Well. Hello.
I’ve been away for a while — work and other commitments have limited by blogging overall, and sadly my availability for Evangel has been one of the victims of that. I stopped by yesterday (Friday, 17 July 2010) to see what’s going on here, and I found Christopher Benson’s piece “Postmodernism 101“, which included what Christopher called “my bibliography for all pomo-curious Christians.” It was an interesting mix of titles (I admit: I have not read all of them).
It came up that Phil Johnson, my friend and benefactor, has written an intro to postmodernism as well — a 20-paged paper titled, You Can’t Handle the Truth: Addressing the Tolerance of Postmodernism, which is classic Phil. He cuts to the chase in the second paragraph of this transcription by saying this:
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.
Now, after that, you have to imagine that Phil either needs to substantiate his conclusion in the following 19 pages, or he will merely rant. It’s an easy read covering a field which does not have many books which are easy to read, and I commend it to you, the reader, to discover for yourself what Phil does there.
Christopher says blankly about this paper:
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.
Really? This is a fantastic piece of news — because it frames Phil as a book-hating fundie (alleviating him of the effort of reading all those books he reads, and alleviating the reader of the responsibility to listen to Phil).
This week, Phil underwent back surgery and is in a lot of pain. So in lieu of his response, I’ll fill in for a few pages to attempt to offer Christopher a course correction.
First is this, as I said in the comments of Christopher’s post: unless Christopher thinks that new Christians with weak faith should read the books he listed unassisted, even if they have little or no access to decent (let alone robust) Christian discipleship, he’s not as far away from Phil’s position as he would like to frame himself. Listen: there’s a massive gap between “loving discernment” and “blanket endorsement”, and Chris has definitely crossed into the latter category — by essentially demeaning someone who is willing to rigorously point out the non-negotiable distinctions between postmodernism and Christian faith. In Chris’s view, one is a “conversation-stopper” if one thinks that postmodern philosophy and reasoning is hostile to the truth claims of scripture.
I think Christopher is being another kind of conversation stopper, and I can substantiate that with two points.
Number 1: notice that Christopher dismisses Phil’s paper rather than respond to it. 20 pages of text get dismissed with less than 50 words, and he moves on. No sense engaging: Phil is the one who has stopped the conversation — by telling us extensively what he thinks. He must hate books.
Number 2: consider this diagram:
This is my own invention for the sake of this conversation — I hope using pictures doesn’t subvert the use of words to make a point. The Green area is “GENERAL REVELATION” — that is, it’s the world of rote objects which frankly we share with non-believers. We have that in common with them, and this is a key issue which, sadly, Christopher would not credit to Phil.
The question for us as believers — and by “believers” I mean “people who believe something about ‘GENERAL REVELATION’ which includes calling Jesus ‘Christ’ and not ‘dead guy we can’t find and who maybe didn’t really exist’” — is “what explanation of ‘GENERAL REVELATION’ do we accept?”
See: historically — since at least Paul and Jesus, but maybe as far back as Moses or maybe even Abel and Adam — those with faith in the God of Abraham, the God who spoke creation into being, believe that God’s word trumps our explanations of how the world works. That’s the Yellow are in the diagram: God’s explanation of all things is “SPECIAL REVELATION”, which we receive from Him, and the things we see are therefore informed by him.
But there are competing explanations — for example, the Serpent said, “Hath God really said?” (He didn’t speak KJV, btw: he lisped like the snake that he is). Cain was jealous and slew Abel — because of course that solves his problem that he presented an unacceptable sacrifice to God. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery and lied to their father about it. The Book of Judges stands as a monument to what people do when they do what is right in their own eyes. King Saul is a proud heir to that tradition.
I mention it to point out what I have cleverly charted as the Gray area in the diagram — an area of assertions for the sake of this discussion have called “atheist assertions” to keep the question of po-modernity at bey for a moment to make this point. In the “Gray” area, certainly: they have encountered the world we live in, and undoubtedly something they say about it will be true. If there’s nothing they say about the world which is true, they’re just babbling idiots and we really can dismiss them. If they can’t get the color of the sky right, or the idea that the world is full of suffering right, or the fact that there are other people in the world right, etc., there’s no basis for discussion.
The problem is not the Gray area that turns up in the domain of “GENERAL REVELATION”: it’s the Gray area that turns up apart from “GENERAL REVELATION” and is contrary to the Yellow area — that is, it says something that the Yellow area does not. The problem that Christopher has is dealing honestly rather than “charitably” with this problem.
In “charity” — that is, charity to post-modernism — Christopher says that the postmoderns are “all too true all too much of the time.” What he ignores is that this is to their condemnation, not to their credit. Perhaps a review of Romans 1 & 2 is in order, but this post is already too long. What incriminates the non-believer is that he really does have all he needs to see the attributes and decrees of God insofar as they convict mortal man of sin.
What Phil is concerned about — and what we should all be concerned about — is the Gray area which sticks out like a sore thumb which are the actual distinctives of the movement. They are not in congruence or agreement with the distinctives of Christian thought and faith — and we should be clear-throated about pointing this out.
Do we agree with all people some of the time? Of course we do — we’re human, and the world is a real place which God made for all people, where it rains not he just and the unjust. We have some things existential in common. What we cannot do, however, is seek to make the antithetical aspects of human interpretations of any set of doctrines — be they postmodern, postcritical, baptist, pentecostal, presbyterian or Catholic — somehow compatible with the faith.
Christopher’s endorsement of these books whitewashes this problem with an abject lack of interest for those who are not yet prepared to use discern for themselves the difference between common human experience and God’s revelation as a regulating truth. His dismissal of Phil’s attempt to point out this key issue is not charitable in the least, and I think he should at least revise his remarks to better frame his objections — if not apologize outright for being flat-out wrong.
July 17th, 2010 | 4:53 pm | #1
Mr. Turk’s blog post seems irrelevant after yesterday’s protracted dialectical encounter with Professor Reynolds, where he gently disabused me of the “Biola School” heuristic. In a briefer dialectical encounter with Mr. Anderson, I admitted that I did not live up to my own standard of “critical appreciation” when I tersely called Phillip Johnson’s excerpted essay a “conversation-stopper.” These developments motivated me to edit my original blog post in order to provide a bibliography for those who are interested in further exploring postmodernism and Christianity. I kept the comment thread as a record of what can be achieved in the dialectical encounter. In light of what has transpired, I hope Mr. Turk will desist from singling me out and provoking another scrape. Shalom.
July 17th, 2010 | 6:17 pm | #2
“Dialectical encounter.” Pomo jargon makes me smile.
July 17th, 2010 | 7:23 pm | #3
Mr. Mator: The “dialectic” is not postmodern but premodern, going all the way back to Plato’s dialogues.
July 17th, 2010 | 7:59 pm | #4
And jargon goes back even further, I think. It’s an expression of the violence inherent in the system.
July 17th, 2010 | 10:06 pm | #5
I think you miss my ultimate point, Christopher — which is not your lack of charity toward Phil or your short-sheeting of non-pomodernists as “biolaists”. My point is that you are actually doing Christian faith a disservice by your coddling of ideas which are antithetical to the faith while at the same time dismissing people who point it out to you.
In your effort to make peace with one kind of post-modernity (a problem I think you also overlook in your own reasoning; post-modernity is a splintered movement with a lot of shards), you have forgotten that the Bible really does give us clear advice about these kinds of ideas — because they are not all that new.
If you think this is trolling for a fight, my apologies for that. But let’s keep the focus on your own admission that you love this stuff and think it’s compatible with the real person Jesus and the meaning He says his life and death have for the world.
July 17th, 2010 | 11:25 pm | #6
The Gray Area
Heh, heh. A very clever title. Very clever indeed. I like it! Not to mention being a terrific post.
Christopher Benson: “I think there are promises and perils with atheism and postmodernism.”
What is the promise of atheism?
Christopher Benson: “Mr. Turk’s blog post seems irrelevant after yesterday’s protracted dialectical encounter with Professor Reynolds, where he gently disabused me of the “Biola School” heuristic.”
Not so. Not so at all. Christopher Benson’s reading comprehension of Frank Turk’s post and prior comments needs improvement. Nowhere, nowhere at all, does Frank Turk mention Biola university in his post. His argument has nothing to do at all with any purported or assumed “Biola School heuristic.” In fact, the charge of irrelevance actually applies to Christopher Benson’s initial comment on this thread. For his comment is irrelevant to Frank Turk’s point. Benson’s attempt to do a red herring shift over to a “Biola School heuristic” is simply just a non sequitur.
Christopher Benson from #13 of his post: “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.”
If Christopher Benson still feels this way, then I think it’s clear that Christopher Benson is irked by Phil Johnson and Frank Turk, not to mention many others.
Frank Turk: “My point is that you are actually doing Christian faith a disservice by your coddling of ideas which are antithetical to the faith while at the same time dismissing people who point it out to you.”
I think this is a good point. A fair and justifiable point.
July 17th, 2010 | 11:55 pm | #7
Christopher Benson: “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.”
“On the contrary, I advocate a critical appreciation.”
The repeated use of this term, “critical appreciation” seems to be code for what Frank Turk is sensing when he wrote:
“My point is that you are actually doing Christian faith a disservice by your coddling of ideas which are antithetical to the faith while at the same time dismissing people who point it out to you.”
Frank Turk’s point is quite a serious point.
July 17th, 2010 | 11:58 pm | #8
Mr. Turk: If your goal is to persuade me of Phillip Johnson’s claim that “postmodernism is inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity,” you will fail because 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. You’ve asked me to “keep the focus on [my] own admission that [I] love this stuff and think it’s compatible with the real person Jesus and the meaning He says his life and death have for the world,” but you’d be hard-pressed to quote anything I’ve written that says what you said. To be clear: (1) appreciation shouldn’t be confused with love, and (2) partial compatibility shouldn’t be confused with total compatibility. Conversation is nearly impossible when the interlocutor makes unwarranted inferences. I’m not interested in pursuing this further with you.
July 18th, 2010 | 12:11 am | #9
Christopher Benson, #8: “Moreover, I’ve never advocated an uncritical appreciation (or “blanket endorsement”) of postmodernism. On the contrary, I advocate a critical appreciation.”
Frank Turk anticipated (and pre-empted) this move in his post when he wrote:
“The problem is not the Gray area that turns up in the domain of “GENERAL REVELATION”: it’s the Gray area that turns up apart from “GENERAL REVELATION” and is contrary to the Yellow area — that is, it says something that the Yellow area does not. The problem that Christopher has is dealing honestly rather than “charitably” with this problem.
What Phil is concerned about — and what we should all be concerned about — is the Gray area which sticks out like a sore thumb which are the actual distinctives of the movement. They are not in congruence or agreement with the distinctives of Christian thought and faith — and we should be clear-throated about pointing this out.”
July 18th, 2010 | 8:54 am | #10
Frank Turk: “In Chris’s view, one is a “conversation-stopper” if one thinks that postmodern philosophy and reasoning is hostile to the truth claims of scripture.
I think Christopher is being another kind of conversation stopper, and I can substantiate that with two points.”
I’ve read those two points that you use to substantiate your argument that Christopher Benson is “another kind of conversation stopper” several times, and while those two points look pretty solid to me, I’m not really sure what “kind” of conversation stopper you mean when you say that he is “another kind of conversation stopper.”
When you say he is a kind of conversation stopper, what kind of conversation stopper is Christopher Benson?
July 18th, 2010 | 7:07 pm | #11
Frank – would you consider Justo Gonzalez as someone that is suspect (because of his being methodist) and believers should be kept away from?
(yes, thats a trick question)
The bigger question is, Who else is “untrustworthy” to trust believers with, and, more importantly, who gets to make those decisions for those other believers?
July 19th, 2010 | 11:06 am | #12
TUaD:
The academic kind who eliminates someone from the discussion by framing them as an enemy of “book larnin’”.
July 19th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #13
David –
I actually own Gonzalez’s brief church history, and find it to be a useful (but flawed) outline.
“Untrustworthy” is your category. There’s a pretty big gap between that category and the one I used, above, which is “inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity”.
See: in Christopher’s view, if one can sustain a book-length treatise which keeps saying, “well, there are not authoritative narratives, but there are these things we can agree on,” this is an example of postmodernism in the service of Christian faith. The problem is that it is nothing of the sort — because the fundamental, seminal declaration of what is and is not Christian is Peter’s statement, “know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” The postmodernist cannot ever agree to that in the way peter meant it — unless he surrenders his postmodern epistmology.
Christopher would never concede that analysis of the pomo problem. And that is the this-post problem.
July 19th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #14
Frank – thank you for your response. Two followup questions
1. Would a book written by an Anglican be inherently incompatible with biblical Christianity?
2. So you are not a pomo if you can state that you know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. – that is the defacto question that proves you are or you are not?
July 19th, 2010 | 12:23 pm | #15
Frank Turk: “TUaD:
The academic kind who eliminates someone from the discussion by framing them as an enemy of “book larnin’”.”
Thanks for your answer. I now see what you mean.
Well, given your substantiated argument that Christopher Benson is a “conversation stopper,” then it sure is hypocritical of him to call Phil Johnson a “conversation stopper.”
And both you and I know that Phil Johnson is no enemy of “book larnin.”
Lastly, I really appreciate your comment on another thread where you wrote to Christopher Benson:
““If not, please help me understand: if you and I share the concern that people today cannot identify evil as such, and they do so because of the causes I have listed here, how is it that you do not share my concerns that postmodernism is itself an adversary to the Christian faith?
This is the root of my nagging about this: treating this ideological enemy of faith and moral reasoning as a companion of faith & moral reasoning is ill-advised at best.”
That was well-said! And for something that desperately needed to be said.
And it was so deeply ironic (and even funny!) that you issued those words of loving warning…
on a post that Christopher Benson titled:
“Failing to Acknowledge the Reality of Evil“.
Hah!
July 19th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #16
Mr. Carlson: You would be interested in a fruitful exchange I had with Professor Beckwith on my post, “Postmodernism: What Hath Paris to Do With Jerusalem?” See comments #57-62. On the topic of postmodernism, we agreed there is a double temptation that besets (evangelical) Christians: the temptation of novelty (“postmodernism is peachy”) and the temptation of fundamentalism (“postmodernism is poisonous”). I invoked the metaphor of the honey bee: we must learn to extract the portion of the flower that is usable and leave the rest behind. Of course, there are those who only see weeds where I see flowers. :-)
July 19th, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #17
Well, Frank, another interesting post. I assume since I can find no explanation in the “gray area” as to what lies outside of Christian claims in your own post that you’re relying on Johnson’s paper to spell out such claims. And, I also assume that, following Johnson, what is at issue is an “idealized” form of postmodernism, which is to say, a form extracted from all postmodern writers and set up as the genus that connects them all. I say this because Johnson never cites a postmodern writer who fits his description, but instead offers a generalized account that he claims (without offering any direct evidence through citation) to be the case.
There is a missing question, however: whether importing a philosophical perspective into Christianity necessarily implies that the perspective be entirely embraced? And, this is the question regardless of whether Johnson’s portrayal of postmodernism is itself accurate in all of its particulars.
I really do not see how accepting some features of postmodernism requires accepting all features, even of the picture of postmodernism that Johnson paints. Why would accepting postmodernism’s emphasis on subjectivity necessarily imply accepting some form of relativism. I know plenty of individuals who espouse postmodernism and some form of realism.
Also, the problem of sin as a universal human condition has been construed in terms of desire and affectivity (human subjectivity) at least since Paul and James both used the Greek term epithymia, which was translated into the Latin terms concupiscentia and cupiditas, which were viewed as part of the passions/affections, and which Augustine made the central ideas of his understanding of sin.
So, what’s wrong with talking about affections and subjectivity? Jonathan Edwards did it, John Wesley did it, Augustine did it, Martin Bucer did it, Philip Melanchthon did it, etc., etc.
If you claim that it’s not subjectivity per se, but subjectivity as part of the larger system of postmodernism, then Christopher can say, check mate, because you’ve just granted his claim to a critical response.
There is a fear that I detect in the use of therapy and mysticism on the part of some contemporary Christians. They think that such terms necessarily imply relativism even though such terms have been employed by Christians from at least the third century, and one could make a case for their meaning being connected to a Paul caught up to the third heaven or a John the anonymous prophet being snatched up before the throne, etc., etc. In Christian discourse, the supernatural encompasses the mystical, and salvation (at least sanctification in Protestant terms) includes the therapy of human desire (the mortification of sinful desire anyone?). It’s subjective in a way that does not imply morally relative, and a critical appreciation of postmodernism can find all kinds of connections to that position. In other words, the focus on the interior life as important to an assessment of the human condition connects postmodernism and Christianity.
This is no different than early Christianity transforming the Plotinian mystical ascent of the one to the One into a Christian framework. In other words, your category of “inherently incompatible” assumes that philosophical positions must be static entities and thus to draw on Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, or any other philosophical position is to draw on a self-contained system that does not change nor can it be changed. Surely a “thick” description of human subjectivity requires more than a defense of some form of relativism.
So, even if Johnson’s portrait is correct, it does not follow that Christian thinkers cannot find points of contact and thus draw from the insights of postmodernism, which is all I take Christopher Benson to be trying to claim at the end of the day. And, given what you’ve said above, I think you’re probably right there anyway.
July 19th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #18
Dale: Nice to hear your reasonable thoughts. The “idealized” form of postmodernism that’s apparently at work in Phillip Johnson’s essay – ”extracted from all postmodern writers and set up as the genus that connects them all” – is what Professor James K. A. Smith calls the “bogeyman” in the evangelical imagination. It’s a fiction created from fear rather than a studied knowledge of the postmodern thinkers. Both of us are making the same point. Where you said “I really do not see how accepting some features of postmodernism requires accepting all features,” I said “partial compatibility shouldn’t be confused with total compatibility.”
July 19th, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #19
Christopher Benson: “On the topic of postmodernism, we agreed there is a double temptation that besets (evangelical) Christians: the temptation of novelty (“postmodernism is peachy”) and the temptation of fundamentalism (“postmodernism is poisonous”).”
Would you say that Phil Johnson in his paper and Frank Turk in this post have fallen prey to the temptation of fundamentalism?
July 19th, 2010 | 4:08 pm | #20
Dale side this:
I am pleased to clarify this for you, Dale, since you asked.
For example, the claim that god does not exist would be outside of the yellow and in the gray in the diagram — using “atheism” as the example which I actually used. That’s a claim outside of Christiantruth claims but inside non-Christian truth claims.
Now, here’s an interesting thought: are there any po-modern claims that are outside of the yellow area? How about this one:
As the archaeology of our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.This is a particular favorite of mine — is it Christian?
Please let me know. I ask becuase you alwyas seem to think you have overcome me, and often I am sure you haven’t approached my original statements at all.
July 19th, 2010 | 5:10 pm | #21
What is really boggling to me — and I say this in real frustration — is that I think I cannot have said what I said more plainly about the palces where Christianity and any other philosophy overlap. I will say it again here to see that it doesn’t get missed:
In the “Gray” area, certainly: they have encountered the world we live in, and undoubtedly something they say about it will be true. If there’s nothing they say about the world which is true, they’re just babbling idiots and we really can dismiss them. If they can’t get the color of the sky right, or the idea that the world is full of suffering right, or the fact that there are other people in the world right, etc., there’s no basis for discussion.
The problem is not the Gray area that turns up in the domain of “GENERAL REVELATION”: it’s the Gray area that turns up apart from “GENERAL REVELATION” and is contrary to the Yellow area — that is, it says something that the Yellow area does not. The problem that Christopher has is dealing honestly rather than “charitably” with this problem.
You see? Some are callous enough to say that even a broken clock is right twice a day, but the truth is that in every philosophy of man, to be taken seriously, it must have some reference to the real world. Some of it will be true. Some of Neitzsche is true! How can we deny such a thing? The reason that people get taken in by the substantial falsehoods in Neitzsche or Foucault or Derrida or de Mann or poets like Ginsberg is that they have some truth in them.
The problem is when we overlook the reasons why this is so (which I did outline in the above blog entry) and then say, “well, this will make suitable reading for you.” Really? Christopher has yet to qualify who this would be good reading for. I imagine he means “good reading for college students.” Most college students do not go to Biola or Wheaton. And most Christians — bless them, and Christ protect them from evil — are not well-discipled. In that environment, I wonder if it is actually good for them — and if so, how?
It’s also more than a little disingenuous of him to say, “I never said I love this stuff” when he has editied out his own admissions of being partial to it in his original post. It’s easy to make the other guy look bad if one can change the past, and he has.
Thanks. Please have the last word.
July 19th, 2010 | 5:48 pm | #22
CORRECTION: I never “editied [sic] out [my] own admission of being partial” to postmodernism. I’ve consistently maintained my “critical appreciation” for postmodernism. Appreciation however, shouldn’t be confused with love. What I edited from my original post, “Postmodernism 101,” was the content pertaining to the “Biola School” heuristic.
Who should read postmodern thought? An answer to this question depends on the context. In the context of an undergraduate education, John Mark Reynolds and I both agree that postmodern thought shouldn’t be introduced until the student is well-versed in the history of Western philosophy. Outside of the academy, a Christian might want to read postmodern thought in order to better understand the zeitgeist of late modernity. If she lacks an education in the history of Western philosophy, she will be ill-equipped to read from the primary sources without assistance. That would be tantamount to hearing the closing statements in a presidential debate and assuming you’ve heard the entire argument. To compensate for this philosophical illiteracy, she can gain an orientation to postmodern thought by reading from Christian philosophers who are specialists in this area and who use Scripture, tradition, and theology to responsibly critique the postmodern thought. My choice for guides are Bruce Ellis Benson, James K.A. Smith, Carl Raschke, and Merold Westphal.
July 19th, 2010 | 6:59 pm | #23
OK, let’s try again since I have not even come close.
1. I did not take atheism to be a representative claim since it is not a uniquely postmodern claim and thus is not a good example. I thought it was simply a generic example to make the point.
2. Sorry, but I am not sure of the point of your claim about language and generality since it actually is fairly vague itself.
It does, however, remind me of an oral defense with a student who found himself in the awkward position of hating the Cappadocian (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea) approach to language while agreeing with their position on the Trinity and loving the Neo-Arian approach to language (Aetius, Eunomius) while disagreeing with their position on the Trinity. The apophaticism of the Cappadocians with its implicit claim that no human language can adequately describe God was less appealing than the Neo-Arian claim that language could in fact describe God with a univocal degree of precision.
It also reminds me of John Frame’s argument in his work on epistemology that truth does not equal precision.
However, I’m sure none of these points get at the real point you’re attempting to make, so could you please explain the claim a little more? Or, I might put it this way: since context determines meaning and you’ve supplied no context for the claim, I’m left to construct a meaning by supplying my own context.
3. Again, not sure about the third claim so here goes: if the claim intends to say that power is about relations, which is important to postmodern thought, then Christians can certainly agree that the world is relational through and through. This should not surprise you since God is relational through and through.
If you want me to say that there are claims that, extracted from other claims (as in a system or world view), cannot be accepted by Christianity, then I can say that no problem. Atheism in the bare sense of a denial of God’s existence cannot be accepted. Normally, however, atheism claims more than that, and it’s the “more” that Christians should be concerned with. If there are postmodernist who are absolute relativists out there, or those who espouse a form a moral relativism, then sure, those claims are incompatible with Christian claims. Again, there is more to postmodernism than those bare claims.
Given the more, I don’t see postmodernism as a whole as somehow inherently incompatible and thus needing to be discarded in its entirety. And, as I suggested, you don’t either given what you’ve said about. So, extract the claims that cannot be reconciled and go from there. As I said, I think that’s what you are essentially suggesting, which is why you and Christopher are quite close in your approach. He just happens to see more promise with postmodernism than you do.
If the real issue for you is when to introduce such material and to whom to introduce it (as Christopher’s most recent response implies), then that’s fine. But I must suggest that there are some forms of Christianity that actually espouse some key features of postmodernism without ever having read a postmodernist. Pentecostalism is one; it’s no mistake that Jamie Smith sees himself as both pentecostal (small p) and Reformed.
July 20th, 2010 | 12:13 am | #24
Christopher Benson, #8: “Moreover, I’ve never advocated an uncritical appreciation (or “blanket endorsement”) of postmodernism. On the contrary, I advocate a critical appreciation.”
Christopher Benson, #16: “I invoked the metaphor of the honey bee: we must learn to extract the portion of the flower that is usable and leave the rest behind. Of course, there are those who only see weeds where I see flowers. :-)”
Christopher Benson, what in postmodernism would you reject and leave behind as “weeds” and not “flowers”?
Also, you wrote “I think there are promises and perils with atheism and postmodernism.”
Christopher Benson, what is the promise of atheism?
July 20th, 2010 | 1:37 am | #25
TUAD: I should probably refrain from responding to you after others perceived your final comments on my postmodernism post as cynical and self-righteousness. Nevertheless, I will respond because you’ve asked legitimate questions. Answering “what in postmodernism would you reject and leave behind as ‘weeds’ and not “‘flowers’?” would take far more time and energy than I care to expend on this blog. James K. A. Smith’s Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? or Carl Raschke’s The Next Reformation would provide you a much better answer than I could, but that means reading a book on the subject which you might find loathsome. Moreover, your question is not consistent with my metaphor because I view postmodern thought as a flower – not a weed. Our challenge, like the honey bee, is to extract the usable portion and leave the rest behind.
I already provided an answer to your other question – “what is the promise of atheism?” – from Merold Westphal. A better way to ask the question is this: what are the religious uses of atheism? Here’s a brief answer from Westphal:
July 20th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #26
Christopher Benson, my final comments on your thread simply employed what you yourself advocate: Critical Appreciation. Critical of your hypocrisy, and yet appreciative of you owning up to and acknowledging your hypocrisy.
“Answering “what in postmodernism would you reject and leave behind as ‘weeds’ and not “‘flowers’?” would take far more time and energy than I care to expend on this blog.”
How about just starting off with a sentence or a paragraph about the most significant, widely-held tenet of postmodernism that you personally find antithetical to biblical Christianity?
“Moreover, your question is not consistent with my metaphor because I view postmodern thought as a flower – not a weed.”
I’m not understanding why my question is inconsistent with your metaphor. You wrote:
“I invoked the metaphor of the honey bee: we must learn to extract the portion of the flower that is usable and leave the rest behind.”
I simply asked what you personally identify as the unusable portion(s) of postmodernism and would therefore leave behind.
————-
You wrote: “I think there are promises and perils with atheism and postmodernism.”
I asked “What is the promise of atheism?”
You replied: “A better way to ask the question is this: what are the religious uses of atheism?”
I asked the question the way I did because of how you wrote your assertion. I would have asked the question that you suggested if you had originally written: “I think there are religious uses of atheism and postmodernism.”
Do you understand?
July 20th, 2010 | 1:22 pm | #27
TUAD: Obviously, the perceptions of your cynicism and self-righteousness haven’t induced contrition. Oh well. You’re accountable for what you say and do. To repeat, a blog is not the space to explore the promises and perils of postmodernism. If you’re really interested in exploring the topic further (and I suspect that you’re only trying to play “gotcha” games), check out the two books I mentioned. Another helpful book with a spectrum of views is Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views, edited by Myron Penner. You’re still metaphorically challenged. You asked: “What in postmodernism would you reject and leave behind as ‘weeds’ and not ‘flowers’?” To repeat, I view postmodern thought as a flower with usable and unusable parts – not a weed. A bee doesn’t extract anything from weeds. It seems that Phillip Johnson sees a weed where I see a flower. Yes, I originally spoke about the promises and perils of atheism, but I then quoted Westphal’s passage about the religious uses of atheism. So, what is the promise of atheism? Answer: the religious uses of atheism, as Westphal describes.
NOTE: Count on this being my last – and I mean last – comment to you. Just as my pastor throws out any anonymous emails or letters because it signals cowardice, I’m not going to dignify comments with responses unless a person’s actual first and last name is given.
July 20th, 2010 | 1:49 pm | #28
Christopher Benson: “To repeat, a blog is not the space to explore the promises and perils of postmodernism.”
Sure it is.
Are you kidding me?
“To repeat, I view postmodern thought as a flower with usable and unusable parts”
Okay. I shall rephrase the request: “How about just starting off with a sentence or a paragraph about the most significant, widely-held tenet of postmodernism that you view as an unusable part of the postmodernism “flower.”
July 20th, 2010 | 2:48 pm | #29
TUAD:
I could while away the hours
Discerning weeds and flowers
If I only had a name
They might listen to my bloggin’
The ideas in my noggin
If I only had a name
July 20th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #30
Frank Turk: “I think Christopher is being another kind of conversation stopper”
You’re right! (And if Christopher deletes this comment, he’s being yet another kind of conversation stopper.)
I’ve enjoyed our fruitful dialectical encounters with Christopher Benson too. Oh well.
July 20th, 2010 | 6:04 pm | #31
Frank Turk,
Here’s an excerpt of a post by Triabloguer Dusman that supports your arguments:
“As I see it, the problem with Miller and any professing Christian who has fallen for this postmodern cultural view of the nature of “belief” can say that he believes in biblical authority or biblical inspiration, but the words will be absolutely meaningless. The postmodernist’s individual’s particular interpretation of Scripture will potentially be devoid of any significant grounding in the historical creeds and confessions of faith because of the complete lack of epistemological certainty; hence, Miller’s statement, “Who knows anything anyway?” This is highly problematic, because the idea of mind-independent, objective truth necessarily grounds belief in Biblical authority and if truth does not exist and is not knowable, then we are without hope and without God in the world.
Biblical authority has to do with the author’s intended meaning in writing what he wrote. The postmodernist view of truth as merely a social or personal construct (a constructivist view of truth) that renders the author’s intended meaning completely irrelevant. With a postmodern constructivist view of truth, what really matters is the reader’s understanding and perspective of the writing, not what the author originally intended. As a result, biblical authority and inspiration flies out the window and the door has just been opened to theological liberalism.”
From Green like Puke – Donald Miller’s Postmodern Epistemology.
July 20th, 2010 | 9:21 pm | #32
Comments are closed. Too bad I didn’t think of that sooner.
Sheesh.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact