Comments on: What is Postmodernity?

By: Honzo

Honzo — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:00:52 +0000

AND, talking about the Christian worldview[s] as constructed is immensely helpful when dealing with the differences between various Christian worldviews. Take a Calvinistic Recent Earth Creationist, an Arminian Old Earth Creationist, and an Open Theistic Evolutionist. They all have constructed worldviews that are similar to be in the same family, but they way they have constructed, or interpreted various lines of evidence leads to their disagreements.

By: Honzo

Honzo — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:57:56 +0000

Hank, I can understand your uncomfortableness with the use of constructed. I use this term primarily from a human point of view (and I think it is from the human point of view only that pomo talk makes any sense). We certainly go through great lengths to construct our worldview. Look at any systematic theology, they construct their vision of reality (or in this case, a vision of theological reality) by putting together various strands of the biblical narrative, logic, and their own presuppositions. This is what you are doing with your series on justification, right? It is inescapable and not necessarily a negative thing, to have constructed a worldview.

Even the most true things are constructions, i.e. a genuinely spirit-lead interpretation of scripture. She is guiding our constructions.

By: Hank

Hank — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:19:17 +0000

I’m not certain I like your wording here when you say:

“[A] Christian postmodern community, at least as I construct it in my mind, is one that has a single story, a single constructed truth, which they truly think matches up best with reality, which people want to call objective truth.”

It seems that Christianity is being “made up.” It is predicated upon historical events that by default make other stories not matching up best with reality in the meta-narrative sense. Yes they can still make sense of what a brick is for example. But questions of where did the comos come from in these competing meta-narratives are false. I’m certain I’m not saying anything that you would disagree with. I just don’t like saying the Christian worldview is “constructed.” Just me personally.

By: Honzo

Honzo — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:00:16 +0000

Casey, the talk I had with you (and I cherish those talks) about the people that you encounter day to day within your geographic and faith communities that embrace what you called Postmodernism got me thinking. Perhaps there is a discrimination to be made between the best constructions of Postmodern Christian thought and that brand of weak relativistic Postmodernism which infects people on the common level. Because those conversations that you recalled certainly were cause for concern with their anything goes individualistic mentality.

Within a Christian postmodern community, at least as I construct it in my mind, is one that has a single story, a single constructed truth, which they truly think matches up best with reality, which people want to call objective truth.

What do you all think?

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:54:00 +0000

This might sound funny…but I think it is insightful for this discussion.

In the movie CARS:
There is a scene where the old town has a flashback about days long ago when the town was thriving. During this scene, there is a highway built that bypasses the town…and we see the town slowly fade away.

For a long time, Modernists were thriving, but now people have built bypasses around what Modernists held so dear (truth). No the people on the highway drive past the old town.

So many small churches have been bypassed by newer thinking (POMO thinking–not liberal scholarship). So the choice is simple. We either learn how to adapt to this new stuff or we slowly fade away.

By: Hank

Hank — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:06:40 +0000

Well,
Tom was getting at my question. Before we can command repent we have to understand what it is to repent from. The Bible uses the term "sin." So then how do we define "sin" and say that it is wrong (I’m not talking about condemnation but calling sin “sin” and what must be done with the problem it has/does create(d))? How can a PoMo tell someone from "another city" (to use Honzo’s terms from the post) that child molesting (to borrow from another post) is wrong when that city not only sees child molesting as okay but something to practice and upholds? How can a PoMo say that slavery is injustice in a "city" that encourages slavery? What is the basis to define sin and then call that sinner to repent of that sin for it offends the very God who desires to pour mercy and grace upon them? I do not get where the authority to do that comes from. May be this could be another post?

I personally think evangelism in a PoMo world lies in Piper’s/Edwards’ center on the glory of God–but not just simply defined as honor. That glory is rather defined as the beauty of God’s manifold perfections (his love, grace, mercy, faithfulness, etc). God is a God that is fully happy within himself from a trinitarian sense (the Father delights in the Son and the Son delights in the Father etc.) and that those who are united to the Son by faith are united to that joy (I thought it was odd that Rob Bell would point his readers to Piper but the fact that he did that really clarified this for me). I look forward to Honzo’s post to see if I am on track in how I would want to share Christ with a lost and biblically illiterate culture (the west has really become secularized and thus biblically illiterate). Feel free to chime in on what you think about this view of evangelism.

By: jr.

jr. — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:11:22 +0000

I don’t know why we need an objective, pure base. I agree with Ham… we have our communities that are (hopefully) self-critical as much as anything else, that understands we’re imperfect beings in a fallen world. So we are as dedicated to rooting out injustice and oppression in ourselves as we are to finding it anywhere else. This is far from pure and objective, but I think it’s more legitimate than anything else. We get to pull the "the Spirit told us" trump card.

By: cheapham

cheapham — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:58:26 +0000

Tom, that is the most disarming question of the discussion for sure. What’s somewhat ironic, is that the energy that drove many poststructuralist thinkers and theorists was precisely the incomprehensible injustices that were justified through modernist discourse (Slavery, Holocaust, etc.). Yet, depending on the direction one goes with such theories, you could ultimately deconstruct your own justifications for justice and equality…

Here’s the thing, I know in my heart of hearts what I think justice is, why oppression is wrong, etc. This comes from my interactions with God, Scripture, and Humanity. Yet, I don’t know if I have a philosophical treatise outlined to justify my views on such things…probably why I’m not a philosopher (and not much of classical western theologian either). I’d love to see how one begins a discussion on such things, and would happily participate in such a discussion if I felt my voice was necessary. :)

By: tom

tom — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:11:37 +0000

I think maybe more to the point, even if we do not need to preach condemnation, Hank is wondering one what basis do we even, say, preach against the oppression of the Empire? On what basis outside ourselves do we call oppression wrong? We can live contrary to the Empire, but why even do that if we have no basis for saying there is somethign wrong with the Empire? Essentially, what is the basis for saying “We have the best story, and we know ours is the truest story.”

Hank, if I’ve not gotten your question straight I’m sorry! I just felt my brothers here weren’t getting at the heart of what you were asking. I have answers, myself, but I’m interested in seeing where this goes.

By: jr.

jr. — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:10:43 +0000

Hank,

To echo what Ham said, the PoMo would say that our job is not to convict of Sin. That’s the Spirit’s job. Rather, we are to live out Jesus’ story – we are to be a holy community that is radically inclusive. We are to do justice by showing mercy. Love is to be our guiding principle/reality.

IF we are doing that, if we are a community that incarnates the Word, then we have no need to preach condemnation. Rather, we will be able like Paul to say, "Imitate me, for I imitate Christ".

That’s why I think Honzo’s next post on narrative will be fantastic. We have the best story, and we know ours is the truest story.