Brian McLaren has just written an article called, “The Three Postmodernisms: A short explanation.” The article is concise and “correct” — I wouldn’t expect any less from McLaren — but it leaves me wondering if we are doing a disservice to ourselves by continuing to use the term, “postmodern.” In my opinion, the term “postmodern” has, in itself, become a tool. Like all words, it contains signs and signifiers that go far beyond the limits of a mere essay.
Note: I believe that Brian McLaren is a true follower of Christ… One whom I respect and trust (though, I don’t know him personally, I believe that his thoughts and writings are valid). This Blog entry is in no way an attack on him, but moreover a meditation on a word. Words, in today’s age of mass-communication and information commerce are cheap — symbols used to profit the disseminator. Myself included.
McLaren says:
The first postmodernism is…a big scary monster of nihilism and relativism and self-destruction… This postmodernism is absurd: it says, ÏThere is no truth,Ó which means that if the statement is true, it is also false. This first postmodernism probably doesnÌt exist outside the imaginations of frightened modern people and those who seek to intimidate them… |
To think that we can forget what we learned and base our reaction to a word on “newer” ideas is naŒve. Imagine someone telling you that to “cry” no longer really meant to shed tears externally, but to feel your emotions on the inside. While some might think this a validation on all of their years of pent up grief, most of us would think that the person who said this was crazy — that it is unhealthy to hold your emotions in.
In the same way, to say that postmodernism doesn’t insinuate “nihilism and relativism and self-destruction,” is arrogant. The word does contain these definitions.
Brian says about his second postmodernism:
If some alienated European intellectuals tell enough people that any point of view is as valid as any other and that itÌs politically incorrect to say anything is ÏselfishÓ or ÏwrongÓ or ÏarrogantÓ or Ïdestructive,Ó and if consumerism then comes along and appeals to their basest self-interest, with little concern for oneÌs neighbor, community or world ÷ you have a really bad recipe for a really putrid future. |
Last, McLaren states:
The third kind of postmodernism is what we might call “emerging postmodernism.” It canÌt be fully defined yet; it may be decades away from mature definition. |
Now, I’m not saying that “emerging” is the word to use (or that we should even use a word), but wouldn’t it be so much easier to talk about our “Emerging Culture” or “Emerging Christianity” or something of the like? Why, I could probably even walk up to a philosophy professor and say, “I’m an ‘Emerging Christian’,” and get more of a reaction that saying I’m “postmodern.” (“Yeah,” says the professor,”we’re all ‘postmodern,’ aren’t we?”)
Brian says that he is interested in “helping contribute to what the postmodern world becomes in reality.” I agree with this cause, but I also wonder why we spend so much time unintentionally mimicking the Corinthians. Why can’t we just say that we are not interested in labels, we are not interested in the mindsets that have been declared upon us by a philosophical world… Those are foolish. What we are interested in is following Jesus and helping the world find Christ through our actions, our words, and our love.
I admit that I am also interested in what the postmodern world becomes… Too many of my formidable years have been occupied by trying to understand “postmodernism.” But in the end, I am not interested in finding postmodernism. I am interested in finding Jesus…sans label.
Posted by timsamoff at January 1, 2004 10:40 AM | TrackBack (3)The word postmodern is becoming so 15 minutes ago. Besides a label is merely a fancy little title on the package of who we are and what has made us who we are up to the point of labeling. Times are changing at such a rapid pace that we don't seem to be able to hang onto a definition or label for very long hence the need, by some, to redefine "postmodern". We are constantly emerging from our most recent labeling. Besides, the folks who are truly on the bleeding edge of change aren't the one's coming up with the labels nor are they trying to live up to the labels. By the time the labels are understood, the leading edge is two to five years beyond the definition.
The target (Jesus) has not changed but all the space between us and the target (the path) is constantly changing.
You are correct. We have to keep Jesus as the target instead of the path.
Then again, I might be wrong...
Posted by: todd at January 1, 2004 09:40 PMLet's make a pact. From now on, when we want to refer to the cultural shift that is currently being described as "postmodern" we will use the word, "hoodabada"....This is a made up word that I use frequently with my wife when I can't remember a word...Often she understands what I am talking about before I remember the correct word [my advanced age, 54, makes this a useful and frequent trick]...So, now, we will spend all of our time describing what hoodabada means....the hoodabada cultural shift, the hoodabada philosophy, the hoodabada worldview...We don't want to use postmodern anymore, what do you think? :)
Posted by: Charlie Wear at January 2, 2004 02:01 PMhey tim,
i commented on this at the ooze blog as well. i think saying we're going to quit using words because of their baggage or connotations is just lazy. i avoid using the word postmodern or its derivatives sometimes because i don't always find it a helpful or useful word. BUT if we're going to just start chunking words because they aren't "useful" to us then we're in trouble. whenever we use words that have competing definitions and connotations we have to do a little extra work and make an effort to communicate clearly. i think we're being lazy because it's extra work to explain what we mean. but that extra work is what it's all about right? communication, dialogue, conversation.
Posted by: lucas at January 3, 2004 01:15 PMI was just thinking about this same thing thanks to some other bloggers. The word does seem to be overworked and overused. It seems to be most useful in specific situations, those where the discussion is primarily about philosophy. To me it becomes less useful when it is used to refer to everything that is popular or related to youth culture. Mclaren's recent exchange with
Colson is interesting in this regard. There was also a recent article in the Boston Globe regarding the demise of postmodern theory per Terry Eagleton, a spokesperson for postmodernity.
We'll always be labeling things. Goes all the way back to The Garden. Seems to be a part of our work in the world. Obviously we take it too far much of the time. Another reason why we need each other.
Posted by: bill bean at January 3, 2004 04:28 PMGood points, Lucas, but I don't know if it is laziness. See, I'd be the first in line to debate the various points of postmodernism with someone. But, what I'm wondering is, should I have to? While you are right that it is important for us to dialog, I don't know if it is so important to try to debate and "convince." What I mean is, wouldn't it be so much easier to discuss a word that didn't come with so many prefabricated meanings?
Imagine walking into a group of "drunken freshman" who are just beginning their quest for the meaning of the "real." They have all come from lives that were pretty sheltered -- lives in which they were told what "truth" was. And now they have all of this freedom -- freedom to think for themselves and freedom to do for themselves. But they still respect their teachers. People like Derrida and Saussure and Jung and the like. They are beginning to think that maybe the "truth" that they have been told about all of their lives is not really the truth and maybe these new "visionaries" that they have been readin and studying about have something... Maybe, just maybe, truth doesn't actually exist at all.
Then, here we come barging into their room announcing that all of those guys stopped short. The movements that they began were futile and we have the "true" meaning of what is "real"! We have the real "truth" and our postmodern is better than your (their) postmodern.
I'm not too lazy to encounter this scenario, but, man... I don't think that I want to!
Wouldn't it be so much easier to go into that room and say, "Yeah, postmodernism is really interesting and has a lot of good points. And since you all have such open minds, what do you think of," for lack of a better word, "hoodabada"?
At this point a new communication, dialogue, and conversation could start. Not a debate. Not an endless spiral into philosophy, but one that inspires really doing something!
Posted by: timsamoff at January 3, 2004 07:07 PMTo me the problem with the postmodernist debate within the Church is that the debate completely changes our views of Christ. To me there are certain things that as followers of Christ we should know to be true, and if they are not our faith is useless. Facts like the resurrection, salvation by Grace through faith and other essentials that have been the gospel message for the last 2000 years. I don't have the deepest understanding of postmodernism but I think that living during this "postmodern" era has shifted our discussion from essential truths to other topics that while they are relevant they are not essential. In this era people don't want to talk about truths about God and Christ, but it remains the call of the Church to preach the truths of the gospel regardless of whether the "postmodern" community believes in truth. Too many Christian churches throughout history have missed the point and become heretical. I think that the Church in the postmodern era attempting to reach postmodern people must be careful to not lose the absolutes of the gospel while doing it.
Posted by: Jason at January 4, 2004 09:43 PMI agree, Jason. Definitely. But I also think that culture is shifting into something that the church -- in it's "modern" foundations -- cannot handle. Something that we must come to know and understand in order to effectively progress. I also think that the Holy Spirit has a large part to do with this, which sort of negates _any_ discussion... Though, part of me thinks that the Holy Spirit is urging a few people to think of new possibilities as well. (Kind of a paradox, but then again, so is God in ways.)
I agree in the essential truths. I always will. I also believe that a change is occurring.
My thought is that "postmodernism" (as an idea in itself) may be coming to hurt the cause rather than help it. I believe that postmodernism (the cultural kind) is what has "shifted our discussion from essential truths to other topics."
That's why I will say that there is still validity to the discussion, but maybe not to the word (I don't mean the Word!).
Posted by: timsamoff at January 5, 2004 05:43 AMBill: Terry Eagleton is a noted *critic* of postmodernism, not one of its advocats.
Posted by: wheat at January 6, 2004 10:39 AMTim,
I disagree with your statement "culture is shifting into something that the church -- in it's 'modern' foundations -- cannot handle." There have been many references to the church in this post, and I'm not sure which church you and others are referring too. However, speaking as a practicing Catholic I know the Catholic church is fully capable of withstanding even the fires of hell as promised by Christ as well as through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - as it has been doing for over 2000 years.
I agree that postmodernism - with all of it's crazy definitions - is something we should try to understand, but not in order to "effectively" progress. I think one could effectively progress even if they knew nothing about postmodernism. Whether or not postmodernism as an ideal in itself is coming to hurt the cause is debateable, but probably not too far from the truth. Many heresies have arisen and faded throughout the history of the Catholic church (Arianism to name one), but it's a safe bet anything opposed to the uncontrovertible truth could be easily refuted.
Peace be with you in your quest for the Truth.
Your brother-in-law,
Jason B.
Posted by: Jason Buice at January 7, 2004 01:22 AMThanks for commenting, Jason... Personally, when I say "church," I mean followers of Christ -- we are His church, with nothing to do with denominations or philosophies.
>> I know the Catholic church is fully
>> capable of withstanding even the
>> fires of hell
While this is true (Catholicism has proven it thus far), I am not concerned with the "church" as an organization but as a people. And I fully believe that we, as a people, have not withstood (I cannot begin to ponder the amount of compromises and alterations in Christ-like living that have been instituted into our life-styles over the last 2000 years!).
I feel like it is naive to think that the church hasn't changed to suit culture. It has (whether Catholic or not). We are not reading the bible in Latin anymore, we are using songs that were written by contemporaries, we are building buildings that are more geared towards presentation than actual ministry... I could go on.
People change. Culture changes. It's happened countless times before and it will never cease. We, as followers of Christ, must adapt in order to be effective ministers of His word. But, that last sentence is a bit misleading: we don't have to TRY to adapt, because we naturally, organically DO.
Posted by: timsamoff at January 7, 2004 10:30 AMTim,
Thanks for clarifying what you mean when you say church. For the purpose of not confusing myself, I will say Christian to mean the same thing as when you say church.
Christians are always changing to meet the needs of the culture that surrounds them. Ultimately, people (Christian or not) shape culture then create terms like postmodernism to describe what they have shaped. For instance, within the Catholic church, many traditions have changed over the centuries; however, Traditions have not changed, but have been defined or clarified. In my Catholic view, traditions change to suit cultural needs, however Traditions - uncontrovertible truths - never change to suit cultural needs and ultimately work to shape culture in a positive way.
I am confused when you say, "we are building buildings that are more geared towards presentation than actual ministry..." In my opinion, buildings don't minister to people - they inspire us to worship - as a miniscule representation of Heaven on earth.
And your last paragraph calls to mind one of my dad's favorite sayings, "The only thing permanent in life is change." I don't think Christians must adapt to culture, or cultural terms, in order to be effective ministers of His word. However it certainly doesn't hurt us to be on top of the most current definitions floating around out there.
Peace,
Jason B.
Posted by: Jason Buice at January 7, 2004 01:22 PMTim,
I found this excellent article written by Catherine J C Pickstock entitled ÏIs Orthodoxy Radical?Ó which I think offers a very in depth explanation on this very topic we have been discussing.
http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.uk/Article.asp?UID=70
Enjoy.
Jason B.
Posted by: Jason Buice at January 7, 2004 10:42 PMHello Jason. Just letting you know things are going great. Are you keeping up on your music?
Posted by: John at March 31, 2004 08:48 PM