This is the first in a short series of articles on the subject of Christian apologetics in a postmodern world.Introduction
Society is experiencing a monumental cultural shift as it moves from a modern to a postmodern paradigm. Today’s priorities have changed, and the way we think has changed, as well. Dogmatism is out, and inclusion is in. Community has replaced individualism as a dominant theme. Certainty and confidence must compete with an increased skepticism and cynicism. Though these are surely generalizations, they reflect some of the current trends. In such a world, what role is there for Christian apologetics [1]? Can, indeed should, the faith be defended in a world that frowns upon anything dogmatic? In this kind of world, what strategies are available for doing apologetics?
The postmodern shift has prompted a number of responses. Some, who are keenly aware of the multiplicity of available religious opinions, have grown skeptical of the existence of truth at all, finding it difficult to choose from among the options. Others advocate a “level playing field” in which all (or at least many) belief systems are given equal status. Still others have decided to staunchly defend traditional ways.[2]
Given our current social environment, it is difficult for many to imagine that any one option might be more valid than the others. Furthermore, the overly dogmatic (and sometimes arrogant) claims of certain segments of the church have caused people to question the beliefs of those whom they already view with suspicion. It can be exceedingly difficult to locate what truly matters in a pluralistic world, and it is wearying trying to proclaim and defend the faith within a society that celebrates the equality of nearly all views and decries anything that sounds universalistic.
As the church seeks to live faithfully within today’s cultural milieu, it is imperative to honestly and creatively address the contemporary situation, giving “a reason for the hope that is in [us]” (1 Peter 3:15). How, then, should we do apologetics? What might a postmodern apologetic look like?
In seeking to answer these and related questions, it is important to locate contemporary themes that are consistent with a Christian worldview. Ultimately, however, this is a search for the living God, listening for his voice in the world around us. May we give us “ears” to hear.
The Postmodern Shift
But before we consider some of the available options, it is important to get our bearings. Any discussion of a postmodern apologetic must first understand postmodernism. What is this postmodern shift?
During the modern era (1500-1960), a number of pertinent ideas flourished, including a reliance on logic, a focus on the individual, an emphasis on the printed word, and an attitude of confidence regarding knowledge claims. All of these tendencies proved useful and yielded many benefits.
The problem with modernity, however, was that these features were often exaggerated to the point of imbalance. Logic was employed with such zeal and confidence that it fostered hubris, and other avenues of discovery (e.g., intuition) were discounted as issues of faith were approached in a more-or-less rationalistic fashion. Likewise, an excessive individualism led to a neglect of the corporate and a proneness to “do it yourself” spirituality.[3]
As increased numbers came to recognize the abuses of the modern era, a new attitude began to take shape. Given that this was, at heart, a reaction against the prevailing tendencies of modernity, the cultural shift came to be known as postmodern. Long describes postmodernism as a “moving away from reason by the autonomous self and moving toward relationship in community.”[4] Smith adds that it includes such ideas as intuitiveness, skepticism, personal experience, and community.[5] Though defying simple explanation, postmodernism[6] can be understood as the pervasive cultural reaction against the tendencies of the modern era. In light of these changes, our task will be to consider what a postmodern apologia might entail.
Notes
1. Apologetics, from the Greek word apologia, is often described as a reasoned defense of the faith. But this defensive approach must be supplemented by a more positive outlook in which the believability and attractiveness of the faith are highlighted.
2. Here, we will seek a balanced approach. On the one hand, there are certainly aspects of a modern apologetic that were either inappropriate or will have little impact in a postmodern world. On the other hand, there is no need to jettison the best features of modernity (or any other era). Since postmodern apologetics is the focus here, that will occupy most of the discussion. But the current setting in which we find ourselves must never become so narrow in focus as to exclude the wisdom of the past.
3. Of course, not all that is modern is bad, and some contemporary thinkers have taken an overly reactionary stance, ignoring or at least minimizing the positive features of modernity. In our desire to avoid that which is harmful, we must not reject the positive aspects of previous generations.
4. Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61.
5. Chuck Smith, Jr., The End of the World . . . As We Know It (Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press, 2001), 46-47. See Smith’s excellent discussion, 45-62.
6. Postmodernism has its proponents and its detractors. Philosophers, theologians, and others have varying opinions regarding this phenomenon. Though a good deal of this can be traced to the presuppositions of the individual, it is nonetheless true that postmodernism is an idea that is difficult to define. This, in turn, has led some to delineate different forms or types of postmodernism. Though somewhat simplistic, postmodernism can be separated into “soft” and “hard” versions. Hard postmodernism, which is the more radical type, is difficult to maintain on a Christian worldview. Soft postmodernism, on the other hand, is much more amenable/conducive to faith, providing a number of potentially beneficial avenues of thought.
1. Apologetics, from the Greek word apologia, is often described as a reasoned defense of the faith. But this defensive approach must be supplemented by a more positive outlook in which the believability and attractiveness of the faith are highlighted.
2. Here, we will seek a balanced approach. On the one hand, there are certainly aspects of a modern apologetic that were either inappropriate or will have little impact in a postmodern world. On the other hand, there is no need to jettison the best features of modernity (or any other era). Since postmodern apologetics is the focus here, that will occupy most of the discussion. But the current setting in which we find ourselves must never become so narrow in focus as to exclude the wisdom of the past.
3. Of course, not all that is modern is bad, and some contemporary thinkers have taken an overly reactionary stance, ignoring or at least minimizing the positive features of modernity. In our desire to avoid that which is harmful, we must not reject the positive aspects of previous generations.
4. Jimmy Long, Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61.
5. Chuck Smith, Jr., The End of the World . . . As We Know It (Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press, 2001), 46-47. See Smith’s excellent discussion, 45-62.
6. Postmodernism has its proponents and its detractors. Philosophers, theologians, and others have varying opinions regarding this phenomenon. Though a good deal of this can be traced to the presuppositions of the individual, it is nonetheless true that postmodernism is an idea that is difficult to define. This, in turn, has led some to delineate different forms or types of postmodernism. Though somewhat simplistic, postmodernism can be separated into “soft” and “hard” versions. Hard postmodernism, which is the more radical type, is difficult to maintain on a Christian worldview. Soft postmodernism, on the other hand, is much more amenable/conducive to faith, providing a number of potentially beneficial avenues of thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment