What's a Postmodern, anyway?

Those of you that read me regularly know that I self-identify as a Postmodern. Some of you know what I mean by that; many might think they know but actually not know as much as they think!

I've been struggling lately with what sort of information to put into my cover letters as I send out my resume to various churches. I want to be clear about who I am and how the gears of my head turn, but I don't want to use words that will entice people to prejudge me too easily. "Postmodern" is just such a word. To that end, I'd like to officially declare why I call myself a Postmodern...

In the spirit of traditional theology, let me start by defining what I don't mean - the things that sometimes spring to mind when I say "postmodern". These things (that I don't believe) would include:

1.There's no such thing as absolute truth. Many, many people think this is what I mean when I say "postmodern". Since this is so common, it bears some discussion.

Let's be honest - there are some people that say "postmodern" and mean "I don't believe in absolute truth". But these people - at least in my world - are few and far between. Generally what they really mean is "I don't believe in a universally true religion" or some such. When you push the guy who says he doesn't believe in any absolutes, you usually find that he does, in fact, cling to some - namely:

- Murder is wrong.
- Tolerance is always the best way.
- Imperialism is wrong.
- Inclusion is always the best way.

...and the biggest absolute truth of all (for an American Postmodern):

The individual is king.

[Also, to be philosophically honest, they'd admit that their own truism ("There's no such thing as absolute truth") is self-defeating.]

It is my contention, then, that even when a self-described Postmodern says he doesn't believe in absolute truth, he doesn't really mean it absolutely.

2. Everything is relative.

[I remind you, this is a list of things I don't believe.]

The whole notion of Relativism needs to be defined more closely. There are those that contend that Postmoderns (since they don't believe in absolutes) are nothing but Relativists. While this is largely true, it still bears further scrutiny.

If the truth be known, Modernity brought us Relativism before Postmodernity did. In the world of Modernity, Relativism crept in because of Modernity's insistence that Religion/Morality was not a subject fit for "scientific/rational" inquiry. Since you couldn't test it in a lab, these subjects could not be empirically proven. Since they couldn't be empirically proven, they must be merely subjective determinations. Hence, Modernity proved fertile grounds for the now well-accepted dichotomy between Reason and Faith. This worldview basically encouraged people to keep their faith, but to keep it separate from the rest of their life. It became a Sunday-only phenomenon. Modernity's evil sidekick - Compartmentalization - did his bit and people could believe (for example) in both the Bible and macro-Evolution.

Not that I want to let Postmodernity off the hook! Postmoderns are even more guilty of Relativism than Moderns are/were. But there's a difference. Postmoderns reject the notion that "science" (or any metanarrative, for that matter) is on a different playing field than "religion". So the Modern way of looking at these two no longer works for them. But since Postmoderns hold tightly to the mantra that "there's nothing outside of the [con]text" (to paraphrase Derrida), they believe that no one can absolutely know right from wrong in all contexts, cultures, times or places. Hence, they too are Relativists. But I hope you understand that they are so for very different reasons - on different (and, frankly, more humble) grounds.

In the end, Relativism is Relativism I suppose - the net effect on society is the same. But please don't blame Postmodernity alone for Relativism (or it's evil brother, Pluralism).

3. What the church needs is revolution!

Lots of Emerging Church (EC) guys talk this way. As if all the work and toil of countless generations of Christians should be scrapped simply because those folk had the audacity to be ... Moderns! Say it isn't so! This sort of idle talk is foolishness, really. The EC folk bring up some excellent points. But when they wander off into the back alley of "Revolution" they've let the pendulum swing far too far.

Okay - that's the short list of things I definitely don't mean when I say I'm a Postmodern. So what exactly do I mean?

1. Rugged Individualism must die.

Far too many American Christians have this very Modern, and very silly, notion in their heads that they control their own destiny, that they can't count on anyone but themselves, and that they can do/be anything they want to be. At the risk of sounding rude, this is nonsense! Please, you Rugged Individualist reader, show me from the pages of God's Word where these ideas come from!

They're not there! The truth is that the entire text of the Bible is over and over again a manifesto for ... Community! We're in this thing (life) together, says the Scripture. We are to be co-dependent upon one another as we are all utter dependent upon God. We need each other. We must be passionately committed to deep community.

I recognize that this almost uniquely American trait has, in large part, been responsible for getting America to the lofty technological and economic pinnacle upon which she stands. I understand that without this trait America might never have become the America we know and love today.

But that was then. This is now.

To be Biblically honest in an increasingly shrinking world, we have no choice but to reject the "I" and embrace the "we".

2. Foundationalism is not true.

'What the heck is foundationalism', you ask? Basically, Foundationalism was another of Modernity's sidekicks. It taught that there is a magic black box (metaphorically, of course) that - if you put in the right data and logic - would spit out the absolute answers to life's questions. Whether mathematical, philosophical, psychological, or whatever... Mankind can ultimately get to the foundational truth (hence, Foundationalism) of every issue we put our minds to.

It's not true. And it's arrogant. We must therefore abandon it.

Here I could talk about the Noetic effects of sin - that is, the fact that the Fall of Adam and Eve effected not only our souls and our environment, but our minds as well. I could note that the sinful mind is inherently incapable of coming to foundational truth as a regular practice. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again, but not often!

But I could just as easily talk about how we all bring baggage to everything we analyze. We have biases, we have preconceived notions, we have presuppositions, we have acculturation, we have - in short - far too much subjectivity to be truly objective.

Before you label me as a heretic, hear me out. I do believe that mankind can know foundational truth. I just don't believe mankind can get to it on his/her own. It's only by the amazing power of God's Word that we can, in fact, know truth foundationally. To be honest, I might be able to argue that this (Postmodern-influenced) view of Scripture is higher (and humbler) than what Modernity gave us (Foundationalism). In fact, I think I can make that argument.

3. Experience is underrated.

In the 1980s, I don't think any conservative Evangelical or Fundamentalist church in America ever preached about the Holy Spirit. This is of course a bit hyperbolic, but there's a lot of truth to it! The great fear was that we be labelled "Charismatic"! For those of you not there (in the 1980s, that is) this was the functional equivalent of being labelled as a "Liberal" in these same churches today. It was bad stuff. Nobody wanted to be so accused or labelled. So the pendulum swung to the complete opposite and we virtually gave up any mention of one third of the Trinity. Silly, wasn't it?

Sadly, the same sort of things continues to happen in many Traditional model churches. [Incidentally, see this old post of mine for more on what I mean by "Traditional".] Clinging to both Modernity and the fear of Charismatics, these churches denounce any desire on the part of Christians to experience their faith. For them, knowing Jesus is pretty much strictly a phenomenon of the head. It's mental assent and mental faith. An occasional "warm and fuzzy" feeling is okay, but it's not to be sought after.

Thankfully men like Dr. Piper have blazed a trail through this nonsense. Postmoderns would widen this trail. To them (and me, I should note) the arts are a wonderful and fitting way to embrace and actualize one's faith. Whether its music, poetry, drama, video, painting, sketching, etc... these are all good and honest avenues to both express and deepen our faith. The Christian life is meant to be experienced! Who wants a merely mental faith? Nobody, really. Modernity and Traditional models have wanted to so strictly monitor what passes for an acceptable level of experience that they have literally stifled and suffocated Postmoderns right out of their churches.

Okay - I suppose now that I'm rapidly approaching the 1,600 word mark I should wrap things up.

I call myself a Postmodern because I am hard-wired by God to desire Community (not Rugged Individualism), to humbly (not Foundationally) approach Scripture, and to both know and feel my faith and my Saviour. There's more to it than that, to be honest. But these are three of the biggest worldview differences between me and you, if you're a Modern. I've couched them in sometimes emotional language, but the truth is that for the most part Modernity worked just fine for about 400+ years.

Just not any longer.

Hatushili