post-modern crackup?
Recently, we received Churches of Christ Overseas Mission Board email that contained the following article.
The Post-modern Crack-up
BY CHARLES COLSON WITH ANNE MORSE
Is postmodernism—the philosophy that there is no transcendent truth—on life support? It may be premature to sign the death certificate, but there are signs postmodernism is losing strength:
I spoke at my alma mater, Brown University, in June 2003, arguing that without acknowledging moral truth, it’s impossible for colleges to teach ethics. I’ve been saying this since the late 1980s, all over America, and I’ve yet to be successfully contradicted. Whenever someone claims his alma mater teaches ethics, I ask him to send me the curriculum, which invariably turns out to be pure pragmatism, utilitarianism, or social issues like diversity and the environment—good things, but not ethics. At Brown—one of the most liberal campuses in the country—I was shocked when the professor who introduced me acknowledged that he could no longer teach ethics, adding: “Chuck Colson will explain why.”
In Red Wing, Minnesota—a town A1 Gore carried in 2000—the majority of high school students consider themselves prolife. As one sophomore put it, “I think it would be better to overturn Roe v Wade.”
According to The New York Times, kids aren’t inheriting these attitudes from their prochoice (and horrified) parents. But they are reflecting national trends. Among the young, support for legalized abortion dropped from 48 percent in 1993 to 39 percent today. Clearly, this generation, witnessing the dreadful legacy of abortion, isn’t buying prochoice claims.
In recent years, Americans have become increasingly tolerant of homosexual rights. But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision, which many believe paves the way for gay marriage, support for gay causes dropped sharply. Why? Because while it was fashionable to consider ourselves tolerant, Lawrence jolted us back to reality—back to an understanding of how destructive it would be if we overturned the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Soccer moms—a constituency that worried about abortion rights, good schools, and civil liberties, are now called security moms because these days they worry primarily about their kids’ safety. Time magazine recently quoted one mother who said she normally chooses political candidates who strongly support welfare and abortion.
But since September 11, she said, “All I want in a president is a person who is strong.” Theologian Michael Novak says, September 11, was the beginning of the end for post-modern pre-eminence. People are beginning to realize post-modern presuppositions simply don’t work.
And what are those presuppositions?, Postmodernists claim we can have no “grand metanarrative” that makes sense of reality. Since there’s no such thing as truth, all principles are merely personal preferences. As professor Ed Veith explains, the postmodernist claims that all you can do is try to impose your preferences on others before they impose theirs on you.
But then came September 11, the day terrorists imposed their preferences, murdering 3,000 innocent Americans. If one’s worldview is true, it has to conform to reality—to our real-life experiences. Post—9/11, few Americans could continue believing that there’s no such thing as moral truth, no such thing as good and evil.
These encouraging signs—that Americans are recognizing the flimsiness of postmodernism’s presuppositions—afford a great opportunity. I believe people today can be attracted to a belief system that is rational and defensible. The question is, Who or what will fill the vacuum if postmodernism collapses?
Christianity offers a belief system that is, as Paul tells Festus, “true and reasonable.” I can’t think of a more critical time for pastors, scholars, and laypeople to be grounded in a biblical worldview and to defend it clearly to those hungering for truth.
But are we prepared for such a challenge?
George Barna recently completed a tour of American churches and came back with a dismaying report that most church and lay leaders—90 percent, according to one survey—have no understanding of worldview. How are we going to contend with competing philosophies if we’re not even rooted in our own truth system?
Ironically, just as there seem to be encouraging signs in the culture, there are also signs that the church is dumbing down, moving from a Word-driven message to an image- and emotion-driven message (note how many Christian radio stations have recently converted from talk and preaching to all music).
It would be the supreme irony-and a terrible tragedy—if we found ourselves slipping into post modernity just when the broader culture has figured out it’s a dead end.
Nigel from nccc responded with :
I wanted to respond to the email you sent me that included the article by Charles Colson.
I strongly disagree with the sentiments in Colson’s article, and think it presents a very defensive view of our mission as a church.
I see no need for the church to either totally defend modernism or totally attack post-modernism as philosophical frame works – even as we may want to critique elements of both.
Let’s not turn the good news about what God is doing into “a belief system that is true and reasonable”.
Let us participate in God’s transforming of lives to be more true and just. And let us as a church show mercy and grace - even to the point of unreasonableness. This is the mission I hear Christ calling us to.
I am convinced that the truth for which the world hungers cannot be provided by any one philosophy or culture, but only in an encounter with the risen Lord Jesus who truly feeds the hungry.
I can give other examples of my strong reaction to Colson’s approach to mission. His contention that words are not only more important to him than images and emotions, but that they are some how more Christian is very strange. If we adopted it, how could we effectively engage in mission with peoples who are not literate, have no written form of their language, or are more inclined to make decisions according to their feelings than their thoughts?
I know that in just attaching the article, you were not explicit in how you might apply it to the contexts of our overseas mission board, but can I discourage you and the board from promoting or adopting its ethos in our church.
…Nigel Mann - Northern Community Church of Christ
What do you think?
December 12th, 2004 at 3:06 pm
I have been recently reading a text called (I think) Christianity and the postmodern world written as part of a series edited by Marvin Olasky. In it, the author, from a strongly evangelical mindset, proposes a solomonic solution: postmodern is not the work of the devil as many in the Christian community would think. However, postmodernISM is very dangerous.
But where I think we do come into dangerous territory where defending “modernism” is when we start to examine the particulars of Christian faith, i.e., where do we draw the line of absolute truth? I mean, it’s all well and good to say “whatever the Bible says is true,” but Luther and Calvin both read the same bible and came to different conclusions. As did Zwingli, Augustine, the anabaptists, quakers, etc., etc.
I think there is very much that is “true” in postmodern theory, like the idea that communities interpret things differently, and the community exerts its influence upon community members (an idea first proposed by Stanley Fish). But I think there are lines that could be drawn beyond which we choose not to go. Homer asserts that derrida is the defining actor as to what postmodern thought is, but we do not have to accept that asssertion at face value.
Finally, it does little good to assert a modernist truth claim into a marketplace of ideas that rejects such modernist assertions. That won’t bring postmodern people to Jesus, to use the lingua franca of evangelicalism.
December 12th, 2004 at 3:08 pm
One more thing. If Colson asserts that postmodernism is on life support, then he’s wrong to believe that the thing that will take its place will be modernism. You just don’t put the genie back in the bottle. What would come next? I have no clue. Post-post-modernism?
(And all of this is from someone who two years ago was attacking people for supporting a “postmodern” model of church. Go figure.)
December 12th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
Now that is an interesting train of thought Bryan - what is next?
I also think you are right when you say that it does little to asert modernistic style assertions in the missionary marketplace of a post-modern world.
I havn’t read derrida… is there a link available? - but this idea that post-modern is searching, looking for something conflicts with my own experience of post-modernity, it also conflicts with my own grappling with meaning that comes from this post-modern.
December 12th, 2004 at 8:12 pm
Bryan is on the money.
Stanley fissh is a fellow traveller. however I do think modernism is less harmful than post-modernism.
As Bryan rightly points out modernism led the Church down dangerous paths.
I would say however it is easier to evangelise under modernisn than post-modernism.
Phil don’t even think of reading Derridda.
you have been warned.
December 12th, 2004 at 8:52 pm
Thanks everyone for the discussion. I have found it all very thought provoking and have discussed it a few times among friends in the last few days….
December 12th, 2004 at 10:06 pm
Ok now I am getting scared. Bryan sounding post-modern is a little weird but now I feel like I have misunderstood when Homer says that he is ‘on the money’
December 13th, 2004 at 2:25 am
Some would suggest (Mclaren has made some references to this, but I can’t think who else right now), that post-modern is a bridge between a change from modernism to something entirely different.
No-one gives more than an ‘I wonder if’ about what would be next, though tend to hold in common a greater degree of mystisism. (sp!)
Not much help - but a little injection… Steve
December 13th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Indeed, it does sound strange coming from me, now doesn’t it? But at least one thing postmodern thought has brought back to us is the rejection of the empiricalism that really exemplified modernist thought. That somehow science would find the way to the answers to all of our problems. If postmodern moves us back toward an acceptance of spirituality into the marketplace, then that’s a good thing. Look at the success of the Matrix, for example, or the Lord of the Rings, or even the Passion of the Christ.
December 13th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
A good example of modermism vs post-moderism is Star Trek.
In the original series there were absolute values.
The Next Generation had relative values where you couldn’t criticise any other race;s set of values.
December 14th, 2004 at 2:25 pm
Intersting. Where would you put “the borg” on your modern - postmodern dichotomy?
December 14th, 2004 at 5:21 pm
Homer, you might be interested in a critique of Carson on post modernism by a Christian Presbyterian philosophy lecturer…who a can actually explain Derrida quite well.
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/carson.htm
December 14th, 2004 at 8:41 pm
My mind is a spin!!
I have never really fully grasped post-modern thinking; and as I read arguments, or thoughts…I wonder if I have found it here. People claiming that this is how we discover truth and others discovering it is not possible to find it that way, but this way.
Is this Post modern dicussion & journeying at its best?
Nigel’s comment sits well with me:
Let us participate in God’s transforming of lives…
I learn a little deeper each year that I have come to a point through various connections about what I believe, don’t believe and how I might even sit somewhere in the middle. I ome to his point, shit a little, mellow some and grow some more. Not because I have the absolute answer or truth. But because I allow others, and therefore God, to shape, mould, create & re-create within me something that draws closer to everything God hopes me to be. I have an understanding & experience of faith in my life that has impacted me and I speak out of this when I live, play, and share with others. But can they take my experiences & thoughts and apply them directly into their world?
I hope not! Is this a post modern faith and experience or not?
While I see Jesus making quite clear statements of what it means to have faith, how it impacts us and causes us to live. I also see Him allowing others to make up their own mind, and discover (or not) for themselves how His teachings might apply to their life.
Is Jesus the first real Post modern thinker & teacher, even before we created modernity? (Tongue firmly in cheek, but kind of not as I explore an idea!)
I guess I live in a post modern world, where I particpate in God’s transforming grace rathr than God particpting in my manipulation of life and belief systems for my own benefit.
I hope this is not an inadequate contribution to the discussion, as I thoroughly enjoy reading other posts…well, most of them anyway. But then, that’s just my truth - a reflection of the knowledge & beliefs that I have as I read.
Thanks for your input into my life!
December 14th, 2004 at 9:19 pm
Saint, A very interesting site.
I like his church too.
He makes some good points but I do think He gives Deridda too much attention. I know I found Derridda very hard to read and at times somewhat incoherent.
but then again I am not a post-modernist so that is not surprising.
December 14th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
Great comment Simon, I love this line - “I have an understanding & experience of faith in my life that has impacted me and I speak out of this when I live, play, and share with others. But can they take my experiences & thoughts and apply them directly into their world?”
How true and something that Jesus seemed to grasp completely. For Jesus seemed to understand that ownership of something important was not given in a formula, a glib answer or even a doctrinal statement. He wanted us to think deeper than that… and demonstrated that with his parables etc.
I often wonder (heretic warning) - if Jesus would have been dismayed at the way the Bible has become to be used/misused. The ‘word’ has become static and formulastic and not the living word like Jesus used it and embodied.
December 15th, 2004 at 11:53 am
I often wonder (heretic warning) - if Jesus would have been dismayed at the way the Bible has become to be used/misused. The ‘word’ has become static and formulastic and not the living word like Jesus used it and embodied.
I don’t see this as any sort of heretical statement. Denominations have been saying it for centuries. Of course, not usually in the way you are probably implying it.
And if Jesus was p.o.ed at the pharisees and sadducees for misusing the scriptures, I’m sure he’d be likewise miffed at the latter day exemplars of such.
December 15th, 2004 at 2:32 pm
Yes I agree Bryan. However, we seem to have moved to another level of static ‘word’ bible abuse at the moment.
December 15th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Not directly related but it just reminds me of a time that someone said at a get together I was at: ‘Don’t you think that sometimes we over spiritualise the Bible??’ It was one of those sayings that just didn’t quite come out right.
December 15th, 2004 at 3:28 pm
Homer,
Joel also has a nice blog at http://www.sacradoctrina.blogspot.com
I’m not a WCF kinda saint, and certainly no philosopher. His intellect is way above mine, but I find him thoughtful and stimulating.
While I think Carson is a great exegete (probably one of the better and certainly one of the most accessible contemporary NT exegetes writing in english), and his uncharacteristic The Gagging of God was an important book for its time, I think some of Joel’s criticisms are warranted. To that I would add our propensity as Christians to uncritically idolize a few of our own.
In fact, if I was to recommend any part of Carson’s Gagging of God now, it would be the final chapters (working from memory, I don’t have my copy here) where he talks about the need for us to articulate the whole story of redemption, from Genesis to Revelation. There are many people now who have never even thought of god much less know the foundational stories against which the life, work, words and person of Christ make sense. Who was Jesus? What did he come to do? How is it that his resurrection declares Him to be Lord and Saviour? How is that good news for both Jew and Gentile?
I think there Carson also argued for the importance of biblical as opposed to just systematic theology (important as that is for some…) and I agree. For me, being mindful of the meta narrative that flows through the books of the bible has helped me and continues to help me immeasurably, and it seems to resonate more with those in my circles who do not know Christ. But again, some have also taken that to the extremes by preaching a gospel which is nothing more than ‘entering a story’.
Gee we Christians need a lot of help to stop falling off the rails don’t we?
Stever R - I think that came out better than you think.
December 15th, 2004 at 3:47 pm
Saint, I am a Carson fan which is great since HE seems to be in Sydney almost every year however the Gagging of God is not one of his better books.
you could cut in half very easily.
He was much better in his week at he Presbyterian Theological college.
( I bought the tapes.)
I actually do like the Prebo philospher however I thought on reflection he had to attack the basis of Carson’s book otherwise He would be out of a job.
I will check the blog. Thanks
December 15th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
Saint, Had a breif look and immediately put it on my favourites list, like this site.
Very eclectic.
Thanks a bunch. Agree about the level of conversation I have a headache already.
December 15th, 2004 at 4:22 pm
Saint,
I found what you wrote here interesting:
“For me, being mindful of the meta narrative that flows through the books of the bible has helped me and continues to help me immeasurably, and it seems to resonate more with those in my circles who do not know Christ. But again, some have also taken that to the extremes by preaching a gospel which is nothing more than ‘entering a story’.”
Could you expand it a bit so I can understand what you mean?
December 17th, 2004 at 3:30 am
Sorry Phil I guess I was a bit vague. I have started a reply to you about ten times but found myself running off into pages. So bear with me - I might not get a fresh brain until the weekend to write something in three or four paragraphs (an article I just read in the Australian may just give me a good example for you - I just have to give it some brain fodder).
December 18th, 2004 at 3:50 pm
Hi Phil, I don’t think I will get to a 2-3 para answer but I might just indirectly answer you in a series of posts on my blog, starting with some of my thoughts on the story in paper I mentioned (my bad, it was the Age, not the Australian.) How successful I will be in explaining myself is questionable - with fried brain and Christmas it might prove too much. But in some ways this will be good for me as it will be the first time I try to articulate this a bit more systematically. And if I then make comments on posts such as that of say Wink’s essay (which, I am afraid I didn’t find convincing in the least but leave that for now) you may then know the framework from which I understand things.
First post is < a href ="http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/forgot_to_add_s.html">here (Sorry for the link whoreing…woeful term that that is) I write as an ordinary Christian from where I am at now; I’m not a minister or theologian (as if that wasn’t obvious).