown too big for its master, turned around and bit Christianity right in the dogmas. Shocked and alarmed, Protestant’s reactions were two-fold. Some turned the Bible into “The Christian’s Book of Facts,” retreated into fundamentalism and loudly barked back. Others, subdued by the bite of Science, lapsed into a colourless liberalism and, smiling politely, have been in failing health ever since.

Of course for the last hundred years many Christians knew they had to believe more then their liberal siblings and claim less than their fundamentalist friends. They knew there had to be a via media somewhere. Thus they were mightily relieved when science, reason and progress were unmasked as merely stories by the literary criticism of Derrida et al. In fact, the nineties seemed to be some sort of evangelical feeding frenzy as Christian writers embraced, dissected and discoursed on postmodernity with alarming enthusiasm.

That’s OK. They were probably right to do so. We now understand that atheism is no longer our enemy but rather a subjective pluralism that is much less “anti” Christianity. The Richard Dawkinses of this world, though still strident, are fading. Spirituality is back on the agenda. Mystery is respected. We are returning to our Christian roots. There is a deserved suspicion of “the assured consensus of modern scholarship” when it comes to biblical studies. Many are, I suspect, like Thomas Oden: “My experience as a countercultural radical taught me not to trust anyone over 30. My tardy learning is teaching me that it may be increasingly difficult in divinity to trust any writer under 300 [inches] (So What Happens After Modernity, 2001). Acknowledging the end of Christendom and taking our place in a pagan pluralist world will have its advantages. It certainly does not mean the end for us Christians. Such a world was, after all, our birthplace. We will still be able to tell, and perhaps more importantly, authentically live out our true Christian story.

All that is to say I look forward to engaging with, and am intrigued by, postmodernism. There is an “after modern” world emerging. We need to understand it. It is where we live. And of course it is the world God loves. It’s just that of all the postmoderns I know, I’m not one of them.

Writer: A corps officer (pastor) at Chatswood Corps (church) on Sydney’s North Shore, Grant Sandercock-Brown is in his mid-40s, married and has three children. An associate lecturer (in New Testament) at the College of Pastor Education (CoFE) and President of the CoFE Association, he is also the editor of the Practical Theologian a twice yearly journal published by the CoFE. Having started writing after a fight with Hodgkin’s disease, he’s since been published in Pipeline, The Salvationist (UK), New Frontier (USA West) and Horizons (Canada) and has been asked to be a regular columnist for The Officer.

What’s all this about postmodernism?

Friday, March 30th, 2007 Ecclesia, Thought

17 Comments to The problem with postmodernity

It was Doug Pagitt that first said that some will minister to postmoderns, some will minister with postmoderns, and others will minister as postmoderns.

Within those are firmly stuck in Modernity is a tendency to react to the latter of these groups and consequently they place a great deal of emphasis on the ‘rejection of truth’ idea of Postmodernity. They fix on this and claim that the resultant collapse of the meta-narrative shows a rejection of classical Christianity.

However, for the former two groups who seek to minister in a postmodern world, understanding postmodernity is the pursuit of finding a way to speak to the growing number of people who understand the world from a postmodern viewpoint.

I’m glad that you seek to engage with postmoderns. There are some who seem to have already written off those who are on this path as having lost their nerve. Thankfully, on the whole, these people tend to be those who are not open to any questioning of their “denominational distinctiveness”, and have swallowed the belief that there are no questions left to be answered within Christianity, and especially how that is expressed in daily life.

Graeme on March 30th, 2007

Thanks for a well written piece.
I agree, you can not be a postmodern and a Christian (and I’m under 30). I have observed in evangelical and Army circles that “postmodern” is more of a buzzword or codeword for relevance. Similarly there is increasing sympathy for emergent leaders who promote a humble epistemology or a generous orthodoxy. Staking my life on the resurrection of Jesus Christ is anything but a humble epistemological statement. Just because I am embrace a relevant mission does not mean that my understanding of truth changes.
Thanks, ASM3

Andy Miller on March 30th, 2007

Thanks for this article. You have helpfully pointed out the difference between modernism and postmodernism for Christianity.

I thought I would write and provide you with my different point of view.
I consider myself both a postmodernist (as you describe it) and a Christian. It is a position I have not chosen but one forced on me by what I know to be true. Although not as tight and tidy as Christianity in modernity, I think it is a necessary conclusion. I admit it leaves me in tension between competing ideas that are not always easy to reconcile.

I am faced with reality:

1. The problem of evil, be it explained by Nietzsche or the Bible and evidenced by the Holocaust or an even more contemporary example, makes it impossible to believe in an all powerful and all benevolent personal God. Suffice it to say that either God is (a) malevolent and omnipotent or (b) benevolent but not omnipotent. I believe God is the latter, which I believe makes Christianity still plausible. And it is to this God that I now see that the Church and the Bible have been witnesses.

2. Modern scholarship has taken away the possibility of any fundamentalist reading of the biblical texts. Pretending to the contrary while ignoring scientific approaches to interpreting the Bible is deeply unsatisfying at best and causes all kinds of theological problems at worst. I understand the angst this causes evangelicals. But ignoring evidence that the earth is round did not make the earth flatter for those Christians of yesteryear who believed it! I do believe that doctrine #1 for Salvationists is reconcilable with a “lower”, more human and realistic understanding of the Bible.

Where does this leave me? It leaves me believing in a God who is less known and more mysterious than I previously thought. It also leaves me believing in a fallible Church that is guiding people to truth.

A post modern Christian,
J.

John Norton on March 30th, 2007

Grant,
Thanks for an interesting article. I found one of your comments particularly worth mentioning:

“If by “postmodern Christian” you mean that you are anti-institutional, suspicious of religious dogma and a fan of relational leaders rather than autocrats, that is something different. It probably just means you are under 40 or at least wish you were.”

This is probably the funniest thing I’ve read all year. Maybe this says something more about me? Anyways, thanks for giving some perspective on postmodernism and living as a follower on Christ on the other side of Christendom.

Bramwell Pearce

Bram Pearce on March 30th, 2007

“Bit Christianity right in the dogmas.” I love that. An interesting read, Grant, thanks. Everything, the tensions, the questions, it is all sense and wisdom.
Er, except that whole ‘can’t be Christian and postmodern’ statment. Seems a bit ludicrous.
It is not a case of choosing to be postmodern or choosing not to be. The reason whole periods of history can be classified as they are is because the impact on peoples paradigms is so strong.
I simply can’t just coerce my mind into not being dubious about monopolies on truth. You say God is truth, fair enough. But who the heck is God? Anyone who claims they know who God is in all Gods mystery and depth is disillusioned. We surely only know a piece of God?
(We don’t ask questions about everything just to wind people up, it is a genuine curiosity and dubiousness.)
Perhaps I should read this article and say ‘right, mind, the battle is on’ and spend my time tackling my paradigm to the ground. But I would rather just get on with loving God, loving people and attempting to inspire others towards a journey where they might find their own peice of God to know.

Another Postmodern Christian,
Lucy

Lucy on March 31st, 2007

Just another thought… surely postmodernism does not stand for the proposition that truth is relative. If it does then it is not helpful and few would identify with it. Except perhaps for anarchists and nihilists (and they are few), absolute truth is accepted by pretty much everyone including those who would identify with the postmodern label. Is that not right?

I mean, how can one really believe that truth is relative? Even those who want to deny it have trouble escaping the truth of gravity (try jumping off a building) or the truth of love (try stealing a child from its mother). Unless you want to deny logic and opt for some kind of dream world, absolute truth cannot be denied.

So I think it is silly to suggest that postmodernism stands for the proposition that truth is relative. It must stand for something else or it is just a useless phrase.

So what is postmodernism?

In my opinion postmodernism holds a higher view of truth than modernity ever did. Postmodernism means that a higher standard for truth is required and that we should not declare something to be true unless we are certain it is. Postmodernism is much less apt to declare something certain. The problem with modernity, both in Chrisitianity and without, was not in the belief in absolute truth but in declaring things to be certain and true when they were not. And this was done despite declarations about “scientific proof” and “absolute certainty”.

In the context of Christianity, modernism led to declarations of certainty that do not stand the test of truth. Postmodernists see those errors and are loathe to repeat them. So postmodernists are skeptical - maybe skeptical towards authority figures but only because of their abuse of power in the past.

Postmodernism is a view, in my opinion, that says, hey, wait a minute, let’s investigate and see what we can know for sure and what is uncertain. And there is a lot more uncertain than certain. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable. It would be nice to go back to the comfort that modernity gave us but it is better to know the truth.

John Norton on March 31st, 2007

I did mean to be provocative and mischievous but I did not mean to be ludicrous. I certainly did mean to have a mild dig at the almost narcissistic fervour with which some Christians have examined and explained themselves as postmoderns.

However I’m not sure I’m wrong. Lyotard said that the postmodern age is marked by an ‘incredulity towards meta-narratives’. Literary criticism says that all stories are relative and contextual, none are more true than any other, they are just more or less powerful. Marxism is a story, democracy is a story even science is a story. However, I believe that God is not a human construct or discourse. I believe that Jesus’ life death and resurrection was the pivotal moment in human history. A story of redemption written by a God who stands outside human history, unaffected by the labels we apply to it. I do not claim to know all truth but I do believe I serve the one who is the truth. I do know God. Not in the sense that I know all of God, but I can certainly know something about God, know God through Jesus. I think there are probably some Christians who agree with me.

I’m wary of Christians who too quickly label themselves as postmoderns. Truly Lucy, if all we have is our own story, of our own construction, if the nihilists are right, then we are without hope. Recognise that, Nietzsche’s fable of the madman who cries out “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him”, is a cry of despair.

Hoiwever, at the end of the day, who am I to object if Christians wish to see themselves as postmodern? ‘Postmodern Christian’ might, in some sense be a meaningful label. Emergent evangelicals are less concerned with Christianity as a set of abstract propositions. And that’s a good thing. There is a rediscovery of a Christian orthodoxy which is also a good thing. There is also a willingness to speak with and listen to those outside the Christian faith. That’s an excellent thing. But remember, to be a Christian is in some sense to be countercultural. Some Christians are buying into postmodernity with exactly the same enthusiasm that some bought into modernity. And you wouldn’t want to get bitten in the dogmas again would you?

Grant on April 1st, 2007

Sorry John I was posting a reply to Lucy when yours came up.

Actually I’m pretty sure that for most postmoderns, the truth of an idea (as opposed to a piece of data) IS relative. Maybe I’ve got it wrong. Perhaps someone else may care to respond to John’s definition of postmodernity?

Grant on April 1st, 2007

I think that John has got a real point. One of the problems of modernity was that the ‘absolute truth’ that it offered was in reality still not absolute. Indeed it is this insistence on absolutes that pits the ‘fundamental conservative’ wing of every worldview against those of the other. Even those who claim to be ‘liberal’ have their own fundamental thoughts on what is true.

Postmodernism has grown up in a world where these truths are being questioned. Not necessarily rejected, but questioned. Strangely, within Christianity it seems to be those with the most strongly held views on what ‘absolute truth’ is that are most vocal in their opposition to postmodern thinking. However, what also may be true is that God is impossible to put into the box that modernity, especially through evangelicalism, has put Him into.

In my opinion, postmodern Christians are saying that maybe God isn’t as tightly confined as the Church seems to want to insist He is. Maybe we can learn from the various different ‘absolute truths’ of Christianity and, in doing so, find that God blows the box apart!

Graeme on April 1st, 2007

Thanks Grant for your thoughts, I find that they ring true with my own understanding and experience of my faith.
I think that those of the emerging church, whilst reaching into some area’s of our community never touched before by the Church, are walking into the dangerous ground of deconstructing the body of Christ. Suspicion of Authority and perhaps rejection of some tradition perhaps leads to a fragmented understanding of the Christ story.
If the body is fragmented then who keeps the story intact?

Yet the postmodern world view allows those stories to be told. This maybe the greatest advantage to sharing our faith we have ever had in our own time.

Christ sends us into the postmodern world not to be postmodern, but to share the Story of Jesus Christ.

It is that story that reminds the church of its foundation and allows redemption to be found.

David Janssen on April 1st, 2007

While I was working on my MSW, we were quite pressured to accept postmodernist, pluralist doctrine in order to be proper, ethical non-biased social workers. The main catechism was a course called “Social Justice”. While a few students referred to it as an indoctrination course, the professors really believed that we had to accept that there was no absolute truth… and that such a statement was not an incredibly powerful, sweeping absolute truth claim and that their activity was in no way or form indoctrination, although we clearly had to change our views (whatever they might have been prior could not have been good enough).

The problem with the absolute truth of postmodernism (that there is none) is that it does not recognize what it is, does not name its story (although I believe John has) or its claim to legitimacy.

So I would like to agree with John and Grant in their disagreement. 1) The official doctrine of postmodernism is there is no absolute truth and meta-narratives are to be rejected - but a proper postmodern probably would not put it that way. 2) The real-life practice is that everybody breaks down under the pressure of commitment to individualized truth claims and it becomes obvious that there are universals. (Otherwise, we would not bother with a postmodernist social justice course! If your truth is yours and mine is mine, what do I care if your truth leads you to think … unless it harms somebody else, which then means there is a higher criteria than individualized truth - somehow some set of common values have to be considered…If so, how and on whose terms?)
3) What many of the folks who consider themselves postmodern and Christian or Christians who can find some redeeming value in postmodernity may believe is that - there is absolute truth, but knowing it absolutely, entirely is not possible. “You cannot fully understand the Lord God on the crutches of the human mind” (Alexander Men)

I find hardcore postmodernism untenable, but it seems honest to me that we need the humility of recognizing we come to the Lord, the Scripture and each other fallibly, limited in perception and comprehension. I tend to doubt that “moderns” eschewed such humility in full, but, likely, we all do in part.

What I find useful about postmodernism is the push to be self-aware enough to try to understand what is influencing what we see, hear, believe and do and name those things. Unfortunately, in the academic literature that leads to a lot of essays that start with such “compelling” introductions as “I am a woman in her 30s, heterosexual, White” - which is merely a list of labels and probably of limited value from an analytic and literary perspective.

It is useful for me to consider cultural and contexual placement in how we understand and embrace truth as an American in Russia, with a home group mixed of Russians and Africans. We share the truth of Christ as Savior, but we certainly come as we are before Him differently. We come to Scripture differently. Coming to both together is quite enriching… as parts of truth that we might never know become revealed through other people. You don’t need such a cross-cultural group to have that, of course.

What I find most useful about postmodernist thoughts is the skepticism of big solutions. Despite all the inherent contradictions of this philosophy, it is the recognition that people with their big solutions have often created far more trouble than good that is quite appealing, but also potentially apathy-promoting.

It’s certainly difficult to say how well postmodernism reflects the values and life choices of the people we meet. I do find that it is a philosophy conveyed through mass media (in Russia and US). The pseudoreality of mass media is certainly one that is fractured, largely negative, without answers…and that promotes
a guarded attitude toward human nature and capacity and all-encompassing solutions. Actually, this guarded attitude toward people, I find right on - so long as it is wisely guarded and not cynical and dismissive. And in truth, the solution of Christ so often fails to indicate practical, concrete solutions to the small and large problems that I encounter each day. Which train to take? Which person to hire? etc.

But it is also a philosophy that prides itself on a lack of a metanarrative. Therefore, it is a way of thinking that does not seek redemption or healing.

I think this is where we can pull a Paul, “We can see by your skepticism that you understand the value of humility, but there is something better than skepticism - there is humility before a healing Lord Jesus.”

Maureen Diffley on April 2nd, 2007

Thanks for these comments, Maureen.

Two questions for you:

1. You wrote: “What I find most useful about postmodernist thoughts is the scepticism of big solutions.” I agree. But how do you reconcile a healthy scepticism of “big solutions” with evangelical Christianity, which at its heart is a “big solution”? I tend to deal with the problem posed by my question by moving away from evangelicalism. You?

2. Your second last paragraph states: “But it is also a philosophy that prides itself on a lack of a metanarrative. Therefore, it is a way of thinking that does not seek redemption or healing.” I am not sure I understand this statement.
Just because postmodernism is sceptical of metanarratives does not mean that it “prides itself on a lack” of a metanarrative or prefers not to have one. Postmodernism just wants to be certain that if we are relying on a metanarrative that it is true/correct/reliable. I think a postmodernist would prefer to be able to rely on a metanarrative (define: an all encompassing story that explains everything) if it could be shown to be true/correct/reliable. It is just that the postmodernist is sceptical about the metanarrative’s claims at being all encompassing.

Further, why does postmodernity have to deny or not seek redemption or healing? I think those are universal themes that can be accommodated within postmodern thought.

John Norton on April 3rd, 2007

I personally find a relationship with Christ to be a whole new adventure, filled with its own challenges. It’s a solution with new questions, dilemmas, excitement, and so on. As for evangelism, I always had a problem with the “you’ve got a problem - hell”, here’s the solution “Jesus” sales pitch. It’s true, but loving Jesus offers much more than a way out of hell. So I always felt it was a cheap commercial for God, who deserves a lot better. I find that I’m sharing faith more and more easily because I never feel that I’m selling something.

2a) We’ll need to disagree on the metanarrative thing because everything I’ve read is pure rejection of any possibility that there could be one.

2b) You’ve got me on the redemption and healing issue because while I find those to be metanarrative themes and writing that way, it’s true that they don’t have to be a part of an explicit metanarrative. So you’re right. I am intrigued when they are approached in apparently post-modernist film and music that doesn’t quite get to why we feel we and the world itself have the need for redemption and healing. To me the recurrence of themes - indicates the presence of universals… to me a sign of a larger story behind it all.

Maureen Diffley on April 3rd, 2007

John,
with all due respect, you argue your case like a modern and you are arguing for a definition of post modernity that is at oddds with everything I have ever read on postmodernity. As you will see, I too argue my case like a modern. But I have come out of the closet and admitted to it. I, feeling a little miffed, do not think that my view is “silly”. So if I may comment on your post.

From your first post:
1) in post modernity ‘evil’ is a metaphor not a problem that has to be answered.One man’s evil is another man’s convenience and thats OK.
2) For the postmodern there is no such thing as a ’scientific approach to interpreting the bible’. In fact quite the reverse.
3) In postmodernity “God” is just a metaphor not a mysterious eternal being. You can think of him as omnipotnet or not it doesn’t matter, either is valid. Its not a problem either way.

From your second post:
1) Postmoderns do believe that truth is relative (and yes, as Maureen has pointed out, this is the illogical truth claim of the postmodern)
2) Postmoderns are quite happy to deny logic as it is the hand maiden of ‘reason’, the rejected meta narrative that underpinned the enlightenment
3) You keep speaking of modernity as if it goes hand in hand with evangelicalism. It does not. Modernity, via its offsprings secular humanism and science, has been Christianity’s biggest enemy since the time of Descartes.
4) Postmodernity does not ‘hold a higher view of truth than modernity’

from your third post:
1) You rightly point out the postmodern Christian’s problem if one rejects big solutions when all sorts of Christians(not just evangelicals) believe that Jesus is in fact that big solution. Your answer to these irreconcilable positions is to move away from evangelicalism?
2) “Postmodernism just wants to be certain that if we are relying on a metanarrative that it is true/correct/reliable”. I assume you mean postmoderns (’postmodernism’ doesn’t want to’do’ anything). Really? You may be a sceptic, you may be an NTP in Myers-Briggs typology, you may be a cynic, you may have an enquiring mind but I suspect, at least from what I have read here, that you are not postmodern.

Postmodernity is not a philsophy or a school or even a generational label. It is a mood, a mood that if followed unreservedly is illogical, self-centred, chaotic and above all a mood of despair. There is no hope in postmodernity. Grace and love and forgiveness are just metaphors. In postmodernity, that is all we have, our subjectively interpreted metpahors told as our story. Life has no meaning other than the one we create for it. We stand at the centre of the universe, for it has no meaning without us, but we stand alone.

As I said John, many Christians call themselves postmodern and it doesn’t really matter if they do or not. I was merely trying to explain that there is something at the heart of psotmodernity that is irreconcialble with the Christian story, just as there was with modernity.

I guess I also wanted to remind a few “postmodern Christians” that reading Mike Frost and Brian Maclaren doesn’t make you a postmodern any more than reading Tolkien makes you a hobbit.

Grant on April 3rd, 2007

I would agree that there is only so far that we can travel down the road of postmodernism, just as there was only so far we could travel down the road of modernism (or should have traveled). To wholeheartedly adopt any “taste in universes ” (as C.S. Lewis said) is not only bad theology, but bad practice. Perspectives change, and we can learn from both modern and pomo thought (particularly that all of our ideas of truth are necessarily seen through lenses, and most often through the lenses of our age) without wedding ourselves to any. It is the great mistake of every age to think it’s views and values would be eternal.

But Evangelicalism certainly did wed itself to the modern project, as antithetical as it turned out to be to faith. (Even the use of concepts like “big solution” betray how much we have bought into the modern way of viewing the world.) And now post-evangelicals want to wed themselves to the post-modern project, which to me seems unwise. Better to use what is good, and to recognise that in the end no “ism” equals the gospel. They are only viewpoints through which we currently understand the gospel.

So where postmodernism is a reaction to the excesses of modernism we can often get on board. We must never get both feet on board (to strain a metaphor) because postmodernism is not the gospel either, and we must try to retain what perspective we can. But it can help illuminate the extent to which we have equated modern values (progress, analysis, compartmentalisation, humanistic reason, absolute truth, standardisation, etc…) with pillars of the Christian faith.

Postmodernism is not just a mood, though that is how most people will probably experience it. It is certainly a philosophy, primarily a deconstructive one, which stands right now as a corrective and which can certainly be taken too far. My best guess is that it will be seen as a phase in which the the road was cleared of debris before a new paradigm was created (or agreed upon). In that sense it can almost be viewed as the last phase of modernism.

Grace,

Aaron

aaron on April 6th, 2007

Thanks for your posts. I enjoyed this article and the discussion that followed.

Grant: You helpfully pointed out several flaws in my reasoning where I overstated my case. If nothing else, I think that postmodernism helpfully identifies the flaws in modernity.

Cheers.

John Norton on April 8th, 2007

reading through the thrust and parry of this forum, I feel like I’ve been to Mars Hill…

whatever the outcome (or lack of it..)may be, it is absolutely imperative that those of us who stand as people with a Message both see and try to engage appropriately with what is going on around us. this for the sake of our communication of what we believe to be the hope for a world desperately in need of redemption and purpose…

gary on April 9th, 2007

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend