Walt Mueller's Supplemental Resources for Chapter 3Books/Articles Referenced:
1. Gene Edward Veith Jr - Postmodern Times
2. Douglas Groothuis - Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism
3. Peter Kreeft - Back to Virtue
4. Stanley Grenz - A Primer on Postmodernism
5. J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh - Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be
6. Alan J. Roxburgh - Reaching a New Generation
7. Marva Dawn - A Royal Waste of Time
8. Susan Campbell - Hidden Hooks in Children's TV Ads
9. Ravi Zacharias - An Ancient Message, Through Modern Means, to a Postmodern Mind in D.A. Carson - Telling the Truth
10. Gerard Kelly Retrofuture
11. Leonard Sweet - Postmodern Pilgrims
12. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm - Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World
13. Harry Blamires - The Post Christian Mind
14. Francis Schaeffer - He is There and He is Not Silent
15. Charles Colson - How Now Shall We Live?
16. Michael Stipe - The Party 2000
17. Dick Staub - Too Christian, Too Pagan
18. Alister E. McGrath - The Unknown God
19. John Stott - Between Two Worlds
Additional Books Discussed on Blog
1. David F. Wells - Above All Earthly Powers
2. Jamie Smith - Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church
3. Myron B. Penner Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views
I need to be honest, I really didn't like this chapter. Also, forgive me in advance of reading this posting. I'm writing in a bit of a knee-jerk way - and so I am willing to be challenged and also willing to re-negotiate my position if you can prove me wrong.
But before I hear your reactions, let me clarify my opinion:
1. In evangelicalism, we have a hybrid version of postmodernity which served as a bandwagon term from the 1990s which was used to justify anything that was trendy, different, and new. As time progressed, there was a more sophisticated (and somewhat) elitist use of the term which has now evolved into the pseudo-intellectual movement known as 'the emergents.'
As a result, the term 'postmodern' has been used by philes and phobics alike to drive home personal agendas which have more to do with egos than they do a solid assessment (or even understanding) of this term. Therefore, postmodern (to the evangelical) means everything and nothing. It has become more a fad caught up in the commodities sold in the Christian section of WalMart than it does anything to do with French intellectuals, architecture, and Baudrillardian assessments of America!
With that being said, the concept of postmodern evangelicalism - as a pastiche of thought and action among a community - is worthy of being thought and talked about as a cultural phenomena.
2. The PoMo phenomena in youth culture is part of our culture - and it's here to stay whether you like it or lump it. However, it seems that Mueller has drawn upon a series of absolutist, foundationalist writers who are more about preserving the modern aspects of our culture than being willing to concede to the postmodern wave. This is a typical Gordon-Conwell reaction (where Mueller studied) which I think it unfounded. See for example, the work of James Sire, Ravi Zacharias, Douglas Groothuis, Marva Dawn, and David Wells.
I have a problem with this. Is it because I support post modernity? No. it's because I don't support a reactionist view that criticizes one philosophical framework without critically reflecting on the holes which exist in the pre-existing framework. In other words, I am frustrated with this perspective because it contradicts the solid missiological principles Borthwick was speaking about in just the previous chapter.
Guess what? Christianity seems to have done well in pluralistic, reletavistic cultures! In fact, Descartes himself helped to throw the theoretical wrench which has caused the chain reaction which has resulted in the emergence of the post-Christian west! So why would we be so committed to this as an ideal??
I call this our 'affair' with modernity! It's adulterous - and requires a better alternative framework. I'm not saying the alternative is to be found in Derrida and Foucault. I'm just saying that post-modernity has helped expose how tightly the church has clung to enlightenment ideals. Come on! Let's wake up!
We, as a church, are facing an identity crisis. If all that Christianity can be reduced to is what Immanual Kant came up with, then I might as well become an agnostic! That's not Christianity - that's what missiologists call 'syncretism' - the amalgamation of cultural accretions which become indistinguishable from what is theologically sound. I'm less worried about pomo than I am about modo - therefore a retreat into foundationalist assumptions isn't going to help youth. It will simply embitter and frustrate them.
Maybe Lesslie Newbigin had it right when he was in India. Maybe we need to freshly re-imagine our identity as the church? Maybe Booth-Tucker had it right when he also was in India.
What do you think? Am I a heretic - or is there some validity to what I'm saying? Check out Mueller's links and search for foundationalist solutions for the postmodern problems.
Steve
3 comments:
Steve - some random and quick thoughts in response. . . .
I very much appreciate your interaction with the chapter on postmodernism. I knew it would be the chapter that stirred the pot more than any of the others.
Regarding my stance on postmodernism - I'm still in process on this since I don't think anybody fully understands what it is. You're right that it moved out of the academy a long time ago and is now floating around in the category of fad. I've watched this happen among the YS youthworker crowd. About 10 years ago I asked permission to do a seminar on postmodernism at a convention. YS gambled and let me do it at one. I was stunned by the response. The room was filled. Not many there had ever heard the term. Somehow they all walked away feeling like they now had a little bit of meat on the bones of what they were seeing happen. My seminar - I hope - was passionately dispassionate regarding postmodernism. Then, a funny thing happened. I watched the crowd evolve rather quickly over the next couple of years. Suddenly, it became "sexy" to be postmodern. Still, I'm not sure what all the "sexy" people really knew about postmodernism. It was more about a certain style than a philosophically or theologically thought out system. (By the way, I don't think my seminar had anything to do with opening the door on this. The time was just right for it to happen.) I think that far too many have uncritically embraced a "postmodernism" that they really don't understand. I'm afraid that many in the church are having an "adulterous" affair with postmodernism - something you correctly state has happened with the church and modernity. Psuedo-intellectuals make pronouncements and then too many people who are unsatisfied with the way things are, uncritically jump in line behind the pied pipers. It's my hope that youth workers will read widely, think critically, etc.
Regarding my approach in the book - again, I had hoped to be dispassionate and more explanatory. My goal in the chapter was to reduce something complex and varied to some basic tenets. Some might say that's impossible, but I think it must be done. My purpose was to summarize something most don't understand in a way that makes it understandable to people who need to be thinking about this stuff. I would agree strongly with you that modernity needs to be critiqued. In addition, I think that postmodernism offers many valuable critiques of modernism. I think I've hinted at that in the book, but not addressed it as directly as perhaps I should have.
Regarding my Gordon-Conwell background and approach - I think you've stereotyped a bit. The school's academic rigor puts it in the modern category for many people I'm sure. I recently completed my doctoral studies there in the area of postmodern generations. I think that in both the classroom and conversations there was a good balance. In fact, much of what my mentor was proposing back in 2000 is starting to surface in conversations among thoughtful postmoderns today. Your notation regarding the thinkers I cited is somewhat accurate. Part of the method behind my madness is to get people who are willing to adulterously jump into bed with postmodernism to be more cautious and thoughtful. The analysis and challenges of those I've cited can do just that if folks are willing to interact with them. But they're not as anti-postmodern as you might think. For example, when I first read David Wells' four-book series, I thought he was being entirely unfair. However, if you read again, speak to him, and interact with his thoughts as I did, you'll see that he's actually asking many good questions. In addition, his latest book - "Above All Earthly Powers" - actually offers postmoderns who are not happy with the seeker-sensitive model (count me in as one) a great critique of the culturally-bound and theologically suspect seeker model. I'm hoping that postmoderns will learn from this critique to avoid falling into the same trap of narrow-minded cultural captivity that excludes emerging generations. Marva Dawn offers a similar critique of the seeker-sensitive worship style, and actually is an ally to those postmoderns who long for authentic worship.
While I'm not sure I've made sense here, let me reiterate that I'm in process on this. I'm hoping that my explanation in the chapter you cite is more explanatory in nature than "flag-waving." I'm on a personal quest to embrace the good and avoid the bad in the premodern, modern, and postmodern - and I think there's plenty of both in each.
Right now I'm reading an interesting book by Jamie Smith - "Who'd Afraid of Postmodernism?" Good stuff. I'd be interested in your take on it if you've been able to read it. Jamie is bringing and theological, philosophical, and intellectual depth to the conversation that's been absent, I think, since the beginning.
Thanks for being thoughtful on this and for giving me the opportunity to respond.
blessings
-Walt Mueller
Walt,
Thanks so much for being willing to take a chunk of time out of your hectic schedule to dialogue with those who read this blog on this subject. I appreciate your willingness to jump into the pot with us on this subject - and to negotiate and challenge us on some of our own misunderstandings. My hope is that the kingdom will be advanced from our conversation.
While I appreciate your willingness to be dispassionate on the subject, I think it's one which requires the investment of both mind AND emotion - because it's an issue which is serious enough to really splinter the church. I want to be passionate in my critiques of both modernity and postmodernity - because (I agree) both are enticing and adulterous. However, this passion needs to be conciliatory - as this is the end goal/purpose of such dialogues.
I think one of the reasons why postmodernism is so hard to grasp is because it doesn't neatly fit into the worldview universe. It's a completely different kettle of fish!
I think the best analogy would be to liken the relationship of modernity and Christianity to how the cold war was fought, and the relationship of postmodernity and Christianity to the war on terrorism. It requires a completely new set of rules of engagement - rules which do not neatly fit into our past epistemological framework.
As a result - it keeps morphing. In fact, most academics who fit into the umberella term (which they wholeheartedly reject) vehemently disagree with one another! How can you have German critical theorists co-habitating with French post-structuralists? These groups are dialectically opposed to one another!
It's largely British and American cultural studies who have created these umberellas... and these groups rarely agree with either!
So postmodernism has been reapporpriated into pop culture as a neologism for the kitsch and pastiche of American (and largely Japanese) hyper-consumerism. Folk like Douglas Rushkoff used this in the early '90s in a tongue-and-cheek kind of way; eventually to reach tipping point with Douglas Coupland's release of "Generation-X."
If I remember correctly, I think Coupland's book (and Howe and Strauss's 13th Gen. book)is what helped sparked all the 'Primer of Postmodernism' and 'Jesus for a New Generation' evangelical generational talk. (This is probably around the same time as your Y.S. presentation).
All of a sudden, the evangelical printing press is marketing the term as the latest/greatest bandwagon term. We're an interesting group, because once we catch this type of wind - we ride it out until we kill it!
I agree with you about the 'sexiness' of this term. I have seen it happen with generational-talk, postmodernism, and now the emergent material... and it was happening well before that with church growth, seeker-sensitive worship etc. etc.
I think this mindset of 'bandwagon-ing' in evangelicalism seriously needs to be reflected on - because it is damaging! Back in 1999, I listened to some Youth Specialties tapes on postmodernism which were put out by Mark Driscoll, Doug Pagitt and Chris Seay (sp?) In this, they were critiquing this very mindset and talking about how they should be kicked if they ever took their thoughts and transferred them into a book or program. Guess what? They became part of the giant machine of fad-production.
Why? I think that we are all lured by the limelight - this temptation is as old as Christianity is. For example, the co-founder of our movement, Catherine Booth, was such a brilliant orator in London in the late 19th century that businessmen wanted to build a mega-church (larger than Spurgeon's) where everyone could come and hear her speak. She refused to be lured by this offer, but she accepted their money and used it to build local, contextualized, miniature 'barracks' in the anarchic communities of the industrial masses. These barracks were led by anonymous, but faithful ministers of the gospel who sought to ground church in the needs/challenges of the everyday folk who lived in their communities. They were unknown. It was un-sexy... but it made a difference!
A friend of mine calls this 'radical obscurity' - a willingness to do the un-sexy thing! I think this is what we see illustrated most clearly in the life of Christ. He chose the obscure path...
It's rather ironic that we can have the greatest influence more so out of the limelight than in... but this is what's going to be what makes the difference.
Evangelicalism doesn't need more celebrities creating new bandwagons - it needs localized, faithful people who are going to help to shatter the world's crystallized negative impression of Christianity by faithfully leaving people with a positive encounter of God and the church.
I agree with you that too many have uncritically embraced postmodernism, but what they understand as being postmodernism is something completely foreign to what is academically understood to be postmodernity. It's rather ironic that we have created a metanarrative umberella for this form of 'stylized-evangelicalism.'
I appreciate your willingness to tackle this issue. My frustration comes from the sense that this debate is being oversimplified. It also seems to hint at a very clear bias - which I don't sense in other parts of your book. Maybe it would be helpful to add a better balance to your web-resources?
I believe in truth... in fact, I believe in absolute truth. However, I believe that the absolute truth is known fully only by God himself. We are invited to wrestle with this, work it out, explore and stretch our minds - but any piece of 'truth' which we grasp is our humble, human attempt to know how wide, high and deep the love of God is... in other words, we can't fully wrap our minds around it!
Therefore, my confidence must be grounded in faith in what appears to be foolishness to the intellectual. This doesn't mean that we give up on intellect, it means that we use our intellects with humility. It goes back to the medieval/renaissance hierarchy of faith and science, doubt and dogma...
I think this is why I have a problem with the church and modernity. We have been seduced by the promises of 'enlightenment.'
My problem isn't with these folk's critique of postmodernity. My problem is their solution - to retreat back into ego-centric absolutism. I cannot agree with this - and think it's completely absurd (and heretical) to deify the intellect in this way. In fact, I often feel frustrated, because while postmoderns might want to be sexy, moderns struggle with being obnoxious...
Regarding Gordon-Conwell. I apologize for this statement. It was unfounded and biased - besides being un-Christlike. I did stereotype and I'm sorry about that. I have many friends who have graduated from this fine institution. (I guess I was getting a little too 'passionate' and typing before thinking! - sorry!)
This response comes out of a frustration with these writers - because I respect their writings and willingness to wrestle. I don't understand how some of these folk can be so critically perceptive about one subject and yet so uncritically blind about another. (Please understand, I'm not saying that I am in ANY way smarter, or less blind... I admit my blindness and would prefer to take the posture of a humble explorer... not that I always do that!)
Part of me wonders whether or not there is need for clarification between the internal culture wars in evangelicalism? It's about time that we move beyond our essentialized assumptions about one another and move towards a better third alternative... Maybe I need to re-look at Wells' and Dawn's writings.
Part of me get's the sense that this is more of an N. American issue than it is a global issue (with taking into consideration that the global distribution of these products bleeds this unfortunate divide into many other parts of the world).
I'll try to pick up Jamie Smith's book and have a read.
Also, thank you for being willing to enter into this dialogue with civility. I apologize once again if I came off frustrated - but I hope this can at least spark a better compromise in future.
Thank you, too, for your commitment to understanding the tension between youth, parents, media, and the church. You have been a fantastic role-model.
Best regards,
Steve
nice going steve, you're rubbing elbows with the big dogs now. ;-) nice to see you join us, walt.
some things i've found interesting:
the section on moral relativism. it reminds me of a scene in a movie entitled hangman's curse. where a student debates with her teacher what truth or morality is anyway, and how others' morals cannot be forced upon her or anyone else. parts of what mueller says relates to people's opinion of anything goes. whatever feels good, is good, or it works for me so it's ok. and you can believe whatever you want to. which leads into the tolerance thing.
yet again, some of this stuff ties in quite a bit with what we've discussed in larry's class. the christian culture has become foreign. and it is so because of today's culture embracing these aspects of postmodernism. and yeah, it does seem be leading into chaos....
just some thoughts, i'll blog more later.
~jenn
Post a Comment