For what it's worth, here is an appendix from my first book, Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith. In this section I briefly grapple with the various ways Christians have approached postmodernism.
A Fifth Way?
A (Sort of) Different Approach to Postmodernism
As history takes a postmodern turn, it is not completely clear how best to respond to today’s cataclysmic cultural shifts. Evangelicals are far from united in the ways they tackle these changes, with various authors proposing different approaches to postmodern trends.
Of course categorizing the various evangelical views is no simple task, for rarely do any two writers completely agree. What I propose here, therefore, is a very generalized perspective on the responses of evangelicals to postmodernism. Clearly, there is overlap in the categories (and among the various adherents), and I claim no special insight into the hearts of those who seek to engage culture.
With these limitations clearly in place, what follows is a basic grouping of evangelical stances to the changes that are taking place in today’s world. Though this analysis is somewhat simplistic, I have detected the following reactions to postmodernism.
1. “Defend and Attack”
Some evangelicals are clearly defenders of the status quo. For whatever legitimate or illegitimate reasons, they are critical of anything that might disturb ministry as they envision it. As such, these Christians are vigilant in their efforts to shield the church from the errors of postmodern thought.
One example of this type of response is found in the writings of David Wells, who sees in postmodernism a threat to the faith. According to Wells, those who get tangled in the web of postmodern philosophy are opening themselves to compromise, or worse apostasy.
While not all evangelicals fit within this rubric, it is a fairly common response among traditional believers. Many Christians see themselves as protectors of the faith and, thus, feel the need to reject anything that, in their opinion, sounds too postmodern.
Benefits: Avoids certain dangers found in culture. Stays away from worldliness as traditionally defined.
Disadvantages: Tends to be overly critical (“Throwing out the baby with the bath water”). Can lead to pride (“We have the answers, and you don’t.”). Misses potential evangelistic opportunities.
2. “When in Rome”
Another branch of Christendom, however, is not so critical of what it taking place in our society. These individuals feel a strong calling to reach non-Christians with the gospel. As a result, they are prone to see postmodernism as little more than a matter of form. If music styles change, then we must adapt to these changes for the sake of those who don’t yet know Jesus. If young people begin to speak a different language, we should learn to speak that language too.
One apparent example of this is found in the so-called seeker sensitive movement. These evangelicals (e.g., Rick Warren?) do what they can to promote an atmosphere that is comfortable for outsiders. Thus, the gospel is presented in a way that is easily accessible to our contemporaries.
This response to postmodernism best fits the “When in Rome” model, for it recognizes that cultural change requires that Christians make appropriate adaptations. When in Rome, or in a postmodern world, you need to do whatever fosters better communication.
Benefits: Makes connection with postmoderns. Picks up on certain positive postmodern tendencies.
Disadvantages: Sometimes underestimates the degree of change (whether good or bad) taking place in society and the implications for theology and life.
3. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back”
The third response in some ways resembles the previous model (# 2). The difference is that this type of reply to postmodernism tends to be a bit more critical of (even cynical toward) the negative postmodern tendencies.
D. A. Carson and Millard Erikson seem to fit this mold. On the one hand, they are concerned–like the “When in Rome Approach” advocates–to reach today’s generation with the good news. If we can benefit from postmodern themes and from a proper critique of modernism’s bad points, we ought to do so. On the other hand, there is also a proneness among these evangelicals to be wary of anything that might lead us astray. Thus, in this writer’s opinion at least, there is this tendency to acknowledge some of the potential benefits of postmodernity (“Two Steps Forward”) but to do so with great caution and in such a way that the dangers of postmodernity get more ink than the positive features (“Three Step Back”).
Benefits: Notices at least some of the changes that need to me made in order to reach postmoderns. Quick to point out and caution the church about the dangers of postmodernity.
Disadvantages: Promotes an “us-them” mentality within evangelicalism (“We traditionalists are the experts, and you non-traditionalists could learn something from us.”). Confuses “university driven” postmodernism (e.g., Jacques Derrida) with “street level” versions of the same (e.g., your neighbor). Sounds arrogant to many (both within and outside of the church). Though admitting postmodern benefits, tends to neglect any prolonged discussion of these benefits.
4. “No Looking Back”
Another response to postmodernism takes a different path. Those who follow the “No Looking Back” motto are simply excited about what God is doing in our culture today. Many within the emerging church fit broadly into this category. Of course for some, postmodernism is simply the next “cool” thing to do. For others, however, it has been the impetus for great change and the motivation for a renewed faith commitment.
Leonard Sweet might be one of the more popular representatives of this group, though others are more radical in their approach than he. The idea is that if God is “out there” in our postmodern world, and if he is challenging our beliefs and practices, so be it. Let’s take the postmodern plunge!
Benefits: Cutting edge. Conducive approach for reaching postmoderns with the gospel. Open to what God is doing in society today. Aware of evangelicalism’s “captivity” to modern ideals. Conversant with relevant postmodern themes.
Disadvantages: Too quickly dismisses the past (e.g., modernism), failing to see that God has left his mark in previous eras. Theologically and exegetically shallow at times. Sometimes comes across as “politically correct” and condescending (“Oh, those poor traditional evangelicals just don’t get it.”).
It is quite likely that the previous depictions are less than precise, and it may even be that I have misrepresented an evangelical or two. For this, I apologize. My intent, simply, is to point out some of the ways in which evangelicals have approached postmodernity.
Having said this, I have to admit that I don’t quite fit any of the paradigms listed above. While aspects of each of these proposals resonate with me, I’m still searching for another way, a fifth way.
5. A Fifth Way: “The Best of All Worlds”
The fifth way that I am proposing in not so much a settled view as it is on-going (which I realize is a very postmodern idea). In saying this, I accept, in varying degrees, at least some of what is proposed by each of the above views. “Defend and attack” has its place, though not as much a place, in my opinion, as some people tend to think; it also preserves a theological outlook often lacking in other views. “When in Rome” represents an essential aspect of Christian mission, which must always be concerned with reaching others with the gospel. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back” reminds me of the tension that attends all efforts to be faithful in a fallen world; though this view is too limiting for my liking, it does serve to demonstrate that our journey through this world is a dangerous one. Finally, the “No Looking Back” model, though sometimes naive, is a necessary incentive for anyone desiring, as I do, to connect with what God is doing in our midst.
Of all of these views, I suppose the last two (3 and 4) best fit my current way of thinking. In saying this, though, I am still very much frustrated with the tendency, at least as I perceive it, to miss part of the big picture. Thus, for instance, when I read postmodern types, I often detect an ignorance of theology and exegesis, a proneness to choose the worst examples of modern evangelicalism (often, I suspect, because these individuals were “victims” of such faulty ministries), an amazing naivete when it comes to the greater flow of redemptive history (i.e., one day, we might be considered the “traditionalists,” and surely we are not living in some sort of golden age), a simplistic use of postmodern themes (How many times do I have to read about the demise of the printed word? If you’re writing about it, it hasn’t gone away just yet!), a tendency to give mere lip service to the achievements of previous generations (It is one thing to say that we are not rejecting modernism outright but simply building on it. It is quite another thing to actually make use of, say, reason and logic, “modern” traits that still serve us well in a postmodern world), and an apparent lack of awareness of its own form of pride.
Then again, when I read the better informed traditionalists, I am just as frustrated (if not more so) with their smug attitudes and subtle (or not so subtle) superiority complex. Somehow, traditional evangelicals believe that it’s up to them to keep the faithful on track. Likewise, I see a tendency to model (and so incite) anxiety among evangelicals, who are so afraid of neglecting to cross a theological “T” that they fail to open their eyes to what is taking place all around them. If God is, in some manner, at work via the emergent movement, how “Pharisaic” it is for traditional evangelicals to think that they are the guardians of the faith and protectors of the truth. In my opinion, much of evangelicalism is “out of touch,” corny, silly-looking, defensive, overly theoretical (at the expense of experience), too individualistic, and just plain arrogant. If this is even partially true, why cannot traditional evangelicals humble themselves enough to admit the possibility that postmodernism (in its best forms) may be at least one way among others of achieving greater faithfulness and more balance?
What I see, therefore, is a tendency to go in one direction or the other, and this, as I’ve said, is disconcerting. Can we not at least try to locate a better way? Without appearing arrogant (which I may already be), I’m looking for something different, and I long to find fellow companions who feel the same way. I am tired of the traditional response to postmodernism, and I’m not interested in a half-hearted, fearful approach to today’s trends. I want to wholeheartedly embrace and embody the best kind of postmodern ministry. At the same time, I am not interested in a postmodernism ministry that is intellectually lazy, nor one that comes across as trendy, condescending (toward moderns), acts like it has already arrived at the eschaton, and doesn’t even bother to attract modern types in a more postmodern direction. God save us from postmodern hubris (ironic, isn’t it?)!
Can’t we, in good postmodern fashion, truly seek to embrace the best of all worlds? Is it not possible to hear the concerns of a D. A. Carson, follow the inclinations of a Brian McLaren, and dare set sail with a Len Sweet? To be honest, I don’t know where I am in all this. But I do know that God is governing our lives, including the direction of this and every culture. Therefore, it is clear to me that we need his wisdom if we are going to navigate this strange and wonderful, dangerous and blessed world. As we seek to do ministry in a postmodern context, perhaps the Lord will answer our prayers by enabling us to envision the possibilities of “A Fifth Way.”
Wipf & Stock Publishers
Eugene, Oregon
Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith
Copyright © 2005 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.
A Fifth Way?
A (Sort of) Different Approach to Postmodernism
As history takes a postmodern turn, it is not completely clear how best to respond to today’s cataclysmic cultural shifts. Evangelicals are far from united in the ways they tackle these changes, with various authors proposing different approaches to postmodern trends.
Of course categorizing the various evangelical views is no simple task, for rarely do any two writers completely agree. What I propose here, therefore, is a very generalized perspective on the responses of evangelicals to postmodernism. Clearly, there is overlap in the categories (and among the various adherents), and I claim no special insight into the hearts of those who seek to engage culture.
With these limitations clearly in place, what follows is a basic grouping of evangelical stances to the changes that are taking place in today’s world. Though this analysis is somewhat simplistic, I have detected the following reactions to postmodernism.
1. “Defend and Attack”
Some evangelicals are clearly defenders of the status quo. For whatever legitimate or illegitimate reasons, they are critical of anything that might disturb ministry as they envision it. As such, these Christians are vigilant in their efforts to shield the church from the errors of postmodern thought.
One example of this type of response is found in the writings of David Wells, who sees in postmodernism a threat to the faith. According to Wells, those who get tangled in the web of postmodern philosophy are opening themselves to compromise, or worse apostasy.
While not all evangelicals fit within this rubric, it is a fairly common response among traditional believers. Many Christians see themselves as protectors of the faith and, thus, feel the need to reject anything that, in their opinion, sounds too postmodern.
Benefits: Avoids certain dangers found in culture. Stays away from worldliness as traditionally defined.
Disadvantages: Tends to be overly critical (“Throwing out the baby with the bath water”). Can lead to pride (“We have the answers, and you don’t.”). Misses potential evangelistic opportunities.
2. “When in Rome”
Another branch of Christendom, however, is not so critical of what it taking place in our society. These individuals feel a strong calling to reach non-Christians with the gospel. As a result, they are prone to see postmodernism as little more than a matter of form. If music styles change, then we must adapt to these changes for the sake of those who don’t yet know Jesus. If young people begin to speak a different language, we should learn to speak that language too.
One apparent example of this is found in the so-called seeker sensitive movement. These evangelicals (e.g., Rick Warren?) do what they can to promote an atmosphere that is comfortable for outsiders. Thus, the gospel is presented in a way that is easily accessible to our contemporaries.
This response to postmodernism best fits the “When in Rome” model, for it recognizes that cultural change requires that Christians make appropriate adaptations. When in Rome, or in a postmodern world, you need to do whatever fosters better communication.
Benefits: Makes connection with postmoderns. Picks up on certain positive postmodern tendencies.
Disadvantages: Sometimes underestimates the degree of change (whether good or bad) taking place in society and the implications for theology and life.
3. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back”
The third response in some ways resembles the previous model (# 2). The difference is that this type of reply to postmodernism tends to be a bit more critical of (even cynical toward) the negative postmodern tendencies.
D. A. Carson and Millard Erikson seem to fit this mold. On the one hand, they are concerned–like the “When in Rome Approach” advocates–to reach today’s generation with the good news. If we can benefit from postmodern themes and from a proper critique of modernism’s bad points, we ought to do so. On the other hand, there is also a proneness among these evangelicals to be wary of anything that might lead us astray. Thus, in this writer’s opinion at least, there is this tendency to acknowledge some of the potential benefits of postmodernity (“Two Steps Forward”) but to do so with great caution and in such a way that the dangers of postmodernity get more ink than the positive features (“Three Step Back”).
Benefits: Notices at least some of the changes that need to me made in order to reach postmoderns. Quick to point out and caution the church about the dangers of postmodernity.
Disadvantages: Promotes an “us-them” mentality within evangelicalism (“We traditionalists are the experts, and you non-traditionalists could learn something from us.”). Confuses “university driven” postmodernism (e.g., Jacques Derrida) with “street level” versions of the same (e.g., your neighbor). Sounds arrogant to many (both within and outside of the church). Though admitting postmodern benefits, tends to neglect any prolonged discussion of these benefits.
4. “No Looking Back”
Another response to postmodernism takes a different path. Those who follow the “No Looking Back” motto are simply excited about what God is doing in our culture today. Many within the emerging church fit broadly into this category. Of course for some, postmodernism is simply the next “cool” thing to do. For others, however, it has been the impetus for great change and the motivation for a renewed faith commitment.
Leonard Sweet might be one of the more popular representatives of this group, though others are more radical in their approach than he. The idea is that if God is “out there” in our postmodern world, and if he is challenging our beliefs and practices, so be it. Let’s take the postmodern plunge!
Benefits: Cutting edge. Conducive approach for reaching postmoderns with the gospel. Open to what God is doing in society today. Aware of evangelicalism’s “captivity” to modern ideals. Conversant with relevant postmodern themes.
Disadvantages: Too quickly dismisses the past (e.g., modernism), failing to see that God has left his mark in previous eras. Theologically and exegetically shallow at times. Sometimes comes across as “politically correct” and condescending (“Oh, those poor traditional evangelicals just don’t get it.”).
It is quite likely that the previous depictions are less than precise, and it may even be that I have misrepresented an evangelical or two. For this, I apologize. My intent, simply, is to point out some of the ways in which evangelicals have approached postmodernity.
Having said this, I have to admit that I don’t quite fit any of the paradigms listed above. While aspects of each of these proposals resonate with me, I’m still searching for another way, a fifth way.
5. A Fifth Way: “The Best of All Worlds”
The fifth way that I am proposing in not so much a settled view as it is on-going (which I realize is a very postmodern idea). In saying this, I accept, in varying degrees, at least some of what is proposed by each of the above views. “Defend and attack” has its place, though not as much a place, in my opinion, as some people tend to think; it also preserves a theological outlook often lacking in other views. “When in Rome” represents an essential aspect of Christian mission, which must always be concerned with reaching others with the gospel. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back” reminds me of the tension that attends all efforts to be faithful in a fallen world; though this view is too limiting for my liking, it does serve to demonstrate that our journey through this world is a dangerous one. Finally, the “No Looking Back” model, though sometimes naive, is a necessary incentive for anyone desiring, as I do, to connect with what God is doing in our midst.
Of all of these views, I suppose the last two (3 and 4) best fit my current way of thinking. In saying this, though, I am still very much frustrated with the tendency, at least as I perceive it, to miss part of the big picture. Thus, for instance, when I read postmodern types, I often detect an ignorance of theology and exegesis, a proneness to choose the worst examples of modern evangelicalism (often, I suspect, because these individuals were “victims” of such faulty ministries), an amazing naivete when it comes to the greater flow of redemptive history (i.e., one day, we might be considered the “traditionalists,” and surely we are not living in some sort of golden age), a simplistic use of postmodern themes (How many times do I have to read about the demise of the printed word? If you’re writing about it, it hasn’t gone away just yet!), a tendency to give mere lip service to the achievements of previous generations (It is one thing to say that we are not rejecting modernism outright but simply building on it. It is quite another thing to actually make use of, say, reason and logic, “modern” traits that still serve us well in a postmodern world), and an apparent lack of awareness of its own form of pride.
Then again, when I read the better informed traditionalists, I am just as frustrated (if not more so) with their smug attitudes and subtle (or not so subtle) superiority complex. Somehow, traditional evangelicals believe that it’s up to them to keep the faithful on track. Likewise, I see a tendency to model (and so incite) anxiety among evangelicals, who are so afraid of neglecting to cross a theological “T” that they fail to open their eyes to what is taking place all around them. If God is, in some manner, at work via the emergent movement, how “Pharisaic” it is for traditional evangelicals to think that they are the guardians of the faith and protectors of the truth. In my opinion, much of evangelicalism is “out of touch,” corny, silly-looking, defensive, overly theoretical (at the expense of experience), too individualistic, and just plain arrogant. If this is even partially true, why cannot traditional evangelicals humble themselves enough to admit the possibility that postmodernism (in its best forms) may be at least one way among others of achieving greater faithfulness and more balance?
What I see, therefore, is a tendency to go in one direction or the other, and this, as I’ve said, is disconcerting. Can we not at least try to locate a better way? Without appearing arrogant (which I may already be), I’m looking for something different, and I long to find fellow companions who feel the same way. I am tired of the traditional response to postmodernism, and I’m not interested in a half-hearted, fearful approach to today’s trends. I want to wholeheartedly embrace and embody the best kind of postmodern ministry. At the same time, I am not interested in a postmodernism ministry that is intellectually lazy, nor one that comes across as trendy, condescending (toward moderns), acts like it has already arrived at the eschaton, and doesn’t even bother to attract modern types in a more postmodern direction. God save us from postmodern hubris (ironic, isn’t it?)!
Can’t we, in good postmodern fashion, truly seek to embrace the best of all worlds? Is it not possible to hear the concerns of a D. A. Carson, follow the inclinations of a Brian McLaren, and dare set sail with a Len Sweet? To be honest, I don’t know where I am in all this. But I do know that God is governing our lives, including the direction of this and every culture. Therefore, it is clear to me that we need his wisdom if we are going to navigate this strange and wonderful, dangerous and blessed world. As we seek to do ministry in a postmodern context, perhaps the Lord will answer our prayers by enabling us to envision the possibilities of “A Fifth Way.”
Wipf & Stock Publishers
Eugene, Oregon
Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith
Copyright © 2005 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.
2 comments:
Good advice, Paul. :-) God works in all of our lives in various ways, and so we have to be careful that we don't interfere with his activity. Of course there is a basic . . . let's call it framework, which flows forth from Scripture. Beyond that, we really need to be careful about the toes we step on. Traditional evangelicals have been typically resistant to the non-traditional things God may be doing in this era. But I think I also detect a resistance among some postmoderns to ways that aren't "cutting edge" enough. It reminds me of that scene where the disciples pointed to a man who was casting out demons in Jesus' name, and Jesus basically said, "If he's not against Me, he's for me." While this idea can be abused, it is still an important part of our outlook.
Thanks for your kind words, Paul, and thanks for the wisdom you share here.
Paul- You said: " I keep reminding myself that a world where everyone is the same as me and agrees with me is not a community but a cliche!"
It would also be pretty boring and too predictable! :-)
Post a Comment