There’s obviously a lot of talk about postmodernism in the church today. There are really three sides to the debate:
- Postmodernism is a philosophical threat that is antithetical to the Christian faith; it denies truth, or that we can know truth, and accepts any way as the “right way” to truth
- Postmodernism is a welcome change to the world that offers a telling critique of modernism and its dangers; while there are dangers in any worldview or philosophy, postmodernism opens the way for the Christian community to be more like Christ, more like the early church, and more authentic in our culture
- Being modern or postmodern is not the issue: being authentically Christian is the issue
Of course, there are varying nuances for each position, especially my own simplified description of them. And of course, there are those who fall somewhere in between each point. But I’d like to make some comments about point number three.
One fallacy that oftentimes people fall into is believing that attaining or achieving balance on a particular issue is the ideal position. But to believe this is to create a tertium quid, a third option, that is not an inherently better choice, but merely an equal option on par with the original two.
Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo write a chapter at the end of their book, Adventures in Missing the Point: How the Culture-controlled Church Neutered the Gospel, called “Missing the Point: Being Postmodern.” They contend that oftentimes people enamored with the emerging church believe that ministry is all about being postmodern, and they ignore what is modern. They warn us that “being postmodern” is not the superior position, but that by being both modern and postmodern in depending on the context is the best way to pursue ministry. Being adaptable is the key.
While I have at times been enamored with the emerging church, I’m almost to the point of disagreeing. I agree that doing ministry in postmodernity does not necessary demand or warrant doing ministry in the vein of postmodernism. But the culture and the philosophy need not be confused. What I believe is more helpful is a steady and patient pursual of “embracing postmodernity.” Instead of adaptability being the key, a successful transition into a new time is key (which means being adaptable).
I’ve been a bit hesitant to say this up until now, but I think my hunches all along are being confirmed as I learn and grow. The message of the gospel in any culture is directly tied to language, which is at the core of what drives the postmodern critique of the modernist agenda. What the Church communicated in modernity was helpful and useful for the context and culture to which it ministered. But the landscape is changing. The old is passing away. And so must we learn to meet the culture as it evolves, instead of being a culture all of our own that is 30 years late.
The struggle in this transition is not maintaining a balance between what is good out of both modernity and postmodernity. The struggle will be finding a new communicating of the gospel in a culture than is in flux. So while “being postmodern” is not the point, becoming a Christian who can communicate gospel in postmodernity is.
At this point Shiree’s entry on worship serves as a great starting point for the Christian to be able to minister to the culture. As we find our own healing in worship, and as we draw closer to Jesus (aka becoming like him), we will find our true selves (aka live authentic lives) and more adequately be able to “meet people” where they are.
So what about point #3? Isn’t the point to be an authentic Christian in postmodernity? I’ll only respond by saying that becoming postmodern brings with it the authentic life that everyone longs to live, the adaptability that McLaren and Campolo ask for, and the heart of compassion that Jesus had for fellow humans. So if a Christian “becomes postmodern,” they will very likely live a more authentic Christian life.
…In Western Civilization, of course. Everywhere else will look entirely different.
