Search
First Things

65 Comments

Tom Gilson
July 16th, 2010 | 7:59 am | #1

Heath White has written a book with the same name as your post here, Christopher: Postmodernism 101, reviewed here. It really is a 101-level discussion, a brief yet decent introduction to the topic, and appropriately both appreciative and critical, in my opinion.

Adam Omelianchuk
July 16th, 2010 | 9:05 am | #2

Nothing from Stanley Grenz?

Adam <—happy to be of the "Biola school."

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 10:12 am | #3

This would have been a great discussion back at the turn of the Millennium, but I question its burning relevance to current students. It has all the relevance to them of a “Buffy the Vampire Episode” . . . there are few that like “old” discussions like there are few that enjoy “classic” television, but this is yesterday’s news.

Next someone is going to announce (breathlessly!) the existence of the “emergent church.”

Yawn.

As a faculty member at Biola, I must say we are happy to claim an affinity for “analytic philosophy” . . . as would almost every decent philosophy program in the United States. We also believe the Bible is inerrant and scads of other things most Evangelicals believe, but get attacked pretty regularly in some parts of the Evangelical academy.

Parents of college age students should take a good look at Jamie Smith’s writings and someone like Tom Crisp’s writings or J.P Moreland’s widely read books. Google all of them. See what you think. See the people you think making the biggest impact for the Kingdom in the broader world.

As for “post-modernism” . . . Smith defines it so flexibly that any Platonist is one. I have been told that the “Biola School” includes some Platonists!

Post-modernism is generally ill defined, but to the extent that one can make sense of it, there is much to like. Who would not be glad for anything that (in my experience) often makes poetry relevant to discussion in the academy?

We can all learn from any broad movement . . . and should appreciate what we can in it.

Anybody who thinks Caputo-types are the future of philosophy is welcome to their opinion. They also have my sympathy when looking for a job at most philosophy programs in the US.

Smith, and his ilk, do not rankle . . . as they represent almost nobody actually sitting in an Evangelical pew. Here is a suggestion: everyone agreeing with Smith should send their kids to Calvin. Everyone agreeing (roughly) with Moreland in their areas of contention should send their kids to Biola.

We can live with that. . . and they will find some post-modern friendly professors (given Smith’s floating definitions of the movement . . . or at least one’s with subtle and somewhat sympathetic readings of it) in places like Torrey . . . and other departments . . . even if we mostly don’t see things heading that way (as a whole).

To the extent that ideas like Smith’s helped some types from a decade ago remain in the Church . . . hoop-lah! Younger Evangelicals and non-Christians (by which I mean the ones actually in college now) show less and less interest in post-modernism in my experience. . . as we seem to be mostly post-post-modern (to the extent anyone can understand what that means) in our younger culture.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 10:27 am | #4

I should add:

Anyone taking Smith’s characterizations of the Biola school too seriously should note his claim that we tend to “reduce everything” to epistemology.

We tend to reduce epistemological claims to epistemology, but have no desire to “reduce” other claims to it.

I can, however, see why Smith would want to avoid discussion of epistemology.

Craig Payne
July 16th, 2010 | 10:35 am | #5

Can anyone out there at all explain to me how we can “do” what is moral without “knowing” what is moral?

P.S. “Emergent” church, I’m pretty sure, in five years is going to be “gone” church.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 10:36 am | #6

Craig:

My point exactly. People who think this fight is one we should be having also think “emergent” is new and cool . . .

Albert
July 16th, 2010 | 10:45 am | #7

Christopher, that’s a virtue not a vice. Wheaton, however, is obviously unredeemable.

On a serious note, that’s a great bibliography with many good entrance points into the discussion on “post” or hyper-modernism which is critical to the future of the Church.

Craig Payne
July 16th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #8

At this point I would like to propose a rousing cheer for Thomism in general and natural law ethics in particular. All together, now…..

Frank Turk
July 16th, 2010 | 10:52 am | #9

What a bizarre day for me to stop back to see what’s happening here at Evangel.

Christopher — there is also a small armada of books which make the case that homosexuality is no longer a sin and that one can be a homosexual (meaning: a practicing homosexual) and still be a Christian in the absolute sense of being a disciple of Christ. That doesn’t make it a viable ethical trend, let alone a viable philosophy.

The strange and slippery thing about postmodernism is that it can be whatever it wants to be in a given moment. At 10:38 AM, it can be very concerned about the homeless and the poor and how those with resources must help those without (which is a moral demand), and at 10:43 AM it can be very angry that anyone will expext that there are moral demands one ought to place on sexual activity or political reasoning.

I say all that to say this: I have no doubt that some people think they can be Christians and adopt one or several of the postmodern flavors of epistemology and metaphysics. That doesn’t mean they are right.

I’d be willing to discuss in long form the problems here rather than issue my antipapal condemnation in 150 words or less. If you think you can sum up your position in 1500 words or less, I’d be willing to do the same. and we could have an exchange of ordinance in a mature and reasonable way.

To be safe, however, I call broken glass and bike chains. :-)

Albert
July 16th, 2010 | 11:20 am | #10

Craig Payne, we can do what is moral without knowing what is moral the same way a plant can do photosynthesis without knowing what photosynthesis is and how a man can thank someone for a ride without knowing how that act of gratitude is moral. Knowing “how” something is moral is good, but not necessary to the objective morality of an act.

I suspect Smith’s point is not that epistemology is unnecessary (Christopher has already noted Smith argues for a post-foundational epistemology) but that the finally important question is “how we do what is moral” of which “how we know what is moral” is only one part which serves the finally important goal, a part that in itself is not sufficient to forming moral people (the final goal). In other words, it’s not enough to “know” what is moral in order to do it, so to reduce ethics to figuring out what is moral and how do we know (the epistemological question).

The reason it is not enough to “know” what is moral to do it is because human beings are more than minds. We have bodies, desires, dispositions, and habits which must be formed for people to actually do what is moral. If we ignore these questions, then ethics is reduced to figuring out what to do and willing oneself to do it against all odds, which makes for a great movie starring the morally heroic Will but a horrible reality.

That is why questions of, for example, economics and aesthetics are central to sanctification, which one vital aspect of the Church. Which is why questions of economics and aesthetics (and not just theology) ought to be discussed on a blog called Evangel. After all, it’s hard for someone to understand a moral truth if his livelihood depends on him not understanding it. The same, of course, goes for practicing a moral truth.

Now, I personally have no idea whether the “Biola School” or the “Calvin School” is guilty of misguided emphases or whatever so I’m not going to go there. But, I hope people understand what I’m saying here and how critical it is to the mission of the Church because this understanding is rooted in the Gospel account of man as a creature of God who is more than, though not less than, spirit.

David
July 16th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #11

Benson’s post is quite a disappointing one. It starts with a critique of an alleged “Biola School” negative approach to postmodernism and instead of setting out any counter-arguments of his own merely pompously recommends a reading list of about 47 books, the implication seemingly being that if only those of us who were sceptics had read all of this stuff then we would feel positive about postmodernism too.

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 16th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #12

Frank Turk: “I’d be willing to discuss in long form the problems here rather than issue my antipapal condemnation in 150 words or less. If you think you can sum up your position in 1500 words or less, I’d be willing to do the same. and we could have an exchange of ordinance in a mature and reasonable way.”

I would appreciate reading an exchange between Christopher Benson and Frank Turk on the subject of Postmodernism and the Christian faith.

Or an exchange between Christopher Benson and John Mark Reynolds on the subject of Postmodernism and the Christian faith.

Lastly, I appreciate Christopher Benson’s consistency, extending back from this post to his previous remark: “Contrary to the adage that familiarity breeds contempt, I found that my familiarity with Cornel West and Martha Nussbaum only increased my affection for them as philosophers and public intellectuals.”

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 11:44 am | #13

Tom Gilson: Thank you for recommending Heath White’s Postmodernism 101. I’ve heard about the book but not read it.

Adam Omelianchuk: I enjoyed Stanley Grenz’s A Primer on Postmodernism, but it’s not the most reliable guide because of its reliance on secondary sources.

John Mark Reynolds: Grrrrrrrrrrr!! is my response. I’m not surprised that a member of the “Biola School” of philosophy is defending it. You question the “burning relevance [of postmodernism] to current students” but that’s because your school seems to bracket the discussion. I question whether the philosophy faculty and students at Biola have seriously engaged the writings of postmodern thinkers like Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Gadamer, Levinas, and Rorty.

Beyond the garden variety of courses in every philosophy department, my alma mater (Wheaton) offers “equal time” to Continental Philosophy (Phenomenology, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Gadamer & Heidegger, Feminist Theory, Hegel & Levinas, Nietzsche, Edith Stein, Christianity & Postmodernism) and Analytic Philosophy (Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, Nature of Persons, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophical Theology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Pragmatism). Can Biola boast any courses in Continental Philosophy? I hope so.

Be careful about judging the kingdom “impact” of fellow Christian scholars like James K. A. Smith, Carl Raschke, Merold Westphal, and Bruce Ellis Benson. Besides, should we measure influence by quality or quantity? Following James Davison Hunter’s recent argument in To Change the World, our charge as followers of Jesus Christ is “faithful presence” – irrespective of changing the world. And I’m here to say that the aforementioned Christian philosophers demonstrate faithful presence in their writings.

You say that Smith defines postmodernism “so flexibly that any Platonist is one.” You also say Smith offers “floating definitions of the movement.” For those who haven’t read Smith, can you provide a quotation from his writing that proves your claim? I’m satisfied with his definition of “postmodernism” and “postmodernity” in the first chapter of Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, “Is the Devil from Paris?: Postmodernism and the Church.”

I’m relieved to hear that you think “we can all learn from any broad movement . . . and should appreciate what we can in it.” The major difference, then, between the “Biola School” and the “Calvin School” concerns how much can be learned from postmodernism. You’ll notice that my posture is one of critical appreciation. What irks me are evangelicals who think that “postmodernism is antithetical to Christian faith,” which is one of the features that Smith associates with the “Biola School.”

We might both have the same “take” on John Caputo’s philosophy. It’s the most problematic from an orthodox Christian perspective, but I still found myself learning through the dialectical encounter when I read On Religion and What Would Jesus Do?

You accuse Smith of broad brushstrokes but consider how you paint: “People who think this fight is one we should be having think ‘emergent’ is new and cool.” Smith isn’t a sucker for the emergent church and nor am I. Incisive critiques of the emergent church are found in the Smith and Raschke titles. Moreover, you’re simply mistaken to say that “Smith would want to avoid discussion of epistemology.” He discusses it extensively in his books, which makes me wonder how much of his work you’ve read.

Craig Payne: Yes, knowing what is moral equips us to do what is moral, but knowledge is no guarantee of actually doing it. What Smith rightly objects to is a reduction of ethics to knowledge when the goal should be action, as Aristotle’s virtue-ethics insists.

Albert: I’m glad you found my bibliography helpful. I figured one or two Evangel readers might.

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 16th, 2010 | 12:02 pm | #14

Christopher Benson: “What irks me are evangelicals who think that “postmodernism is antithetical to Christian faith,””

Hi Christopher,

Would you kindly take the time to read (and review) this straightforward 20 page pdf essay by Phil Johnson titled You Can’t Handle the Truth: Addressing the Tolerance of Postmodernism?

The first two paragraphs begin:

“What I have been asked to do in this hour is explain the concept of postmodernism as simply as possible and explore the question of whether postmodernism is compatible with biblical Christianity.

Let me cut to the chase by addressing the second part of my assignment as clearly and as straightforwardly as possible right at the outset. I’ll tell you plainly: I’m convinced that postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity. In fact, the most essential elements of the postmodernist perspective are hostile to the fundamental truth-claims of Scripture, and for that reason, I would argue that a postmodernist mind-set involves some positively sinful ways of thinking.”

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 12:33 pm | #15

Unfortunately this discussion, like so many in our polarized society, often comes down to “pro-postmodernism” or “anti-postmodernism” when an intellectually and theologically mature posture is critical appreciation, which demands patience in an age of hurry and a hermeneutics of charity in a climate where suspicion prevails.

Phil Johnson’s position on postmodernism is a conversation-stopper, and not unlike Christians who contend that the great atheists (Nietzsche, Marx, Freud) are a waste of time. To read them, we are told, is to be corrupted. I think there are promises and perils with atheism and postmodernism. Our charge is to exercise loving discernment. Here, I can do no better than quote Christian philosopher Merold Westphal in “Onto-theology, Metanarrative, Perspectivism, and the Gospel,” an essay from Christianity and the Postmodern Turn:

Some of the best philosophers whom I count among my friends are postmodernists. But they do not share my faith. Others of the best philosophers whom I count among my friends share my faith. But they are not postmodernists. Decidedly not. At varying degrees along a spectrum that runs from mildly allergic to wildly apoplectic, they are inclined to see postmodernism as an enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ, frequently on the short list of the most dangerous anti-Christian currents of thoughts at the beginning of the new millennium. Relativism, nihilism, cynicism, anything goes. It is in terms like these that postmodern philosophy is portrayed as the enemy of all things bright and beautiful….

The strategy that I now employ in relation to postmodern philosophies of thinkers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Rorty was developed in an earlier book entitled Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism. There I examine the critiques of religion (mostly Christianity) to be found in Marx and Freud (quintessentially modern thinkers with an unquestioning faith in scientific rationality) and in Nietzsche (a postmodern thinker who sees the will to power as more basic than the love of truth professed by the Enlightenment project but undermined by interests it hides from itself).

My argument goes something like this. These three are probably the three most widely influential atheists of the last couple centuries. But looked at closely, their arguments about the various ways in which religious beliefs and practices can be put, with the help of systematic self-deception, in the service of irreligious interests, both personal and social, have two striking characteristics: (1) they are all too true all too much of the time (even if they are not the whole story about religion, as this trio is all too eager to assume), and (2) they have striking similarities in substance, in spite of diametrically different motives, to the critiques of the piety of the covenant people of God to be found on the lips and in the writings of the Old Testament prophets and of Jesus, Paul, and James.

So I found myself accusing Marx and Freud of shameless plagiarism (Nietzsche acknowledges the link between his critique and Jesus’s critique of the Pharisees) and proposing instead of denouncing these thinkers, we acknowledge the painful truths to which they point and use them for personal and corporate self-examination.

David Strunk
July 16th, 2010 | 12:59 pm | #16

Craig,
From this Calvinist, allow me to add to the chorus of chairs for my man Aquinas!

Hip Hip Hooray!

This is not tongue-in-cheek, by the way. Just finished Chesterton’s biography of Aquinas. As for the seeming difficulty of reconciling Natural Theology with the noetic effects of sin, I think I’ve got an answer too long for a blog comment, though I’m certain I’m not the first to blaze this path.

david carlson
July 16th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #17

TUAD

A straightforward review? Easy. One word.

Strawman

or is that two words? How will I ever know? It could be either. Or neither. Or something different……

Frank Turk
July 16th, 2010 | 4:00 pm | #18

Christopher:

That last comment is probably the least-charitable thing I’ve ever seen you write — and one which frankly does wrong by Phil by making him into a book-hating fundie.

I can test that thesis with one question: should a person with an ungrounded faith with only mediocre opportunities for discipleship read Neitzsche with “patience in an age of hurry and a hermeneutics of charity in a climate where suspicion prevails”?

If your answer is “no”, then I suspect that you are a lot more like Phil Johnson than you’d like to let on here. Having critical appreciation for something in no way means having to abide it or having to agree with it. If it does, maybe you should have some critical appreciation for Phil’s paper.

Just sayin’. The offer for the 1500-word initial introduction/opening statement and a subsequent exchange is still on the table.

Craig Payne
July 16th, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #19

Dear Albert: You wrote, “Craig Payne, we can do what is moral without knowing what is moral the same way a plant can do photosynthesis without knowing what photosynthesis is and how a man can thank someone for a ride without knowing how that act of gratitude is moral. Knowing “how” something is moral is good, but not necessary to the objective morality of an act.”

I suspect we’re just quibbling over words, but I would say that the man thanking someone for a ride does, in fact, “know” that gratitude is right and moral for humans. That is not the same thing as knowing “how” one knows that, which, as you say, is not necessary.

If this is what you were saying, then we are in agreement.

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 5:10 pm | #20

Frank: What I wrote about Phil Johnson’s position on postmodernism, based on the excerpt provided by TUAD, is true. If you regard something as “inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity,” you’ve shut down the conversation. If you say that a particular “mindset involves some positively sinful ways of thinking,” you’re condemning all those who espouse that mindset.

David: The purpose of this blog post is to describe two Christian schools of philosophy on postmodernism. Admittedly, the description was framed through one school and not by the other. That said, I have read from both the “Biola school” and “Calvin school” in Christianity and the Postmodern Turn, a book that offers a spectrum of views. Based on that reading and others, I’m persuaded by the latter school because it combines criticism and appreciation while the former school seems limited to criticism. My bibliography was meant to be a helpful resource for anyone who wants to further explore whether and how Christianity and postmodernism are compatible.

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 16th, 2010 | 5:15 pm | #21

“Christopher:

That last comment is probably the least-charitable thing I’ve ever seen you write — and one which frankly does wrong by Phil by making him into a book-hating fundie.”

I actually give Christopher Benson a pass.

After all, he did say previously, “What irks me are evangelicals who think that “postmodernism is antithetical to Christian faith,”" and since Phil Johnson really does think that postmodernism is antithetical to the Christian faith, then what Christopher Benson wrote about Phil Johnson is just Christopher Benson being honestly irked by Phil Johnson.

Christopher Benson was honest. And he was honest about being irked. Therefore, no “penalty” for Mr. Benson by being “least-charitable” towards Phil Johnson.

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 16th, 2010 | 5:34 pm | #22

Christopher Benson: “If you regard something as “inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity,” you’ve shut down the conversation. If you say that a particular “mindset involves some positively sinful ways of thinking,” you’re condemning all those who espouse that mindset. “

Christopher,

I think you yourself have shut down the conversation and are condemning (with your elitist snobbery showing through) in your statement of:

“Unfortunately this discussion, like so many in our polarized society, often comes down to “pro-postmodernism” or “anti-postmodernism” when an intellectually and theologically mature posture is critical appreciation, which demands patience in an age of hurry and a hermeneutics of charity in a climate where suspicion prevails.”

So anyone who doesn’t show or express “critical appreciation” (whatever that is) for postmodernism is condemned by you as being intellectually and theologically immature, and tagged further as being impatient and practicing a hermeneutic of suspicion.

P.S. I think the Serpent was glad that Eve didn’t practice a hermeneutic of suspicion. Incidentally, can one be wise in the practice of discernment without practicing the “hermeneutic of suspicion”?

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 16th, 2010 | 5:44 pm | #23

Christopher Benson: “I think there are promises and perils with atheism and postmodernism.”

Christopher Benson,

What is the promise of atheism?

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 6:00 pm | #24

Mr. Benson,

My main point in this blog comment was that Smith is wrong about the Biola school and not charitable to it. If you find Smith’s descriptions of post-modernism coherent and not overly broad, then I will accept your opinion for the sake of argument. I don’t, but doubt most of our readers care.

I think the entire description of the “Biola school” is a straw person that does not deal with Biola as it actually is.

In your post, you “grrr” and then say a few things before this:

“You question the “burning relevance [of postmodernism] to current students” but that’s because your school seems to bracket the discussion. I question whether the philosophy faculty and students at Biola have seriously engaged the writings of postmodern thinkers like Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Gadamer, Levinas, and Rorty.”

I say:

How do you know this?

Do you know the work of Professor Yeh of Torrey who did his Oxford doctoral work in liberation theologians . . . and who spends a great deal of his time (sometimes even on our blog) interacting with “post-modern” thinkers?

We don’t bracket any discussion. No school can cover everything well (at least our size school). With undergraduates we have to decide what will best prepare them for the culture in which they will live, do the most to make faithful thinking Christians, and (if they are majors) prepare them for a career in the guild.

While many departments at Biola read and discuss the thinkers you cite (I have, for example), it is our guess that for most undergrads (in my experience most have read little) . . . they need (first) a good grounding in what those writers are reacting to. There is nothing worse than coming in on a two thousand year discussion on Plato without having actually read all of Plato!

Time is limited so we try to ground our students in the writers who are most seminal first . . . and then provide options in the rest.

Now I often hear the claim that this is deficient because:

1. we live in a post-modern age and so we must know the writers you cite, because they are the masters of that age. I dispute that the academy is heading in that direction or the culture. Each school (with limited resources) has to make his guess about what a student “needs to know.” We think our time is best spent of a more careful grounding in Homer (say) . . . so that if a student keeps reading (as we hope she will), she will not come to the discussion with less background than a good French academic has.

However, I have not noticed in my discussions with secular students or professional peers that “post-modern” ideas are “taking over.” They have a niche . . . but even my friends in English (not at Biola) don’t seem to all be heading in that direction . . . or any single direction at all.

2. there are lesson that are valuable that we can learn from such writers. This is true to an extent and so we do some work in those writers with students. I teach Nietzsche every year for hours with undergrads and pity the student who just assumes he has nothing to say and to teach us.

However, we have tried to make a judgment about whether reading less Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Chrysostom . . . or other writers we do read will actually increase the valuable insights an eighteen to twenty-two year will gain.

We certainly discuss these issues . . . and do not ever (to my knowledge) bracket them. That most of us don’t find post-modern epistemology persuasive just makes us, well like most epistemologists!

You say:

Beyond the garden variety of courses in every philosophy department, my alma mater (Wheaton) offers “equal time” to Continental Philosophy (Phenomenology, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Gadamer & Heidegger, Feminist Theory, Hegel & Levinas, Nietzsche, Edith Stein, Christianity & Postmodernism) and Analytic Philosophy (Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, Nature of Persons, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophical Theology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Pragmatism). Can Biola boast any courses in Continental Philosophy? I hope so.

I say:

Well, yes we can, but I must say that in my experience even very good top philosophy programs don’t cover everything. If you want to do extended work in post-modern philosophy, we have offerings (and professors), but Biola would not be your best choice.

I know we are looking to hire (as we expand our offerings) in those areas. I will match our doctoral placement with any Christian college (the MA program does really well in this regard), but we have chosen to focus (like most smaller schools). We could use more coverage in Medieval philosophy, where there is much to learn for an Evangelical (!), before expanding other areas.

These choices need not be through hostility, but a reasoned view of what is best to be done with the funds we have.

You say:

Be careful about judging the kingdom “impact” of fellow Christian scholars like James K. A. Smith, Carl Raschke, Merold Westphal, and Bruce Ellis Benson. Besides, should we measure influence by quality or quantity? Following James Davison Hunter’s recent argument in To Change the World, our charge as followers of Jesus Christ is “faithful presence” – irrespective of changing the world. And I’m here to say that the aforementioned Christian philosophers demonstrate faithful presence in their writings.

I say:

I see little or no impact from those writers on:

a. actual pew Evangelicals
b. the secular academy.

Perhaps, this will happen, but if “post-modernism” turns out to be an interesting (but mostly mistaken) turn in the academy . . . it will have limited influence.

Biola has chosen a more traditional view of philosophy as its main emphasis (while hiring people to give some diversity of views) . . . those thinking that undergrads should come out with a strong emphasis on post-modern philosophy would be better served by other choices. Those betting the guild and the culture will stick (on the whole) to more traditional views of science, epistemology, and other areas in philosophy probably are better served with more emphasis on Kant rather than Derrida or analytic logic rather than Foucault as undergrads.

Biola will critically appreciate post-modern thinkers, but we will not spend as much time with them (nearly!) as with Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, or the analytic philosophical tradition. I doubt this puts us on the defensive in either the church or the academy . . . unless our (majority) choices are characterized badly as based only on hostility or a failure to study the authors.

Both are false of the majority of us.

The description of the “Biola school” is weird. It is broad enough to fit most philosophers (“analytic”) or so narrow it does not fit most of us at Biola. (Do I fit the “Biola school” description as an Evangelical Orthodox? Does Yeh? Professor Delgado? Professor Crisp? Professor Irwin?)

My main point is that Smith has created a straw person in describing the “Biola school.”

Biola does tend to be analytic. We try to give better than average coverage to classical philosophy and provide good education in perennial authors and issues.

That does not mean all (or most) of us see no value in post-modernism or cannot learn from it.

Those parents and prospective students following this discussion would do well to read Professor Smith’s writings and Professor Moreland’s (to pick one well known Biola professor) and see which best fits their vision of what the Church will need in the next century.

Which is least likely to be dated?

I (and the faculty of Torrey) find we can learn from any writer. We enjoy (love!) the dialectic. We try to find the good and then critique in any great writer.

However, while we can learn from many post-modern writers, most of us find them less helpful to the contemporary undergraduate (at Biola and elsewhere) than other writers. We suspect that they represent an interesting niche in the academy.

The study of these writers will go on, but there is good reason to believe they are not going to dominate:

1. English speaking philosophy departments
2. the general Evangelical culture
3. general global culture (when I wanted to speak in a Mongolian philosophy department, Plato was a better friend that Foucault).

This may be wrong and students should pick their school based (in part) on their judgment of what is best. Which writers will best help us live as Christians in this world?

You say:

You accuse Smith of broad brushstrokes but consider how you paint: “People who think this fight is one we should be having think ‘emergent’ is new and cool.” Smith isn’t a sucker for the emergent church and nor am I. Incisive critiques of the emergent church are found in the Smith and Raschke titles. Moreover, you’re simply mistaken to say that “Smith would want to avoid discussion of epistemology.” He discusses it extensively in his books, which makes me wonder how much of his work you’ve read.

I say:

I don’t find much persuasive in Smith in the two areas I know: Plato and epistemology. My point was that his views on epistemology seem like views I would not want to defend to a critic . . . but your mileage may vary.

Non-postmodern epistemology and ancient philosophy seem to be surviving (as fields) quite well having digested and (mostly) rejected “post-modern” critiques.

As for Smith and emergent Christianity:

Most orthodox Christians have looked at emergent arguments, seen promise, but more flaws.

It seems to me that Smith sees more good than bad . . . or is more sympathetic than he should be to a movement that has been not very helpful on the whole . . . but the whole thing is not that interesting to me, because it is (again) not where undergrads are “at” right now in my experience.

I see more eye rolling regarding “soul patch” Christians than interest from students.

(By this I don’t just mean Biola undergrads . . .)

I don’t want to post much on this, but here is my bottom line:

1. Smith has created a Biola straw person at best true of one or two faculty.
2. Most of what you say about how we should approach post-modernity is Biola (or at least Torrey) boilerplate. We should understand, then judge. We should think . . . we should learn . . . and get the good we can. I just told high school students that!
3. Most of us at Biola have these discussions (and like most Evangelicals and most philosophers) have come to the conclusion that post-modernism is of highly limited usefulness in undergrad education and in our growth as Christians.

We read, we saw, we moved on to more productive things.

Of course “most” is not everyone.

There are Biola professors who do not agree with this . . . and classes and students that do not take this view. There is no “Biola position on this issue.”

However, if students and parents are interested in rigorous, traditional, undergrad education that grounds students in the most enduring writers . . . and best reflects the interests of most top philosophy programs in the United States and most Evangelical parishes . . . the might want to look at Biola.

Don’t parody, but do make an informed choice.

I suspect Biola will be just fine . . . since the one thing that is true is that if Smith did convince everyone that Biola was the seat of Christian analytic philosophy, it would help us a good bit in the secular and most of the Christian guild!

My time is limited, so I have chosen to use most of my free time (though not all) to try to struggle through Aquinas and Barth . . . (long ways to go to grasp those giants!) . . . and much less of my time on Derrida and company.

This is a rare case where being “conservative” about educational and curriculum choices puts us in both the Evangelical and secular mainstream.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 6:07 pm | #25

Benson:

You say we should be critical and appreciative of post-modernism. I am. Yeh is. Delgado is. In fact, everyone in my department is.

Are we in the Biola school?

The majority (though not the only) opinion at my school is that there are better places to go and more problems than good in post-modern literature . . . but that is not “only criticism.”

For example, in my own area (Plato), I don’t find post-modern writers to help me understand the text of Plato as well as (to pick my favorite Christian philosopher) A.E. Taylor.

I read post-moderns to keep myself honest and enjoy what I read. I especially got a good bit from Nietzsche (if he counts and if reading in translation counts), but on the whole find (as a Christian) I get more intellectually and spiritually from Aquinas.

Many of us feel this way, not because we parody post-modernism . . . but because we have read it, are unpersuaded, and have moved on.

I suspect the culture and the academy are (mostly) doing the same.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 6:25 pm | #26

Benson says:

“Phil Johnson’s position on postmodernism is a conversation-stopper, and not unlike Christians who contend that the great atheists (Nietzsche, Marx, Freud) are a waste of time. ”

Well, it need not be.

Post-modernism may be (as I personally think it is) mostly incompatible with Christianity, but that does not mean all of it is.

Atheism is (obviously) utterly incompatible with Christianity, but that does not mean every belief of a given atheist is. Some given atheist may say a brilliant thing we can learn from.

So only a narrow minded person (who must get total support in order to talk to you) will think an over all rejection of an idea means you are unwilling to read and talk about it.

Logically it is also wrong. A given atheist may believe (not x, y, z) . . . where “not x” makes his beliefs utterly incompatible with Christianity (taken as a whole), but y might be a good and powerful insight.

It is not, however, anti-intellectual to say that it might be more productive for some to read some philosopher where the gold to dross ratio is higher over one where the dross to gold ration is very high.

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 6:45 pm | #27

TUAD: I owe a debt to Alan Jacobs for shaping the way I read. His book, A Theology of Reading: The Hermeneutics of Love, was enormously influential. Christians should be rightly concerned about a hermeneutics of love that precludes ethical and moral judgment, but this kind of love is without discernment (tolerance). I advocate a hermeneutics that is characterized by loving discernment (wisdom). Borrowing C. S. Lewis’ hermeneutical categories in An Experiment in Criticism, love helps us to receive a work while discernment helps us to use what parts of that work are truthful and edifying while rejecting the parts that are false and corrupting. Lewis admonishes us: before we ever use a work, we must first receive it. That’s how I try to read, even though I’m not always successful at doing it.

Matthew Anderson
July 16th, 2010 | 6:54 pm | #28

Benson writes:

“If you regard something as “inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity,” you’ve shut down the conversation. If you say that a particular “mindset involves some positively sinful ways of thinking,” you’re condemning all those who espouse that mindset.”

Well, he’s leading with his conclusion. So it’s not like he has anything else to say on the matter. Either he makes his case responsibly and persuasively, or he doesn’t.

Along those lines, I don’t see how taking that position “shuts down” any conversation, except when the interlocutors give up because they disagree. Here’s how the conversation could proceed with Phil: “Why do you think that?”

Useful question, that.

: )

Best,

Matt

Matthew Anderson
July 16th, 2010 | 7:03 pm | #29

Benson writes:

“Lewis admonishes us: before we ever use a work, we must first receive it. That’s how I try to read, even though I’m not always successful at doing it.”

Wise advice, that. Lewis is a hero amongst us Biolans. But my question: does this apply only to individual works, or to schools of thought as well?

I ask because the only indication of anything you’ve read by the “Biola school” is the essay in Christianity and the Postmodern Turn. Maybe you’ve read more than that–I don’t know. But it seems disingenuous to call for charity toward postmodernism and a posture of “critical appreciation” while offering only criticisms of your interlocutors, and those based on reading only a tiny sliver of their works.

I propose a moratorium on the whole discussion so Benson can go read more literature of the Biola school while I return to my Nietzsche. That is all.

: )

Best,

matt

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 8:22 pm | #30

TUAD: Put yourself in my shoes. I’ve chosen to reply to nearly all comments, which can be tiring. I didn’t read your comment carefully enough and inferred something that you didn’t explictly write. Consequently, I edited my comment and removed yours to avoid confusion if someone is reading the thread of comments. To answer your question, I think Scripture teaches a hermeneutics of loving discernment (wisdom) – not love without discernment (tolerance).

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 8:36 pm | #31

Mr. Anderson: Have I read enough from the “Biola School” to confirm or reject Smith’s heuristic? I think so. My reading includes the essays from R. Douglas Geivett and R. Scott Smith in Christianity and the Postmodern Turn, select chapters in R. Scott Smith’s Truth and the New Kind of Christian, and J. P. Moreland’s chapter in Whatever Happened to Truth? Smith’s heuristic is onto something.

Let me turn it around and ask you a few questions.

• Have you read from any of the following Christian philosophers who show critical appreciation for postmodernism: Bruce Benson, James Smith, Merold Westphal, and Carl Raschke? If so, which writings?

• Do you think postmodernism is (1) antithetical to Christian faith, (2) equated with postfoundationalism, and (3) equated with “narrative” and/or the “linguistic turn”?

• Do you prefer analytic philosophy to continental philosophy?

• Do you prefer a revised foundationalist epistemology to a postfoundationalist epistemology?

•Do you prefer classical evidentialist apologetics to presuppositional apologetics and/or Reformed epistemology?

• Do you subscribe to a biblicist notion of propositional relevation?

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 8:41 pm | #32

The Biola admissions department must be in total terror about a thread that makes Biola the bastion of worries about post-modernism and the place deeply committed to traditional Christian orthodoxy.

All those left-wing Evangelical students and parents may flee us in droves! Now parents and students considering a college right now will hear the dirty secret: unlike Wheaton or Calvin, Biola will not spend as much undergraduate time on Foucault as on Aquinas, Derrida as Plato, Rorty as Lincoln.

We are going to have to face the consequences of assuming that undergrads should focus on a thorough knowledge of Locke, before reading his critics.

Here is a secret: most of us have critically read post-modern authors, done all we could to sympathize, appreciate some of what they argue, but mostly reject what they say.

Not all us, but Biola is a place where traditional views of texts get a serious hearing and logic is thought an essential tool.

Admissions only hopes must undergrad students don’t hear how much Bible we read at Biola. . . thirty units worth . . . and how all ideas get submitted to it . . . and yet also stop, use the Socratic method, and question our own assumptions.

Many of us read Paul when we could have read more Nietzsche. We read Nietzsche, but most often learn more from G.K. Chesterton.

Of course, we don’t all agree on everything at Biola, but we do agree on the whole Bible is without error thing. What will we do if prospective Evangelical students find our our faculty is not attacking our board over support for traditional marriage?

Who will be left to us? We have already lost hyper-fundamentalists who think nobody should Marx, Freud, Darwin or Nietzsche. Now we will lose the vast contingent of the Evangelical left.

I hope this secret does not get out.

Here is another secret: we also harbor folks who believe in an inerrant Bible! There are people at Biola who question Darwinism! There are people at Biola who think traditional marriage should be defended!

We learn from critics, care about other views, are open to being wrong . . . but are mostly happy Evangelicals. If Evangelicals mostly annoy you, we are very, very bad choice.

Don’t send your kids to Biola if you think doubts about Darwin should be ignored at all costs, the notion of a Bible without errors is an Evangelical aberration, or that views of sexuality should evolve to fit the spirit of our age.

Do send us students and resources from the Christian community if you want a place where traditional Christianity and Christian beliefs are the default position.

I can only hope this storm keeps blowing.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 8:46 pm | #33

Readers of Benson’s comments should note that he has read three thinkers at Biola, not even a third of the philosophers on campus. He ignores those thinkers and philosophers who do not neatly fit his categories. I have cited several.

With my fondness for Quine, where do I fit? Where does Greg Ten Elshof (the chair of the undergrad philosophy department) fit? Where does Tom Crisp fit?

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 8:48 pm | #34

My favorite ill formed question of the week:

“Do you subscribe to a biblicist notion of propositional relevation?”

Just unpacking the assumptions in that question would take hours.

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 8:49 pm | #35

Professor Reynolds: Before I continue the dialogue, please recall the letter that I wrote to you in September 2009, praising your witness-bearing in the radio debate that Hugh Hewitt moderated on Robert Wright’s book The Evolution of God, your exemplary integration of faith and learning in When Athens Met Jerusalem, and your leadership over an admirable great books program. In short, I respect you regardless of whether we share the same outlook on the import of postmodernism for Christianity.

I am thankful that you have devoted time and thought in your responses. I will try to work through the sequence of your points.

1. Is Smith’s “Biola School” heuristic mistaken? The three basic features of postmodernism that characterize the Biola School are all on display by two members of the Biola faculty – R. Scott Smith and R. Douglas Geivett – in their contributions to Christianity and the Postmodern Turn. Guilty as charged. The other features that Smith mentions in his footnote – analytic philosophy, revised foundationalist epistemology, classical evidentialist apologetics, biblicist notion of propositional revelation – seem to prevail in the philosophy/biblical studies curriculum and in the scholarship of the philosophy/theology faculty. Based on my encounters with Biola alumni, these features are also present. I have yet to meet a Biola alum who expresses an interest in continental philosophy, postfoundationalist epistemology, and presuppositional apologetics. Does the “Biola School” heuristic risk oversimplification? Undoubtedly. I am sure the Biola community has a heterogeneous character, but does the heuristic reveal a dominant pattern or ethos? Probably.

2. I question whether the philosophy faculty and students at Biola have seriously engaged the writings of the postmodern thinkers: Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Rorty, and Levinas. How do I know? Well, start with the curriculum. Unlike Wheaton or Calvin, I could not find any classes devoted to these thinkers on the school’s website. So, where and when would the students be reading their work? Also, I’m unaware of any Biola faculty that have produced scholarship on what Westphal calls “the Gang of Six” (Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Rorty). By contrast, my former professor of philosophy, Bruce Benson, has written a first-rate book, Pious Nietzsche: Decadence and Dionysian Faith, that is making big waves in Nietzsche Studies. Just image the outrage of this scholarship (a la George Marsden): a Christian who dares to engage Nietzsche and earns secular and Christian praise for his careful reading, cogent argument, and creative insight. Thank you for pointing out Professor Yeh’s engagement with postmodern thinkers on your blog. I will check out his posts.

3. We both agree that because the career of an undergraduate student is limited, the priority should be on the great books. If push comes to shove, shove out Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault in order to read Luther, Calvin, Aquinas, and Barth. The senior year is a fitting time for a student to encounter the Gang of Six. In my opinion, Nietzsche is the only great thinker in this gang while the others are interesting and insightful. Westphal does not mention Kierkegaard and Levinas in this Gang of Six, but he has written a book that puts these two thinkers into dialogue. The result: a fascinating dialectic between a Danish Christian and a French Jew.

4. I am surprised that you didn’t back down from your judgment about the kingdom “impact” of fellow Christian scholars. You say that you see little impact from those writers on “actual pew Evangelicals” and “the secular academy.” Are you able to evaluate what’s in the minds and hearts of the persons who have been affected by their writings? Perception, my friend, is not reality, but sometimes it’s all we’ve got. Regarding impact on the Christian academy, Smith’s work, for example, has precipitated engagement with several scholars in The Logic of Incarnation: James K. A. Smith’s Critique of Postmodern Religion. His recent work, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation and Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition (forthcoming), is reaching a wider public inside and outside the academy. Many of my evangelical Christian friends, who have an interest in philosophy and theology, have profited spiritually and intellectually from their books. No impact on the secular academy? My example above about the impact of Benson’s Pious Nietzsche illustrates how Christian scholarship can be outrageous, seizing the attention of secular scholars in Nietzsche Studies. How often does that happen? All too rarely. Why? Because Christian scholars tend to speak in an echo chamber (cf. Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind and James Davison Hunter, To Change the World).

5. Which books have you read from Smith? He offers an incisive critique of the emergent church in Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? and Raschke offers one in GloboChrist. They see more peril than promise in the emergent church, but they do not eliminate themselves from the conversation. For Smith’s work that relates to epistemology, see Speech and Theology: Language and the Logic of Incarnation and The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic. Edited volumes in this area are The Hermeneutics of Charity: Interpretation, Selfhood, and Postmodern Faith and Hermeneutics at the Crossroads.

6. Is atheism “utterly incompatible with Christianity”? Yes, insofar as the non-existence of God is incompatible with the existence of God. No, insofar as Westphal talks about the religious uses of modern atheism (see comment #15).

Again, I return to my opening remarks. Our outlook on the usefulness of postmodernism may differ but that seems inconsequential to our shared Christian faith and love of great books. Shalom.

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 9:12 pm | #36

Professor Reynolds: Comment #32 was entertaining to read. You’ve assumed that because I (and others) show a critical appreciation for postmodern thought, we (1) prioritize postmodern thought over biblical studies and great books, (2) reject the infallibility of Scripture, (3) support Darwinism and same-sex marriage, (4) ignore “traditional views of texts,” and (5) belong to the Christian Left. That’s ridiculous! We all know what assumptions do. If I’ve assumed too much about the “Biola School” heuristic, you’ve now done the same, but much worse with the “Calvin/Wheaton School” – and we’re asses for it. None of what you said above characterizes me. Comment #33 criticizes me for only reading from three faculty at Biola, but so far you haven’t explictly said which authors/books you’ve read from Bruce Ellis Benson, James K. A. Smith, Carl Raschke, Merold Westphal. Comment #35 was my attempt to respond thoughtfully, as you did earlier, but this cartoonish turn in the exchange leaves me exhausted and frustrated.

P.S. In case you’re worried that I’m sunk too deep in postmodernism, you may care to read the blog posts I wrote on Evangel where I talk about my resonant voices and the books that have shaped my view of the world.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 9:33 pm | #37

Benson:

Thank you for your (overly) kind comments. We agree on more than we disagree on.

Having said that:

1. Two faculty are not a representative sample nor are your friends a scientific survey of Biola grads.

I have named as many members of my own department (Delgado, Yeh, Reynolds) with an interest (and some appreciation) of post-modern philosophy as you have cited. The chair of the undergrad philosophy department also shares our interest in “non-analytic areas.”

Our up-coming center for Christian Thought includes a wide range of thinkers. If being in the “Biola school” is being in the analytic tradition and in being (over all) mostly critical of post-modernism, there may be such a thing . . . but then we are like most schools of philosophy in the United States!

My own epistemology and philosophy of science is Quine-like . . . and I have been consistent in this. Does this make me part of the Biola school? How many exceptions do we need before this is no longer useful? Shouldn’t we read Quine, by the way?

My reading of texts shows a deep appreciation of myth . . . and I have argued that authorial intent in a book is not the only interesting thing. How does that fit a simple view of Biola?

I can think of scores of graduates off the top of my head who have an interest in post-modern thinkers. I can think of three (off the top of my head) doing Ph.D. work (with our recommendation) from our relatively new program in these areas.

I too have not done a study, but since I know all the Torrey grads (who make up a high percentage of philosophy students) my anecdotal information is better than yours and Smith’s.

Of course, it is always tempting to come to easy answers. Until we did a study, our department was tempted to blame academic problems on disfavored types of education. When we studied the issue, we found no actual correlation, despite our anecdotal experience.

Here is a simpler and more charitable explanation for why most Biola students in philosophy end up analytic or non-post-modern in interest:

Most philosophers in top programs are not post-modern and many programs (in the top fifty) intentionally restrict themselves from studying post-moderns, because they are not interested in them.

It would be no shock if most philosophy grads don’t want to study your big six, since in philosophy (as a whole) the big six are not the big topic of discussion. (Nietzsche would be an exception here, but we study him as carefully as many analytic philosophers.)

It is an important niche, but a niche. That seems an easier and more charitable explanation of the people you have met.

Is it Biola’s fault that her graduates mostly (though not universally) follow the norms of the school?

2. Your second point depends on an educational judgment. You concede that the senior year is the time to introduce the big six. Biola has mostly decided to offer the big six (philosophically) in electives on demand (it does so), because even by senior year there is still too much work to do.

That is a judgment call, but I know this. Weak logic skills, weaker skills in the ancients, or in the analytic tradition are tougher on most of our grad students than any (accidental) failure to ever engage with the big six.

Your judgment may vary, but any course of reading you are willing to put off to the senior year will be that way. Our students already don’t all get to read Phaedrus . . . or spend enough time in Metaphysics. Should we launch them into a critique of modernity, before they even know much about pre-modernity?

My judgment is that undergrad years are a time to deal with the most enduring texts and questions . . . with some options to branch out. Grad school is a great time to specialize . . . though even here post-modern reading does not seem a dominant part of many curriculum or career choices.

3. My students must all deal with Nietzsche and Kierkegaard in their senior year. They also must read Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Sartre. I would have them read more Nietzsche rather than add any of your other (especially secondary) preferred writers. If I added someone, however, they would read less Darwin, for example. They read the whole Origin which is quite time consuming. If you go to Biola, you are betting that Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Sartre are more likely to endure than other members of your preferred reading list.

You may not agree, but this does not seem reactionary.

4. All we both have is our experience.

I talk to hundreds of non-Biola students a year. I meet few real post-modernists . . . and it is been five years or more since that “jargon” was hot.

It is true that if exposed to profs hot for post-modern issues, they can be stimulated to be interested in this. I have probably (I hope) turned a few students into Plato readers in my time.

Except when they worry about post-modernism (mostly badly!), I never hear about it or its worries in the pews.

Again, this is a bet and parents should decide who is right. Are we becoming in most of the academy (philosophy, maths, sciences . . . ) post-modern? Is this something we must know?

I think it is an interesting thing to know, but then there is little I am not interested in. How much should undergrads focus on it?

Well, it depends on your view. If you think non-post-modern epistemology or ancient philosophy is doomed, then you better take it up. I don’t see it.

I don’t see it in philosophy or the academy. There is a post-modern niche . . . and as I said, I rejoice if my brothers and sisters in Christ who writer for that niche are making a difference.

Nobody is for an echo chamber, but if I had to pick influence and person who stirs the pot I would take Bill Craig over any of the philosophers you have named. He is widely cited, hated, argued with . . . but rarely ignored. If you have read my recent little essay with Phil Johnson, you will now I am not uncritical of his approach, but I think it has done huge positive work for the kingdom. (Disclaimer: he is a friend.)

If you don’t like his scholarship, then pick Tom Crisp . . . a very different sort of philosopher and very, very influential.

5. Off the top of my head, I have read three books by Smith. I spent the most time with “Radical Orthodoxy.”

That is a lot for me for a writer in an area in which I do not specialize. I did not found his arguments convincing . . . especially his description of the state of play in fields I know best.

6. We don’t really disagree in any interesting way . . . as far as I can see. As far as I know it is necessary and sufficient to be an atheist to NOT believe in God. Atheists are otherwise a diverse lot in their beliefs, but these are not beliefs they hold as atheists qua atheists.

I do NOT think we differ that greatly on our usefulness of post-modernism. I think it useful, but less useful for ALL undergraduates than you (if you mean reading all the big six). I do disagree if you think the “Biola school” is a fair or useful characterization of even J.P. Moreland’s views.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 9:36 pm | #38

Mr. Benson,

Please don’t take comment 32 that seriously. I certainly would NEVER (seriously) try to describe a Wheaton or Calvin School.

How much worse when someone does it seriously!

My post was very, very tongue in cheek . . . . a reductio of sorts on stereotypes! I am sorry if it leaves you frustrated . . . it was my attempt to have fun with such generalizations.

The difference between Smith and me is that he has done seriously what I have only done in fun. He has characterized (in a useless manner) a complex school and/or school of thought.

This is a blog . . . and I am not near my library this week so it would not be easy for me to run a citation list . . . and am not sure why it would help. I am not making an argument against the any usefulness of post-modernity, in fact to the contrary. We disagree on its relative importance. I have read a good many of the works on your opening list . . . and others not listed.

In any case, I was having a bit of fun and would be sorry if you misunderstood it. I had no intention of attributing any of the views I mentioned as being yours or not yours in a serious manner.
John Mark

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 9:49 pm | #39

John Mark (if you will permit the casual address): Yes, “we agree on more than we disagree on.” And yes, “we disagree on [postmodernism's] relative importance.” If the “Biola School” heuristic is unfair and inaccurate, I’m prepared to throw it away; but it coheres with my very limited reading of three Biola faculty members and very limited encounters with Boila alumni. Shalom.

P. S. I share your commitment to studying Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Sartre over Heidegger, Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida and Rorty. If you have the time and interest to read one more book on postmodernism and Christianity, I recommend Carl Raschke’s The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity. I don’t agree with everything he says, but it’s one of the creative, prophetic, and instructive treatments that I’ve read.

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 9:56 pm | #40

Mr. Benson:

Please feel free to call me John Mark! You now know me. I am Quine-like in my views . . . and a Platonist. I am a fan of JP Moreland . . . and teach Nietzsche. So now you know ONE Biola faculty member that does not fit the useless stereotype . . . and I hope is hard to classify!

My main complaint has always been with the characterization of Biola and our general project.

I have tried to give our reasons for our educational decisions NOT based on a blanket disdain for all the ideas in post-modernism or in post-modern books. We should, all of us, read more, think more, argue more!

More dialectic! More fun!

Question: does a general disinterest in post-modernism and a greater interest in “analytic issues” fit your general impression of graduates of top fifty philosophy departments in the US?

It fits my impression of most top philosophy PhD departments in the US . . . and would be why (fairly or not) there would be no shock in finding the best Biola grads often drifting (though not always) that way.

The best thing about blogs are these clarifications.

Christopher Benson
July 16th, 2010 | 10:12 pm | #41

John Mark: I added a post script to my last comment (#39). Persistence in communication pays off with clarity, honesty, and humility. Eliminating the question with loaded assumptions about a biblicist notion of propositional revelation, I’d like to hear from “an insider” about whether there’s a pattern or ethos at Biola that thinks postmodernism is (1) antithetical to Christian faith, (2) equated with postfoundationalism, and (3) equated with the “narrative” and/or “linguistic turn.” Yes or no? Is there a pattern or ethos at Biola that prefers (1) analytic philosophy to continental philosophy, (2) revised foundationalist epistemology to postfoundationalist epistemology, and (3) classical evidentialist apologetics to presuppositional apologetics and/or Reformed epistemology? If you say “No” to both questions, I’ll accept your word for it.

To answer your question, my impression is that most American and British graduate departments in philosophy are devoted to analytic philosophy. In the United States, the Catholics usually do a much better job with continental philosophy than Protestants. The European continent, of course, is home to continental philosophy departments.

My favorite philosopher, hands down, is Soren Kierkegaard. I am intrigued by the differences in continental and analytic treatments of him. In humble opinion, the two leading (Christian) Kierkegaard scholars are Merold Westphal (continental) and C. Stephen Evans (analytic). You see, I am capable of giving “equal time.” :-) Among the ancients, I decidedly prefer Plato over Aristotle but I have read extensively from both. What are your top 5 secondary sources to understand and appreciate Plato?

John Mark Reynolds
July 16th, 2010 | 11:18 pm | #42

This is quite fun!

These are my attempts to answer these questions . . . but does not represent Biola, though I will try to characterize the opinions I hear at Biola.

Just trying to answer these questions about what I know about my very, very diverse colleagues made me realize how unfair it is to view us as a monolith . . . and how terms (foundationalism) are often not clarified or defined in ways unsatisfactory to adherents.

There is no “Biola school” as Smith describes, because the people I know, if gathered in one room, would take hours to agree on what his list means to Smith and how they react to it! For example, Smith implies that Biola would reduce philosophy to apologetics. The philosophy department at Biola would be horrified to think so. Philosophy and apologetics are kept quite separate here, though some philosophers do apologetics work.

Most would not characterize their views in Smith’s language or in his categories. I don’t recognize myself or my goals for my students in his characterization of us.

I have mostly limited my take to the philosophers/Christian thought/apologists on campus. There is certainly no consensus on these issues if one includes all Biola professors, even in my department!

But here is an attempt to honestly answer these questions where there is enough clarity to do so:

Question 1:

Eliminating the question with loaded assumptions about a biblicist notion of propositional revelation, I’d like to hear from “an insider” about whether there’s a pattern or ethos at Biola that thinks postmodernism is (1) antithetical to Christian faith,

I comment:

No, if by this you mean Biola as a University and if by “post-modern” what I think you mean.

In philosophy, there are some of us who think post-modernism (as we understand it) is on the whole antithetical to the Christian faith. This does not mean that even these folk think there is nothing to learn from postmodern philosophers. That view (there is nothing to learn) certainly would be a minority opinion amongst the thinkers (world view and philosophy people) I know. . . enough that I am not sure if anyone actually holds it (after all clarifications).

Of course, the problem is what we mean by “post-modern” . . . some ideas usually seen as post-modern that are obviously antithetical to the faith as traditional (Nicene) Christians have held it . . . or to the traditional Evangelical community.

Most post-modern writings I have read are, in fact, hostile to the traditional Christian faith and mean to be so. We should not ignore that fact entirely . . . though it need not deter us (utterly) from learning from even our sworn enemies, but at least we should note that they don’t intend to help us (for the most part)!

We don’t honor Nietzsche (if he counts as postmodern) if we don’t say what he meant to argue . . .

Question 2:

(2) Is post-modernism equated with postfoundationalism,

No, not equated, but a common characteristic of post-modernists.

Many Biola people I know believe that it is one fairly common characteristic of Christian and non-Christian post-modernists to be post-foundationalist or to characterize foundationalism as dead.

Everyone I work with would say post-modernism is not just an epistemology.

Question 3: Is postmodernism equated with the “narrative” and/or “linguistic turn?”

I know this terminology is used by at least one Biola professor. It may be used by others, but I have never heard it in my department. We just don’t speak that way in my department. This is an example of language that just doesn’t sound like the department (Torrey) in which I work. I don’t really have a clue about whether I should “buy it” or not . . . I would need to know exactly what is meant by it.

Since I teach on the “mythic” and the need for a three-dimensional or literary apologetic for the Biola apologetics department (where I am in good standing) . . . it cannot be that this sort of thing (if this is what is meant) is evil.

Question 4: Yes or no? Is there a pattern or ethos at Biola that prefers (1) analytic philosophy to continental philosophy,

Yes, sort of.

We generally prefer analytic philosophy to continental philosophy, though this preference may not be universal (I am not sure of this) and varies greatly in intensity. This is (I think) not much different from most American/English philosophy departments. It certainly would not make us a “school of thought” worth a name!

Question Four Part (2) Does Biola tend to prefer revised foundationalist epistemology to postfoundationalist epistemology?

If those were our only two choices, I would guess so. Since they are not, probably not.

Not to be all “philosopher-y,” but these terms are often used so many ways that I am now unsure what they mean in this context.

Is a belief in Platonic ideas a form of foundationalism? Where would you put Quine? These terms are very, very unclear to me in this context.

I am certain that we have several prominent foundationalists, that would call themselves this, on campus. I don’t know of anyone who would embrace an epistemology that could fairly be described as “post-modern.” (I am more pre-modern!) . . .

If we had a vote, I would assume that foundationalism would be the largest group, there would be no (or 1?) who would think (honestly) of themselves as post-modern in any way (under any definition I have seen, and several (maybe even the largest group) who would be non-post-modern but would not want to call themselves foundationalists until terms were clarified.

For example, what would you (or anyone else) call an idealist? What is Berkeley?

There certainly is no problem asking these sorts of questions . . . and they do get asked. I have certainly never been asked to push foundationalism on my students. As a Platonist in my epistemology (just so I am not being vague), I am unsure where I would be “placed.”

They would get the idea that I think:

1. great thinkers like SK and Nietzsche have things to teach us.
2. rejected any great author out of hand is silly..
3. great authors can say things we must reject as Christians (after reading them charitably).
4. I personally (not Biola) don’t think the post-modern turn was (on the whole) helpful to the Christian faith.
5. I don’t think we live in a post-modern age (philosophically).

Teaching Socratically it would be hard to do so . . . I know the philosophy department was involved in quashing any addition to the statement of faith on “truth” because of these very difficulties . . . so if there is a party line on epistemology here I am unaware of it.

So as to be totally clear I believe everyone I know here (not everybody) believes: truth exists and is (in some sense) knowable as truth.

If this makes us a school of thought, we are one!

Question 4 part (3) Does Biola prefer classical evidentialist apologetics to presuppositional apologetics and/or Reformed epistemology?

I think Biola is overwhelmingly evidentialist (and in apologetics can be pretty Thomist . . . though apologetics and philosophy are not the same here!).

Many students love Reformed epistemology. Check out Tom Crisp’s CV from Notre Dame to be sure it gets a fair hearing! Some faculty certainly prefer a closer-to-Plantinga (who has been on campus several times) than not approach.

Some do not.

Tom Crisp throws a lot of weight on campus and is very highly regarded by all as one of our leading scholars so any description of Biola philosophy that does not mention him is very, very inadequate. (He is also a graduate of Biola’s MA philosophy program, before studying at Notre Dame so he really is one of us.)

Any Biola grad in philosophy will have a good working knowledge of Reformed epistemology, though it would not be a majority view on campus.

I am neither Reformed nor do I accept a Reformed epistemology though I have profited from the work of adherents very greatly. (I will point out that many of them would be shocked to be thought of as anything but analytic!)

To summarize my own views:

I think it is a mistake to dismiss anything without reading it. There is something to learn from most things . . . and great thinkers especially are ignored at our peril. I have learned from SK and N and will continue to do so (as a lay student of their work and in translation!).

I think most of what I read in “post-modern” literature (Christian and otherwise) is unpersuasive and unhelpful to me as a believer and to my witness in the secular community. This is obviously not true of everything, but is my generally impression.

I find the analytic approach most useful . . . though I am no blind adherent to it and am fairly sure the “continental” and “analytic” divide is also fuzzy.

I am a Platonist in my epistemology and have argued for a Quine-like view of science. I am unsure where this puts me in the debate, but very sure it does not make me part of the Biola school.

There are ways of characterizing post-modernism (even by some writers) that mean to be at war with the traditional Christian faith. Though I want to learn even from my enemies (in love), I will honor their desire to disagree with me, by mostly disagreeing with them!

You could characterize my own views as open, but skeptical regarding any “post-modern” turn. I find more value in pre-modern writings than any post-modernist I have read (unless SK counts).

My views are my own . . . but an attempt to clarify where I personally am coming from. I don’t see myself in Jamie Smith’s characterization and I think I am pretty involved in Biola undergraduate education. Mostly his characterization (we have left out the biblicist one!) seems uncharitable, loaded, and ambiguous. Trying to answer these questions left me utterly sure that they fail to capture the spirit of the Biola philosophy/Torrey/apologetics project (to the extent there is one) utterly. I have had hundreds of life changing conversations with JP Moreland (a great man and Christian) and, though it must be JP that is being partly described (as if he was all of Biola), I don’t recognize his views in this list . . . or it is a loaded reading of his views.

Matthew Anderson
July 17th, 2010 | 1:32 am | #43

Benson,

I have no intention of answering your questions.

I simply want to say that I am sorry for implying that you should provide your resume of the “Biola school” authors you have read. But thank you for doing so.

Allow me to make a related, but slightly different point to that which I made above. How many books or essays you have read of the Biola school is in one important sense beside the point. The real question is whether you have in this post met the standards of “critical appreciation” that you have set out for yourself. I’d simply point out that your post and comments about it have been long on criticism, and almost empty of appreciation for the strengths of the school (save some kind words for John Mark personally). Can anything good come out of analytic philosophy?

To put it bluntly, you opened this conversation precisely the same way Phil Johnson opened his critique of post-modernism. It didn’t shut down the conversation–but it’s no surprise that you inspired lively defenses motivated by the impression that Smith’s critiques are based on a straw man.

All fun banter, yes, but not exactly productive or illuminating–for either side.

Best,

matt

Christopher Benson
July 17th, 2010 | 3:12 am | #44

JOHN MARK: I really appreciate your “insider” account about the heterogeneous character of Biola. You’ve successfully disabused me of the “Biola School” heuristic. While it coheres with my limited reading of Biola faculty and my limited exposure to Biola alumni, it’s both unfair and inaccurate to use for the entire school. Therefore, you’re right to call it “useless, uncharitable, argumentative, and overboard.” I’d like to end on that note, but I’m compelled to ask if it’s also “useless, uncharitable, argumentative, and overboard” to call the work of fellow Christian philosophers of “little or no impact” for the kingdom because they show a critical appreciation for postmodernism?

MATT: Answers to the questions I posed are not necessary because you’ve previously told me that you’re more sympathetic to analytic philosophy and a revised foundationlist epistemology. I haven’t talked with you about apologetics. Like John Mark, you’re open to postmodern thought but mostly skeptical. Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t conform to my own standard of critical appreciation. Indeed, standards are hard to live up to, eh? I came out swinging and I generalized based on limited information: both were mistakes. Was it all a loss? No. The dialectic between John Mark and I helped disabuse me of the “Biola School” heuristic. Greater clarity, honesty, and humility were achieved. And thankfully there was one unfailingly gracious reader, Albert, who moved past the scrape and found my bibliography helpful: “On a serious note, that’s a great bibliography with many good entrance points into the discussion on “post” or hyper-modernism which is critical to the future of the Church.”

The Gray Area » Evangel | A First Things Blog
July 17th, 2010 | 8:23 am | #45

[...] E. Sagers Fred Sanders Justin Taylor Gayle Trotter Frank Turk David Wayne Recent Comments Postmodernism 101 (44)Christopher Benson: JOHN MARK: I really appreciate your “insider” account about the… [...]

Flotsam and jetsam (7/17) « scientia et sapientia
July 17th, 2010 | 9:05 am | #46

[...] Christopher Benson has a nice post on Postmodernism (nice list of resources) and whether we should now be talking about a distinctively ”Biola School” of philosophy that is characterized by “analytic philosophy, a revised foundationalist epistemology, a classical evidentialist apologetics (indeed, it tends to reduce philosophy to apologetics), and a biblicist notion of propositional revelation.” [...]

John Mark Reynolds
July 17th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #47

Chris:

I cannot tell you how much I admire that rarest of things . . . someone in a blog conversation who openly changes their mind.

Really wonderful. A good lesson for us all.

As for your last, I think three things about the Evangelical Christian post-modern project.

It often carries rhetoric with that is alienating. One example is Smith’s use of “Biola school.” Another example is a general tendency to announce that the Future is Post-Modern. Given the state of American philosophy at the very best schools or even directions in English departments, this is surely an overblown generalization. Some right wing apologetic arguments indulge in this kind of rhetoric as well.

Second, some (NOT Smith) involved in the Evangelical post-modern movement (or the popular edges of it) get squishy on the importance of history or creeds. Engagement with Biblical authority also tend to “talk past” critics (not that some critics don’t talk past po-mo writers or simply hurl anathemas on them).

Third, I will repeat my joy that some people (especially in the last generation of college students) have been able to stay in the Faith, because of this work. I am not so sure I am right (about much of anything!) that I do not deeply, value on the most personal level that Smith (for example) can keep those in the Faith who are turned off by my approach (to personalize for a moment). I am also glad that there is a Christian witness in this niche of the Academy.

My rhetoric obscured that appreciation (though I repeated several times), so I was unclear, unhelpful, and uncharitable in this regard.

I don’t think long term the Church or society is heading in a po-mo direction. I don’t think po-mo ideas (outside of a need to learn from a few like SK and N) will endure outside of niches in the academy or (now) aging American cohort of Evangelicals.

Practically, I also think (on the pew level) that this cohort of mid-twenties to early thirties students also is (in my experience) a bit reactionary (to their parent’s forms of Christianity) and closed to dialectical examination. Those I know sometimes become anti-Creedal or have serious problems with Biblical authority.

However, since I want to minister to those folk, I have tried to learn from, appreciate, and understand both why they moved the way they did and why they have the beliefs they do. If this did not come across, then I am sorry for it. One cannot refute N or even bad ideas in a “good guy” like SK without first understanding (!) and loving (as one can) their writings.

It is central to my ministry that we must try to make every crooked thing straight (N and SK. . . and little JMNR included). God, God as revealed in the Bible, the Church, and our prayer closet, stands as judges of us all.

May this (God help me) never be true of me or my own ideas and I rejoice to see that you have been a model of this willingness to follow the argument where it leads.

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 17th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #48

Matthew Anderson: “The real question is whether you have in this post met the standards of “critical appreciation” that you have set out for yourself.

To put it bluntly, you opened this conversation precisely the same way Phil Johnson opened his critique of post-modernism.”

Another much needed echo of what Frank Turk wrote in #18 and what I wrote in #22.

Christopher Benson: “Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t conform to my own standard of critical appreciation. Indeed, standards are hard to live up to, eh?”

Thank you for owning up to and acknowledging your own hypocrisy. It’s easier to see now once you’ve removed the log from your eye, eh?

Craig Payne
July 17th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #49

“Thank you for owning up to and acknowledging your own hypocrisy. It’s easier to see now once you’ve removed the log from your eye, eh?”

Uhhh—was this intended as the kick in the crotch it appears to be? I mean, a mistake was already graciously recognized and admitted, right?

At any rate, it appears this discussion has threshed itself through to a conclusion, at least on this thread. Onward and upward! Sursum corda! Nil desperandum!

John Mark Reynolds
July 17th, 2010 | 2:43 pm | #50

TUAD:

Wow. That. Did. Not. Seem. Charitable.

It seems to me Benson manned up . . . and well, it seems ungracious and untrue to call him (in any way) a hypocrite.

Falling short of your own high standards (which I do daily) is wrong, but not (after all) hypocritical.

Benson manifested the opposite of hypocrisy.

John Mark

James K.A. Smith
July 17th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #51

Christopher brought this post and discussion to my attention. I would just like to register that in this context, and at this time, this is his fight, not mine. He has cited an article published 5 years ago, written about 7 years ago, and has selectively cited several footnotes that were operative in the context of (1) a larger article which was (2) in response to a whole set of articles that constitute a book. Those other chapters are a determinative part of what drew out this charge.

And while I would still remain trenchantly critical of the way a number of these loosely associated philosophers treat the “bogeyman” of postmodernism (as they’ve created it), and while I certainly think there is a shared philosophical sensibility at Biola/Talbot that differs quite fundamentally from the postfoundationalism of Reformed epistemology, I have not reproduced this moniker of “the Biola school” in subsequent writings.

Furthermore, I have since that time had constructive correspondence with Scott Smith, been impressed with the work of Gregg Ten Elshof (as my glowing blurb on his book demonstrates), and have watched with interest as folks like Tom Crisp have joined the faculty.

All that to say that, while I think there’s room for constructive disagreement about these matters, I’m not interested in hunting this with this dog at this time.

Do let me note for the record that I have pretty much been only critical of “the emerging church,” so it’s always strange for me to be identified with that.

As for whether my work impacts “pew Evangelicals,” I’ll have to leave that to Dr. Reynolds to determine. Success in doing so would seem to mean giving comfort to a sector of “Evangelicals” (the capital-E is always important) who have collapsed Christianity and the stance of “the Right.” If my work gave comfort to them, I should be sorely disappointed. If those students would prefer to go to Biola, Calvin College is glad to receive your weary and rejected.

Matthew Anderson
July 17th, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #52

Christopher writes:

“Answers to the questions I posed are not necessary because you’ve previously told me that you’re more sympathetic to analytic philosophy and a revised foundationlist epistemology. I haven’t talked with you about apologetics. Like John Mark, you’re open to postmodern thought but mostly skeptical. Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t conform to my own standard of critical appreciation. Indeed, standards are hard to live up to, eh? I came out swinging and I generalized based on limited information: both were mistakes. Was it all a loss? No. The dialectic between John Mark and I helped disabuse me of the “Biola School” heuristic. Greater clarity, honesty, and humility were achieved.”

As they say, “Well roared, Lion.”

I only hope TUAD will demonstrate a similar graciousness by retracting his cynical reply.

Best,

matt

Christopher Benson
July 17th, 2010 | 4:24 pm | #53

Evangel Readers: I’ve chosen to edit my original blog post because the dialectical encounter with John Mark Reynolds has disabused me of the “Biola School” heuristic. I’ll keep the comment thread as a record of two people dialoguing until greater clarity, honesty, and humility are achieved. I hope this edited post will provide a helpful bibliography for those who want to further explore postmodernism and Christianity. Shalom.

Truth Unites... and Divides
July 17th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #54

Matthew Anderson: “The real question is whether you have in this post met the standards of “critical appreciation” that you have set out for yourself.”

A charge of hypocrisy.

Christopher Benson: “Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t conform to my own standard of critical appreciation. Indeed, standards are hard to live up to, eh?”

An acknowledgment of the veracity of the charge of hypocrisy.

#48 stands.

Steve W
July 17th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #55

TUAD,

In general, there was a decent discussion here, and much light was shed on certain issues with charitable dialogue all around. Maybe someone was briefly a hypocrite; maybe not. I don’t know if this is an un-Christian thing to say (as Jesus himself had some harsh words for self-righteous types from time to time), but being a d-ck is even more distasteful to me (and, I suspect, to everyone else here) than is a hint of possible internet blogging hypocrisy. Drop it already.

Matthew Anderson
July 17th, 2010 | 8:28 pm | #56

TUAD,

I think you’re missing the point. Even if he acknowledged his “hypocrisy,” the tone of your post made it seem like you were taking a bit too much delight in the fact that you had been vindicated. I make my case:

“Christopher Benson: “Thank you for pointing out that I didn’t conform to my own standard of critical appreciation. Indeed, standards are hard to live up to, eh?”

“Thank you for owning up to and acknowledging your own hypocrisy. It’s easier to see now once you’ve removed the log from your eye, eh?”

Maybe your reply is innocuous on its own. But given that your second line is a direct echo of Benson’s own confession, it comes across as quite condescending. It’s one thing to assert (maybe even factually) that someone has been a hypocrite. It’s another to mimic them while doing it (down to using the “eh” at the end).

Hence, it comes across as callous. And I clearly wasn’t the only person that sees it that way.

This is my last comment on this thread, so feel free to respond if you wish. I simply think your reply was uncalled for and that here, of all places, we can and must do better.

Best regards,

matt

Francis Beckwith
July 18th, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #57

Christopher: What irks me are evangelicals who think that “postmodernism is antithetical to Christian faith,” which is one of the features that Smith associates with the “Biola School.”

So, what you are suggesting is that the Biola school’s account of postmodernism is mistaken. That is, that its practitioners offer an account that does not correspond to reality. Am I understanding you correctly?

As far as irking goes, I’ve been irked as much as the next guy (especially if the next guy is John Mark Reynolds).

What I find particularly irksome and annoying, not mention the final cause of my incessant eye-rolling, is those who speak so eloquently of the “Great Tradition” or “Mere Orthodoxy” but seem to like the adjective rather than the noun. They like the “great” and the “mere” but not the tradition and the orthodoxy. They love John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo in the same way that people love the paintings in the Louvre: As long as I can nail them to my wall and they go well with the drapes, well, their fantastic. But to love the Tradition means to place yourself under it. Nothing short of total and complete submission will do.

The Christian postmodernists are right that modernism was an utter failure, but part of that failure includes the modernist idea that religion is under your choice and control, as if it were a commodity. So, if you’re going to dump modernism, then go all the way and quit playing footsie. On the other hand, if you want to remain Protestant, I’m with David Wells: man-up and do it right. Speaking for myself, as long as “Church” was something that was under me rather than me under it, I was doomed to a life of ecclesiastical promiscuity despite my best efforts to practice safe sects.

Christopher Benson
July 18th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #58

Professor Beckwith: Thanks for stopping by. I enjoy hearing from you even when we’re in disagreement. In my opinion, the claim that “postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity” (Phillip Johnson) is mistaken. Reducing postmodern thought to “pro” or “anti” positions is tantamount to reducing ancient pagan thought to those polarities, as some have done and continue to do. (Thankfully, there are Christians who challenge the pro/anti thinking like Louis Markos, From Achilles to Christ: Why Christians Should Read the Pagan Classics. His subtitle bears resemblance to Carl Raschke’s book, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity.)

I’ve encountered responsible, intelligent, and principled uses of postmodern thought for Christianity by the following Christian philosophers: Bruce Ellis Benson (Wheaton College), James K.A. Smith (Calvin College), Carl Raschke (University of Denver), and Merold Westphal (Fordham University). Moreover, I’ve never advocated an uncritical appreciation (or “blanket endorsement”) of postmodernism. On the contrary, I advocate a critical appreciation. Scripture, tradition, and theology provide the critical lens for me (and the aforementioned authors) to evaluate the appropriable and inappropriable parts of postmodernism, much like a honey bee that receives the usable portion of the flower and leaves the rest behind.

Like you, I also find it “particularly irksome” when people “speak so eloquently of the ‘Great Tradition’ or ‘Mere Orthodoxy’ but seem to like the adjective rather than the noun.” None of the aforementioned Christians scholars are guilty of this. They all place themselves under Scripture and tradition.

One final note: I don’t think “modernism was an utter failure” anymore than postmodernism is an utter failure. Here again, I invoke the work of the honey bee: to extract the appropriable parts and discard the inappropriable parts.

Francis Beckwith
July 18th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #59

Chris:

You’re very kind. Thank you.

What I meant by “utter failure” was in terms of its moral project (though its epistemological and metaphysical projects are flawed as well, but not utter failures). I have Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy” on the brain, having just reread it the other day.

You write: ““postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity” (Phillip Johnson) is mistaken.” I don’t disagree with that. However, by saying that Johnson is mistaken, are you not applying the correspondence theory of truth? That is, Johnson’s account of postmodernism is mistaken.

BTW, Johnson, like some of his comrades, have drunk from the modernist font and don’t know it. Hence, their obsessive concern for indubtible starting points (sola scriptura) and indubitble mental states about the afterlife (I’m going to heaven no matter what). This focuses, ironically, on the self, again, the center of the modernist project.

Having said that, I do find it a bit unseemly to treat people like Johnson and other post-modern doubters as somehow unhip and not with-it. IT’s possible that they, like some of the guys at Biola, just don’t buy the post-modern narrative.

The kingdom of God is full of all sorts, including hard asses. We need them as much as we need the flower children.

Christopher Benson
July 18th, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #60

Professor Beckwith: Let’s examine the excerpted portion from Phillip Johnson’s essay that I found irksome:

I’m convinced that postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity. In fact, the most essential elements of the postmodernist perspective are hostile to the fundamental truth-claims of Scripture, and for that reason, I would argue that a postmodernist mind-set involves some positively sinful ways of thinking.

Why do I find this irksome?

1. If a person thinks X is “inherently incompatible” with Y, this presupposes that he’s familiar with both. Then the question is raised: what counts as “familiar”? In the case of our discussion, familiarity with postmodern thought would entail close and careful readings of postmodern thinkers, such as Merold Westphal’s “Gang of Six”: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and Rorty. Has Phillip Johnson undertaken such a study? I don’t know. While I won’t infer this about Mr. Johnson, I’ve had conservations with many Christians on the topic of postmodernism only to realize that they haven’t even read the postmodern thinkers. Consequently, they’re responding to a “bogeyman,” as James K.A. Smith says. Fear is behind belief in the bogeyman.

2. To say that X is “inherently incompatible” with Y suggests that we can’t learn anything from X or appropriate anything from X because it’s 100% bad and marked with a “POISON” label – avoid at all cost! Such a posture strikes me as reflexive rather than reflective. To repeat myself, I don’t think postmodern thought should be simplistically reduced to “pro” or “anti” positions anymore than ancient pagan thought. As Christians we need to become better equipped at drawing honey from the flowers. Of course, there are those who see only weeds where I see flowers. :-)

Francis Beckwith
July 18th, 2010 | 9:37 pm | #61

“Of course, there are those who see only weeds where I see flowers. :-)” That’s pretty funny.

There is a sense in which no thinkers are incompatible with Christianity. Hugh Hefner, for example, thinks it is good to read. And we Christians believe it is good to read. So, in a sense, Hefnerism is not “inherently incompatible” with Christianity.

BTW, as a bit of historical curiosity, Merold Westphal was a professor of mine at Fordham. I took his course, “The Uses of Modern Atheism,” which was the first time he taught the course to the PhD students at Fordham. (I believe it was Spring 1986).

Small world.

Back to the topic. There is much to learn from those thinkers you list above. And in that sense I think that folks like Johnson do the Christian community no favors by seeming to treat these writers as purveyors of intellectual porn. If we can call this the fundamentalist’s temptation, there is the opposite problem, which I call the thrill of novelty temptation. This occurs when people, who grew up in largely non-literate Christian traditions, “discover” these guys and conclude that everyone who doesn’t see what they see is a complete idiot. You know what I’m talking about, the snotty know-it-all goth chic who grew up a Pentecostal and now claims to “see the light” since reading Foucoult. Talk about irksome.

I think a little bit of humility is called for on both sides. The fundies have to have a more expansive view of what can contribute to their understanding of the world. And the novelty guys have to have to be as skeptical of Rorty as they are of Carl F. H. Henry. There’s room in the Kingdom for St. Francis and St. Thomas Aquinas, Mother Teresa and Ralph McInerny, Robby George and Edith Stein. It’s a big Church and thus a big body. Not everyone can or should aspire to be the same part. If you think your faith is enhanced and deepened by reading Rorty, bully for you. Some of us would rather wrestle with Rawls. There’s no shame in either. But let’s get past this “one size fits all” mentality, though you should know that Thomas Aquinas was right about practically everything. :-)

Christopher Benson
July 19th, 2010 | 12:18 am | #62

Professor Beckwith: You have a robust sense of humor! The comment about the compatibility between “Hefnerism” and biblical Christianity was very funny. I was also amused by your expressions “purveyors of intellectual porn” and “the snotty know-it-all goth chic who grew up a Pentecostal and now claims to ‘see the light’ since reading Foucault.”

I wasn’t aware that you earned your doctorate at Fordham University. I’m not sure about your origins (I’m a native of Colorado), but what was it like to live in the Bronx? Doesn’t Fordham boast one of the top continental philosophy programs in the country? As I mentioned to John Mark Reynolds, Catholics do a much better job with continental philosophy than Protestants (Benson, Smith, Westphal, and Raschke are outliers among Protestant philosophers.) It appears that Westphal’s course was turned into his very perceptive book, Suspicion and Faith: The Religious Uses of Modern Atheism (1998).

Our dialectical encounter has produced consensus. I agree about the double temptation of fundamentalism and novelty. I agree about turning our critical faculties with greater intensity toward enemies of the faith. Rorty and Rawls can teach a thing or two, but not nearly as much as Augustine and Aquinas. And I agree that we should “get past this ‘one size fits all’ mentality.” The church is a better place because there’s a Bruce Ellis Benson to write Pious Nietzsche: Decadence and Dionysian Faith and a Francis Beckwith to write Politics for Christians: Statecraft and Soulcraft. Shalom, brother.

Albert
July 19th, 2010 | 5:52 pm | #63

Craig Payne, yes, you’re right when you say “[knowing gratitude is moral] is not the same thing as knowing ‘how’ one knows that, which… is not necessary.”

But that was precisely Smith’s “post-modern” point as well: that ethics is concerned with more than (though not less than) epistemology. The original Smith quote in the blog post isn’t up anymore, but here is the relevant portion: “Even ethics, for instance, is reduced to a matter of how we can know what is moral (whereas I would think that the real question in ethics is how we can do what is moral?”

So, I think that you’re in agreement with him, not just me, at least with this specific point that you initially raised. I tried in that initial comment to flush that out, but it seems I didn’t do it well enough.

Nikolai Volk
July 22nd, 2010 | 12:40 am | #64

I pity anyone who choses to read Zizek. Even money says you’ll end up reading a polemic against capitalism.

Week in Review: 07.23.10 | Near Emmaus
July 23rd, 2010 | 9:01 am | #65

[...] of a “Biola school” and a “Calvin school” of Christian philosophy here (and here for that [...]

Links

• Home
• Current Issue
• About Us
• Advertising
• Contact Us
• Media
• RSS Feeds
• Kindle & iPad Editions
• Store
• Affiliate Books
• Print Subscription
• Web Subscription

Blogs

• First Thoughts
• Evangel
• Postmodern Conservative
• Secondhand Smoke

Find Us

• Facebook
• Twitter

Contact

• ft@firstthings.com
• p. 212.627.1985
• Legal/Terms and Conditions