Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
July 25th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
OK, someone help me out with this…
You can’t be postmodern and Christian. If this is true, then what must you be to be Christian? Modern? Pre-modern? Which of the major philosophical world views can you be and still be Christian? And why is postmodernism not one of them?
I’ve heard it argued that there is such a thing as a “christian world view” which stands aside from all the secular world views, all the [X]-modernisms, but that isn’t reflected in any study of either church history or, the scriptures for that matter, IMHO. In fact, I believe quite the opposite is true (taking Galileo as a crass but simple example).
So which is it to be? Are Christians supposed to be immune from viewing the world through the common world view of their time and peers? Or is it only the postmodern world view which is incompatible with Christianity?
July 26th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Warren,
I never claimed to be the definitive authority - simply another voice in the debate. My suggestion that Homer have a paper ready for me was simply a facetious, off-hand remark made in jest. However I do apologise to you and/or Homer if this comment caused undue offence.
I am certainly willing to discuss the pertinent issues, but it is necessary for me to have something of substance to which I may respond. Merely making bald assertions simply isn’t good enough. For instance abtruth just suggested that he had suggested a “couple of things” of relevance. Indeed, he suggests that one can’t be a “commie capitalist” almost by definition. Unfortunately he fails to suggest precisely why it is that “postmodern Christian” should be regarded as similarly oxymoronic. Whatever abtruth believes about postmodernity to make it in his perspective diametrically opposed to Christianity is anyone’s guess. With this in mind, it would be wonderful if people could explain exactly how they have come to the conclusions that they have.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:24 am
the essence of being a post-modernist is that there is no truth. There are no absolute values. Read Derrida or Fish on this.
This is the antithesis of what we read in the bible.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I don’t read Fish.
I put it on my car. as a bumper sticker.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:10 am
With all due respect Homer, you’re still making bald assertions. Please back up your assertions with a few premises.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:56 am
David - don;t frustrate yourself - no-one has ever been able to get Homer to argue intelligently - he is incapable of stringing together a cogent and logical argument. You will only ustrate yourself and get nowhere. You ahve been told so don;t come running to me all teary when Homer makes you cry.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Thanks for the advice, Greg. I guess I try to think the best of people and honestly believe that people have reasons for believing what they do. To suggest that it is impossible to be postmodernist and Christian is a fairly offensive claim (although it is generally less easy to offend me than most it is most other people) and I would hope that at least some logically sustained thought has gone into making this statement.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“the essence of being a post-modernist is that there is no truth. There are no absolute values.”
I doubt that anyone on this forum who would call themselves postmodern would agree with that statement as it is presented. If I’m wrong, someone (who themselves holds to an understanding of postmodernism as described above) please correct me.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
postmodernism rests on a relativist epistemology when directly concerned with matters of truth and morality along with meaning/purpose et al.
Christianity is based on an absolutist epistemology with regards the same question. Granted that not all matters of truth/morality/meaning are known as that would be supremely arrogant to suggest that we did but they do infact exist and are known fully by God who has chosen to reveal many of these to us via various means
therefore my “bald” assertion that postmodernism and Christianity are diametrically opposed and one cannot be both.
it should be our aim that though we live in a medieval/modern/postmodern world that we should not be ‘ of ‘ that world but in it displaying the truth of Christ as new creatures that have been ‘born again’.
I’ve heard it argued that there is such a thing as a “christian world view” which stands aside from all the secular world views, all the [X]-modernisms, but that isn’t reflected in any study of either church history or, the scriptures for that matter, IMHO. In fact, I believe quite the opposite is true (taking Galileo as a crass but simple example).
try reading Collosians. Pauls brilliant argument that we are not part of the pervading worldview (the cult of Ceasar at the time) but (as Brian Walsh put it) subverting the empire. we of course should not use this opposing worldview as a stick to beat people into our view (as some would say extreme islamists would - enforcing conversion) but show ‘the way’ by standing for the truth as opposed to lie (apologetics) and through living for others sacrificially displaying the grace that has been given us.
July 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Thanks abtruth, that’s a much better response.
You refer to Paul’s argument that we are not (to be) part of the pervading worldview. This raises the interesting question: Does Christian theology exist in a bubble? I would suggest not. One only has to look at theology through the ages to reject this suggestion:
- The Church Fathers and particularly Augustine were particularly influenced by Hellenistic thinking and particularly the philosophy of Plato.
- The monastic scholars, particularly Anselm and Aquinas were influenced primarily by Aristotelian thought, which owes in part to the rise of Islam and its indebtedness to Aristotle. Anselm’s “Satisfaction Model” of the atonement was a profoundly influential theological current from which Calvin’s model of Penal Substitution eventually derives its origins.
- Even the evangelicalism that you seem to subscribe to was little more than a reaction to the liberal scholarship of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To suggest that evangelicalism is even two centuries old would be extremely generous.
You suggest that we should be “subverting the empire” i.e. the prevailing worldview? I agree completely! And this is precisely what postmodernism does. Postmodernism (and in particular, deconstructionism) seeks to critically examine the prevailing metanarratives in terms of their foundational belief systems and structures. The rejection of these metanarratives is indeed quite Christian because I would suggest that we have a God who, as St Stephen remarked “does not live in a house made by human hands”.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
but postmodernism allows one to create ones own metanarrative as opposed to acknowlegding that we are here as part of the devine fiat of God for His purpose. postmodernism usurps/subverts modernism with radical scepticism but ultimately is self refuting and logically flawed and apparently is now quite passe at the cutting edge of philosophical thought. what the next step is who knows but as long as man without acknowledging Christs authority is doing the thinking it will be another system designed to make sense of reality without God.
i am aware of the influences on Augustine Anselm et al but all metanarratives or philosophical systems of thought contain an amount of truth which is part of Gods truth and can and should be seen as part of Christianity and need to be seen in context with the view that God is the source of all truth and no truth can exist separate from him.. so if they borrow certain philosophical systems thats fine, the greeks gave us many great works which are absolutely true and many conundrums that can only be solved within the context of General Revelation and Special Revelation
July 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
but as long as man without acknowledging Christs authority is doing the thinking it will be another system designed to make sense of reality without God.
But that is true of any “secular” world view / epistemology. It is certainly true of enlightenment-modernity, as much if not moreso than textbook postmodernity. So it seems to me that the accusations being leveled at postmodernity are equally valid of any contemporary world view, not something particular about postmodernity (regardless of the sour taste that postmodernisms belief in its own subjectivity leaves in the mouths of those of a more modernist mindset who believe in the reality of objective understanding).
Which would have us leaning back in the direction of some non-secular, christian/theocentric world view as being the answer, except that the record of the people of God found in scripture and church history doesn’t represent that at all. As I read scipture and history, I find the church standing out (well, mostly at least) as a redeemed incarnation of the culture and world view of their day.
Oh and abtruth, I’d want to understand your views a bit more before I could accept that Paul’s intention in Collossians was to make an epistemological argument. I’m happy to be persuaded, but you’re going to need to make a case for Paul specifically having world view in mind. In my opinion it’s quite a leap to go from Paul’s admonishment to steer clear of “empty philosophies” to arguing that he’s making an epistemological argument, remembering that epistemologies are effectively subconscious constructs, not intellectual garments that we put on and off at will. I grant you Paul was a great cultural critic, but I’m yet to be convinced that he thought or argued on an epistemological level.
July 27th, 2007 at 8:39 am
But that is true of any “secular” world view / epistemology. It is certainly true of enlightenment-modernity, as much if not moreso than textbook postmodernity. So it seems to me that the accusations being leveled at postmodernity are equally valid of any contemporary world view, not something particular about postmodernity (regardless of the sour taste that postmodernisms belief in its own subjectivity leaves in the mouths of those of a more modernist mindset who believe in the reality of objective understanding).
totally agreed
Which would have us leaning back in the direction of some non-secular, christian/theocentric world view as being the answer, except that the record of the people of God found in scripture and church history doesn’t represent that at all. As I read scipture and history, I find the church standing out (well, mostly at least) as a redeemed incarnation of the culture and world view of their day.
every worldview contains truth in some form, but as Christians we would maintian that it is a corruption of the truth so yes Christ redeems on more than a personal salvific level
Oh and abtruth, I’d want to understand your views a bit more before I could accept that Paul’s intention in Collossians was to make an epistemological argument. I’m happy to be persuaded, but you’re going to need to make a case for Paul specifically having world view in mind. In my opinion it’s quite a leap to go from Paul’s admonishment to steer clear of “empty philosophies” to arguing that he’s making an epistemological argument, remembering that epistemologies are effectively subconscious constructs, not intellectual garments that we put on and off at will. I grant you Paul was a great cultural critic, but I’m yet to be convinced that he thought or argued on an epistemological level.
not much time just now but epistemologies are not subconscious constructs.. the scientific method or logical positivism are epistemologies within which one can view the nature of reality and infact can be put on and off at will
July 27th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Deconstruction is meaningless rubbish.
Both Derrida and Paul de Man attempt to show how a text supports two mutually incompatible interpretations?
Fish insists that it is the interpretative communities rather than either the text or the reader that produces meanings and are responsible for the emergence of formal features.
This is of course consistent with those blind enough to believe there is no truth and all values are relative.
We are supposed to have seen through this darkness
July 27th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
but postmodernism allows one to create ones own metanarrative as opposed to acknowlegding that we are here as part of the devine fiat of God for His purpose.
That’s rather too simplistic an explanation, methinks.
postmodernism usurps/subverts modernism with radical scepticism but ultimately is self refuting and logically flawed
Well, that’s an impressive claim, but what reasoning can you give me to back up this claim?
and apparently is now quite passe at the cutting edge of philosophical thought.
And where would that put modernity?
i am aware of the influences on Augustine Anselm et al but all metanarratives or philosophical systems of thought contain an amount of truth which is part of Gods truth and can and should be seen as part of Christianity and need to be seen in context with the view that God is the source of all truth and no truth can exist separate from him.
Again, a most impressive claim, but you don’t seem to like supporting your assertions.
However, even if what you said were true, could we not then say that postmodernism too contains an element of God’s truth?
so if they borrow certain philosophical systems thats fine, the greeks gave us many great works which are absolutely true and many conundrums that can only be solved within the context of General Revelation and Special Revelation
Again, this looks like a fairly vacuous assertion. How do you know this?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
but postmodernism allows one to create ones own metanarrative as opposed to acknowlegding that we are here as part of the devine fiat of God for His purpose.
That’s rather too simplistic an explanation, methinks.
postmodernism usurps/subverts modernism with radical scepticism but ultimately is self refuting and logically flawed
Well, that’s an impressive claim, but what reasoning can you give me to back up this claim?
this is a blog so i am not going to bore everyone with a 5 page dissertation but its all about the ‘there is no truth’ claim being a truth claim on its own thingy
and apparently is now quite passe at the cutting edge of philosophical thought.
And where would that put modernity?
hopefully in the dustbin of failed worldviews
i am aware of the influences on Augustine Anselm et al but all metanarratives or philosophical systems of thought contain an amount of truth which is part of Gods truth and can and should be seen as part of Christianity and need to be seen in context with the view that God is the source of all truth and no truth can exist separate from him.
Again, a most impressive claim, but you don’t seem to like supporting your assertions.
which claim exactly.. and of course remember that some truths are intuitive and shouldn’t need support
However, even if what you said were true, could we not then say that postmodernism too contains an element of God’s truth?
sure.. I thought i had said pretty much the same previously, but the fundamentals are at odds with Christianity thus making it impossible to be both PM and Christian
so if they borrow certain philosophical systems thats fine, the greeks gave us many great works which are absolutely true and many conundrums that can only be solved within the context of General Revelation and Special Revelation
Again, this looks like a fairly vacuous assertion. How do you know this?
prickly chap arent you.. well take the legend of Sisyphus rolling a stone up a hill forever, the pointlessness of existance but with general revelation we know that there must be a creator to provide meaning and purpose and through special revelation we are brought to the realisation that we are not as we should be and are in need of salvation and are provided such means through Christ.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
this is a blog so i am not going to bore everyone with a 5 page dissertation but its all about the ‘there is no truth’ claim being a truth claim on its own thingy
If you make a claim, you need to support it - no excuses. You haven’t.
which claim exactly..
The claim that Aristotelian logic is part of God’s truth.
and of course remember that some truths are intuitive and shouldn’t need support
In other words, you don’t have any logical basis upon which to support your stance, so you just assume you’re right and hope that others will too?
but the fundamentals are at odds with Christianity thus making it impossible to be both PM and Christian
You haven’t established this in the slightest, although it might be worth mentioning that if you look at Christianity through a modernist or an objectivist framework, of course it is going to look unfavourably upon postmodernism!
July 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
the aristotilian logic thingy was not worded as well as it should have been i concede but my point aligns with the general idea that you yourself have put forward in regards to truths in other worldviews in that irrespective of how flawed their ultimate premises are they are not devoid of truth entirely.
no. some things are true and in need of no explanation or verification..
ie
all men are mortal
socrates is a man
therefore socrates is mortal
this sort of truth claim is almost impossible to prove but rather its truth is known intuitively by the reader
this is assuming that we/i can’t look at modernism/objectivism/postmodernism or any other ism through a Christian worldview/episemology
and for that matter i have established a basic prima facie of both being at odds with each other within the definitions of PM earlier this string…
i am obviously frustrating you.. your not used to being contradicted very much obviously
July 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Go easy on him, he’s epistemologically challenged
July 27th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I’ll try to take that into account, Warren.
the aristotilian logic thingy was not worded as well as it should have been i concede but my point aligns with the general idea that you yourself have put forward in regards to truths in other worldviews in that irrespective of how flawed their ultimate premises are they are not devoid of truth entirely.
That’s correct.
no. some things are true and in need of no explanation or verification..
ie
all men are mortal
socrates is a man
therefore socrates is mortal
this sort of truth claim is almost impossible to prove but rather its truth is known intuitively by the reader
No, that’s deductive logic. As long as they premises are correct, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
this is assuming that we/i can’t look at modernism/objectivism/postmodernism or any other ism through a Christian worldview/episemology
You’ve got it the wrong way around. You’ve assumed what Christianity is, then you’ve proceeded to analyse modernism according to your assumption. I reject your assumption because I believe your understanding of Christianity is determined by your objectivist framework - not the other way around.
and for that matter i have established a basic prima facie of both being at odds with each other within the definitions of PM earlier this string…
As I’ve said before, I reject both your definition and your claim to have made out anything resembling a prima facie case that postmodernity and Christianity are contradictory.
July 27th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
and I reject your rejection..
you are obviously looking at the argument through a pm framework combined with an insufficient understanding of the philosophical foundations of christianity
July 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
if my definitions are correct then they are obviously contradictory thus a prima facie case has been established. instead of patronising me you should counter with alternate definitions which you haven’t done…
btw if I am brief it is because I access the net through my mobile phone and not a computer..
makes lances dial up look like heaven
July 29th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Pick an explanation, any explanation of the amorphous blob called postmodernism. This general one from PBS (I just picked it at random from the web)
Here’s the deal. Reality is defined by God.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:46 am
# The theory of rejecting theories.” Tony Cliff
# “It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism,” Al Gore
# “Weird for the sake of weird.” Moe Szyslak, The Simpsons
July 30th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Here’s the deal. Reality is defined by God.
You won’t get any disagreement from me there. But here’s the real deal: When people say “Reality is defined by God”, what they really mean is “Reality is defined by the way in which I understand God”.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Reality IS defined by God - it’s just WE can’t wrap our heads around God and the totality of reality and even more God.
Modern rational man tries oh-so-hard to do it
Post modern irrational man says “Oh stuff it” and “Whatever”.
Cheers
MN
July 30th, 2007 at 10:48 am
whatever mn
July 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Reality IS defined by God - it’s just WE can’t wrap our heads around God and the totality of reality and even more God.
Modern rational man tries oh-so-hard to do it
Post modern irrational man says “Oh stuff it” and “Whatever”.
Cheers
MN
Good to see that you were able to weigh in with a valuable contribution, MN.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Oh stuff it, I am going to have a coffee.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
When people say “Reality is defined by God”, what they really mean is “Reality is defined by the way in which I understand God”.
My Dear Wormwood
I must inform you that over the last hundred or so years, orders have come from Our Father below to further befuddle the stupid hairless bipeds in such a way that we show them for the battery hens that they are fit only for the table.
This discovery was made by refinments in argument from a very useful fellow named Kant who managed to use ‘word games’ (get used to that term my dear fellow) to separate the idea of ‘reality’ from ’spirituality’. Now remember that you are there not to teach but to fuddle. Don’t let your subject get the idea that from a string of reasoning logic that is coherent and correspondant to reality that he is in fact under any compulsion to change his mind.. tell him that this proposition is infact ’someone else’s truth’ and as such need not have any bearing whatsoever on his conscience or beliefs.
When it comes to questions of reality, the Bible and ‘him’ i have found the following line of unreasoning very useful.
“Despite General and Special Revelation we have no way of understanding anything about God, who he/she is or any purpose this God may have for us. The so called sacred texts are utterly undiscernable for anything that we could possibly use to enlighten ourselves toward the nature of reality. In fact even if you can get past the concept that they were written by men, they were written so far in the past that we have no ability to discern the context and culture of the writers that so colour their words as to make them have no objective meaning whatsoever, and then, we are such inverterate meaning making organisms it is impossible to allow any text to have any authority whatsoever in ones life as doing so would violate ones autonomy of interpretive being. As there is no such thing as objectivity everyone has to intrepret everything subjectively lest someone use a truth claim as an act of violence on ones autonomous self.”
There is no truth, including this diatribe which is only truth to me, and one should not let anyone say that the truth is ‘out there’ and if they do.. counter with accusations of intolerance as they are not tolerating your truth, do not under any circumstance tolerate these people and never let them accuse you of circular reasoning, just accuse them of creating word games to get there own way. With this in mind you can never actually be wrong, but do not claim to be right as you would then be falling into the objectivist mindtrap of truth claims such as, “some things are right and can be known and are true for all people in all cultures in all history..” this disgusting trampling of the interpretive realities of other cultures and communities is just how Nazi Germany started (not that there was anything actually wrong with Nazi Germay, as an interpretive community their culture was within its rights to redefine morality as it saw fit so we can’t critisize it beyond “i wouldn’t have liked that”).
On may be tempted to question your interpretation of reality on the basis of ’self referential inconsistency’ after saying something like ‘the truth is there is no truth’ but this is easy to counter, just don’t use reasoned logic just accuse them of being ‘epistemologically egocentric’…
happy hunting
your loving uncle screwtape
ps.. don’t mention the war.. i mentioned it once but i think i got away with it
pps.. next week we will talk further on ’suicidal arguments’ and how there is no such thing as a ‘True Christian point of view’ but only your own view which has obviously be totally corrupted by your objectivist upbringing that it as made you devoid of any reasoned ability to comprehend whatsoever