modernist bashing?

There is a whole lot that I love about the postmodern moment in which we find ourselves. I love the openness of it all, and the prominence given to various important but sometimes neglected themes, things like community, mystery, and (theoretically, at least) a humbler stance on faith. But I can't help but notice that there is this ongoing tendency among postmodern types to go too far in the other direction and to become, well, predictable. I understand that there is a reactionary phase to anything new, a tendency to overstate matters because they are fresh and have been too long neglected; this is normal. I also realize that there are exceptions to everything; thus, a number of people do not quite match what I am going to say here. Still, that said, there is this postmodern trend (and, by the way, a trend among all people, including your truly) to overstate a case. Here are a handful of examples:

✓ Ironically, some postmoderns are stuck in the past.

By this, I mean that they spend an inordinate amount of time reflecting on the bad things that occurred during the modern era (or in previous church situations). While it will always be necessary to provide critique on that which is prominent in a given culture, it is also important to blaze a new trails ahead. Okay, now that we have identified some of the weaknesses of a modern brand of faith, what do we offer in its place? Unquestionably, some people have done just that. Then again, I have noticed a tendency to use modern illustrations (caricatures?) as a launching pad for postmodern exploration. Some of this is, I think, both good and unavoidable. Some of it borders on one-sided, exaggerated bias.

✓ There is a tendency to be especially critical of conservative proponents of faith.

At least in our day, the trend is to attack the conservative branch of evangelicalism. Certainly, some of this is necessary. However, there seems to be a bit too much of an anti-conservative agenda. This looks suspicious, at least to me, and it makes me wonder what other motives are lurking in the hearts of certain postmoderns. Some seem to enjoy condemning–to the point of persecution?–those who are more modern in orientation.

✓ Related to the previous point, some of the lambasting against the traditional church is a bit over the top.

While I have personally observed a lot of wrong ideas and practices among moderns, some attacks on the traditional church are overstated. Indeed, one gets the impression that most all traditionalists are arrogant, hypocritical fundamentalist types who hate women and gays and only wish to promulgate a rigid control over everything spiritual. The only thing they are good for is to provide examples of what we don’t want to be. Clearly, some of these depictions are all too accurate, and I have encountered quite a bit of this myself. However, if we are to be fair, we had better be careful that we don’t end up becoming that which we decry in others. Have certain traditionalists been the victims of intolerance at the hands of some postmoderns? Hmm . . . I do wonder.

✓ Certain postmodern appear overly “wishing washy” on many things.

Another thing is in vogue among postmoderns is a movement to the liberal side of things. They may say that we should remain open and teachable, but many of them actually look like liberals in religious garb (I know, some will think that’s just fine, but the theological liberalism of history is one which basically denies the essential elements of the faith . . . but that’s another story). Of course each person must decide his or her own political preferences, which is absolutely fine. The problem is when this appears so one-sided. The moderns are bad guys for being too predictably conservative. Our response? Become predictably liberal? Perhaps, this is merely something that I have observed, and I realize that there are many exceptions. Indeed, I’m not even talking about the declared statements of postmoderns so much as I am referring to the predictable agenda. Again, just an observation.

✓ Some are overly legislative in focus, joining those who believe that change comes about in great measure through government involvement.

In keeping with the previous point, there is this legislative mentality among some. Let’s get the government to do our bidding. Let’s promote a moral government. Whenever I hear such things I cringe. Of course we should want morality in government. The leaders should be upstanding and righteous, etc. But I think a good point can be made that it is not government’s role to strengthen its grip on society and to be the providers of everything good. To be honest, I think that too much government involvement might actually lead to immorality, for that’s not what the government is for (in my humble opinion). While I do think that government has roles to play, and though we certainly want government to operate by principles that are consistent with God’s revealed will, it is not axiomatic that government ought to be doing more and more to facilitate right living. A better way, I think, is to have a solid but limited government, which guards our freedoms. This, in the long run, might be what best facilitates the spread of righteousness in every arena. Again, while we certainly should discuss the role and limits of government, we should not automatically assume–as some apparently have–that government intrusion is the best way to encourage positive change.

✓ Many are excessively pluralistic in focus.

We live in a pluralistic world, which challenges us to think through the content and practices of faith. Potentially, this can lead us to a better and more balanced perspective on world religions and the like. On the other hand, we do not have to make quick and unwise concessions to views that might prove incompatible with a Christian worldview. Of course we must exude love and a right-minded and right-hearted tolerance, but we must (as best we can) simultaneously live within the framework of truth. In a pluralistic world there is always the danger of succumbing to error and ending up with a syncretistic version of faith. I have no idea where the lines are drawn here (if we can even speak in such terms), but I do know that some things and ideas and beliefs are right, while others are wrong. In our efforts to truly understand, relate to, and benefit from a pluralistic world, we should not be so naive as to assume that all paths are equal (or, in some cases, even valid at all).

I think one of the healthier trends among certain postmoderns is to turn our attention to ourselves. Instead of spending all of our time looking for the bad guys “out there” (i.e., in the world) it is time that we start looking at what’s bad “in here” (i.e., in the church). This is clearly biblical and healthy. Then again, I also think we need to be careful that we don’t bounce too far in the opposite direction. I hear and read lots of things about how we should remain humble, oppose dogmaticism, protect the disenfranchised, embrace the worst elements of society. This is, I would argue, the way it should be . . . always! However, this does not mean that we should come to the place where we are afraid to be bold, where we fear opposing moral evil (and perhaps being labeled unloving), where we are unable to let the whole truth have its sway in our lives. “Lord, enable us to balance and embrace all of the key elements of genuine spirituality. Let all of your wisdom seep into our souls.”