I will not hide from the fact that some people are very vocal about the passing of philosophical postmodernism, some advocate a post-postmodernism, and some think it has yet to completely manifest itself.  Yet, wherever you fall on this issue, if you even care, there is still plenty of room for consensus on the effects of postmodernism on our popular culture.

What I mean is that society in a day-to-day sense embodies the values and features of postmodernism, even if the academy has moved on and hasn’t even arrived. I’m wondering what features comprise "popular postmodernism," and help us grasp the nature of our world and how we can communicate and live most effectively within it.

Postmodern  summary: The philosophical postmodern movement has put into words what lies behind the popular culture setting.

• Global  perspective, not as localized. TV and internet connect us with the world
       instantly. We can find out immediately what people in the Middle East think of US
       policy.
• Interaction is valued. Blogs, voting on TV shows, etc. Multiple perspectives and
       complexity are good signs. Even popular TV shows focus more on team work than on the star detective.
• Education  moving from lecture to discussion. Sermons may need to be modified in
       order to speak relevantly in certain settings.
• Multi-tasking in the work place and even at home.
• Technology  has created the hyper-real.
• Visual and image- based culture. Though print has its place, we often rely on picture
       galleries to tell us the news also.

This is not an exhaustive list. What am I missing here?

Technorati Tags: postmodernism, emerging church

On February 13th I posted regarding the complexities of language and the limits we have in conveying meaning. This should not discourage us though, once we have a better grasp of how language functions, we will find that we can say quite a lot.  My metaphor for meaning in the postmodern context is a painting. If you have a painting, then you have an interpretive representation of something.

So if we know what we cannot convey with language, the
immediate issues become, “What can we say?” and “What can we know about what is
said?” One possible solution is suggested by Best and Kellner, “Limitations of
modern modes of perception and representation, and demonstrates the need to
deploy multiple perspectives to better grasp history and social life.” In other words, we need to tenaciously pursue
the truth by reading and rereading, never claiming to have the definitive view,
but humbly seeking the views of others to inform our own through critical
evaluation.

Though the French philosopher Jacques Derrida expresses some views
that may not be compatible with Christian faith, he has some helpful thoughts
in this regard by “arguing not that our discourse has no meaning or that
anything goes but, on the contrary, that it has too many meanings so that we
can fix meaning only tentatively and only so far.” John Caputo goes on to add,
“The letter not only permits but requires and releases endless reading and
responding, re-reading and repeating, commentary and counter-signing.” 

To say that
language fails to represent reality EXACTLY is not the same as saying that
language represents nothing. Postmodern thinkers tend to look at the variables
that prevent us from absolute certainty and then do their best to express
themselves and understand others within these limits. Instead of granting us a
mirror, language paints a portrait of the world that certainly conveys meaning.
At the same time, the painting is a representation of reality and remains open
to a variety of interpretations. Though we cannot give the final (or
comprehensive) word on any topic according to postmodern theory, we can
certainly say “something” and a wealth of knowledge may be attained through
gathering a diversity of perspectives and carefully subjecting what we think we
are saying, hearing, or reading to some revision.

How far one runs with this
concept is a matter of debate, but wherever we fall on the continuum between
the clear mirror or the shattered, foggy mirror of reality, we will benefit
greatly by interacting with the postmodern notion of context and how it shapes
our perspective.

We continue our look at the postmodern world with the implications of postmodernism for how we talk about and use language. While the modern conception of language was more of a one to one representation, the postmodern idea of language is open to interpretation and muddies the water a bit.

In the postmodern world language is viewed as a complex
interaction with many variables, shattering the belief that language is a
mirror of reality and replacing it with a painting that represents one portrait
of reality and takes into account the chief variable in language: context.

One of the most notorious linguistic expressions (if we dare
call it this) that illustrates the power of context is the infamous “I Have A
Scream Speech” by Howard Dean during the 2004 presidential race. Regardless of
how you feel about Dean, there is no doubt that the media took a sound bite of
the blood-curdling roar reminiscent of the WWF and played it alone, completely
out of context. Some said that the scream displayed passion and commitment,
while others said that it showed Dean was angry and unbalanced. What was rarely
touched upon in the media was the context in which the scream occurred.

After a poor showing at the Iowacaucus, Dean felt the need to rally his supporters and decided to have a pep
rally of sorts, even using a microphone designed for noisy situations. Among an already boisterous crowd of
supporters who were screaming and cheering, Dean reached a frenzied climax by
exclaiming, "And then we’re going to Washington, DC, to take back the White House!
Yeeaarrgghh!"

The media focused on the contorted face and scream of Dean,
with all of the sound bites emphasizing his voice to the exclusion of those
around him. Upon hearing the sound clip many were turned off from Howard Dean,
and it could be said that the infamous scream partly caused his fall from
public favor. Whether or not one thinks that Dean’s scream was appropriate or
the product of an unbalanced human being, it cannot be denied that one’s
perception of it changes once the context is illuminated.

Another example of language’s ambiguity appears when we
enter the field of translation, a topic that should be dear to every Christian
in America who
carries a copy of the Bible in English. For example, in the Koine Greek of the
New Testament, the verb tense known as perfect conveys past action that was
accomplished but still has effects extending into the present day. English has
no exact equivalent to this, but our understanding of the work of Christ for
our salvation that extends to today would be seriously deficient if we were not
aware of this nuance of the Greek language in a verse such as John 19:30 where
Jesus declares (in the perfect tense), “It is finished.” Another example found in Greek is the use of
four different words for love in the New Testament. How can we exactly mirror
the meaning of each word for love? We may get reasonably (not “relative”ly ☺)
close to its sense, but not precisely as it would have appeared to the original
readers.

Evangelical dialogue with Catholics concerning salvation has
also suffered at the hands of the murky picture presented by language.
Evangelicals have accused Catholics of teaching that works can earn one’s place
in heaven. The debate whirls around the term “merit” which, as Evangelicals
claim, detracts from the grace of God working through faith. Todd Mangum
discusses the complexities of this linguistic puzzle:

The ambiguity in the Latin term meritum . . . it can mean
either ‘merit,’ i.e., something that is earned; but it can also mean “reward”
or gracious, kind benefit”; i.e., something that is given, but not necessarily
earned” also:

“Does the Catholic theologian mean that God rewards faith
with salvation? Or that God blesses good works with rewards? . . . Or is the
Catholic theologian saying that the believer actually merits or earns his
salvation with his good works?”

An awareness of such an issue and then teasing it out with
the help of Catholic thinkers can go a long way in resolving some of the tension
felt among ecumenical movements.

What all of these examples teach is the central importance
of context. Not only is the context of a word crucial, but also the context of
the reader or listener. We have all had the experience of relating a hysterical
event that left us in stitches from our laughter. When the listener just nods
and says, “That must have been really funny,” we feel the frustration of being
unable to create the original context. Try as we may, we cannot take words and
give them the same EXACT force or significance as they possessed in their
original context.

ReToday I will continue to flesh out the philosophical postmodern movement that underlies our popular context today.  Some critique of postmodernism will be forthcoming, but for now I am trying to outline some of its features that are useful for the church today.

The emphasis on perspectives
among postmodern thinkers on one hand appears to be a very appealing approach
to the world, enhancing our view of the world by informing our conceptions with
the insights of other contexts, yet many fear that this is an incredibly
dangerous move. If we deny that our perspective may not be adequate, then what
is to stop us from buying into wholesale relativism where everyone appears to
be right? Such a critique is a natural concern to voice as we move out of
modern waters in our culture and one that should not be brushed away.

First of all, the move away from the metaphor of
knowledge as a foundation that builds all thought upon certainty is not
synonymous with embracing relativism. Whether or not they are correct,
postmodern thinkers generally are trying to grapple with reality as they have
encountered it. For example, within the church there are certain elements of
Christianity that are central to our identity, such as the divinity of Christ
that has lasted throughout all of church history even in the midst of heated
debate and division in the early church.

From a postmodern perspective one could argue that the
doctrine of Christ is strengthened because it has been affirmed for all of
church history among every cultural expression of Christianity. On the other
hand, issues such as the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage give us
reasons for caution and humility in our thinking, since Bible-believing
Christians actually advocated against both of these movements. From the
vantage point of 150 years after the abolition of slavery and 85 years after
women were given the vote we shake our heads in disbelief. What is the disconnect
between a Christian in the south during the early 1800’s who arrested those
harboring runaway slaves and Martin Luther King who fought for equality in
civil rights? Such complexities cause postmodern thinkers to doubt whether the
world can be explained in objective, timeless, and universal Truth. This does
not end the pursuit of truth altogether. To say that we can never know with
complete certainty is not the same as saying we will never know anything and
give up all rational thinking,[1]
buy a six-pack, and watch The World’s Best Police Chases all night. In
fact, the lingering doubt that we may not have everything right actually
motivates postmodern thinkers to keep up the chase for truth, even if it is a
holy grail that we will never hold in our hands. Perhaps postmodernity truly
takes the following into account: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a
mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know
fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12, NIV).

Secondly, relativism, in relation to truth, is an
untenable position that many postmodern thinkers would reject. To say that all
positions must be inclusive is just another way of being exclusive, asserting
that the only right view is to accept all other views. To discuss the
inadequacy of claiming complete objectivity is not the same as advocating
complete subjectivity. There is no doubt that some postmodern thinkers are much
closer to subjectivity than others, but labeling an entire group of thinkers as
subjective or nihilistic misses the point of postmodernity. In a sense,
postmodernity wants more truth, even if the price paid is absolute certainty.
Some truths are closer to absolute than others, but the limits of each person’s
perspective will ward off the “absolute truth” stamp for postmodern thinkers.

Lastly, one of the most telling features of postmodernism
is its name. To say that postmodernism is a “post,” means that it is after
modernity in chronology. The same convention is used in sports where we have a
game and post-game interviews. In the case of football the post-game shows tend
to be inane and useless (especially if your team just lost!), but they are
never opposed to the game. With postmodernism the situation is a little bit
more complex. In a sense, postmodernity does reject some of the elements of
modernity or at least offers critique. Yet, postmodernity owes its conception
to modern thought whether it likes it or not, creating a relationship akin to
an adolescent who is ready to move away from his parents, but is not prepared
to be self-sustaining. Postmodern thought is deeply indebted to the strides
made by modern thought, but it has now begun the process of moving on, making
its own mark in the world. Though postmodernity leads us into new ways of viewing
the world, we must never forget where we come from. Let’s keep this in mind as
we delve deeper into the postmodern waters.

As we look at the some of
the prominent elements of the postmodern turn, we will once again break these
complex phenomena into three parts: what we can say (language), what we can know (epistemology), and the
nature of our world (metaphysics). After exploring each category, we will move
into a presentation of the possibilities and dangers that the postmodern shift
affords the church in some key areas.

Andrew Jones has some great thoughts on our use of the word Postmodern and how relevant it is for us today. Postmodernism is only of interest to me as far as it is the context in which we currently operate. Jones typically separates himself from philosophical postmodernism and prefers to interact with cultural postmodernism.

He comments,

"Personally, I think the word "postmodern" has been dead and buried in
Christian circles and using it opens a different can of worms for every
audience who cannot tell the difference between ‘postmodernity’
(cultural, historical, experiential, sensual, ie., of the senses) and
‘postmodernism’ the hermeneutical debate. And i know because i am still
getting flack. And more flack for saying the word ""postmodern
sensibility’ is coming in a few months when John Hammett publishes his
updated critique on the Emerging Church [which btw is far better than
the first one]."

The rest of his post is worth a look.

It’s important to have a basic grasp of the influence of postmodernism on our culture today if we want to bring the Kingdom of God to our world.  While it is not essential that every Christian be able to parse out the subtle nuances of postmodern philosophy, there are importants trends and marks of the postmodern influence.  It will be far more important to note their influence in our popular culture.  This is the beginning of my explanation of the Postmodern Turn.

Chapter 3: The Postmodern Turn

 Getting a
firm grasp on postmodernism is far more difficult than nailing down modernity.
While the modern system of thought has been able to solidify through hundreds of
years given to articulation and practice, postmodernity is more of an eclectic
movement of philosophers who are all grappling with a rejection of or,
depending on your perspective, move beyond modernity.

Though postmodernity has
some basic markings and defining characteristics, it has yet to take a
discernable shape and direction. At rock bottom we are at least able to say
that our modern culture has now taken a shift away from the mindset of
modernity, which is why I use Best and Kellner’s cautious term for
Postmodernism, “The Postmodern Turn.” Some critics would assert that
postmodernity is nothing more than extreme modernism, but whether or not the
features of postmodernity are significant enough to claim status as a unique
movement, the fact remains that we must still reckon with a cultural context
that is shifting in some significant ways.

After
modern thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzche pushed modernity to its
extreme, a philosophy known as postmodernism began to appear in the
architecture of the 1920’s and later in universities during the 60’s and 70’s,
especially within literary studies. The
mark of the postmodern was its rejection of modernity, in particular the
rejection of the metanarrative or universal story for the entire world.

With the
abuses of totalitarian dictators fresh in their minds, postmodern thinkers
believed that “Metanarrative implies domination, coercion, eradication of
opponents, imposition of beliefs or behaviors on minorities against their
will.” Instead of one grand story to
which all members of humanity acquiesce, postmodern thinkers placed a greater
emphasis on the diversity of perspectives present in the world.