Crazy Texan Monday and Postmodern Jargon
By Deacon Hall • Dec 7th, 2009 • Category: engaging, philosophy, pomo, post-somethingI was recently skimming through the introduction of Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy and came across an important appropriation that McLaren makes of Stanley Grenz. McLaren writes: “This generous orthodoxy does not mean a simple merging, conflating, or reconciling of the two schools of thought (liberalism and evangelicalism). Rather it disagrees with both regarding the ‘view of certainty and knowledge which liberals and evangelicals hold in common,’ a view Grenz describes as ‘produced…by modernist assumptions.’ Grenz adds that this generous orthodoxy must ‘take seriously the postmoedern problematic’ and suggests ‘the way forward is for evangelicals to take the lead in renewing a theological ‘center’ that can meet the challenges of the postmodern …situation in which the church now finds itself (28).”
That’s a long quote, highlighting two important contemporary ecclesiological thinkers, both of whom I, in fact, respect, and a book with which I’m pretty much in agreement. However, what’s important to bring out of this quote is the degree to which these two thinkers and, frankly, the degree to which most persons in general misunderstand that ever-popular term “postmodern.” What these thinkers describe is really still part of the modern project; a fallibalist understanding of truth and its relationship to humanity. I say this because postmodernity is much different than any simple claims on truth, though that is what it’s often reduced to.
Whether the Christian faith ought or ought not think in terms of postmodern critiques, I will have to leave to you to decide–you’ll find ample compatriots on both sides of this issue, the Radically Orthodox being perhaps the only ones that I know of who actually argue for “postmodern sensibilities” Christianly in a way that is actually consistent with the trajectory of postmodernity (see the debate between Oliver Davies and Graham Ward in this book). But, I would say, to perhaps defend yourself either way with a sense of what postmodernity actually means, and not with the commodified senses of the ideas that are now tossed around in contemporary circles.
Take a look at this Roderick Video for a good interpretation of the postmodern and what Roderick sees as its problems. For a good example of its meaning, read the first half of this op-ed piece in light of Roderick’s break-down between reality and image.
Deacon Hall is currently working toward a PhD in utter frivolity. He spends his spare moments immersed in a dark world of angst and ennui, and the rest of his time learning what those words mean from his overlords.
Email this author | All posts by Deacon Hall
Did you intend to have this video be about Baudrillard’s Hyperrealism? If so, I wonder about that approach as an “interpretation of postmodernism.” It seems to me that while this is interesting, it might not be the best foray into the subject. On a related note, I recently made my own attempt to describe this tricky topic and wonder how you think it does: http://ow.ly/EelD
All good things,
-C
I dug your overall explanation, Callid, especially the incorporation of the Christian message and missionary work into what the postmodern could mean. But I did intend for the post to be on Baudrillard’s hyperrealism. I am becoming convinced (no doubt by my over-saturation of Roderick, above) that the postmodern trajectory is the breakdown between reality (or what was thought to be real) and image, reason and rhetoric. The good side, of course, is that this breakdown begins to give rise to the voices of the marginalized, for they’re no longer excluded from a contribution to the “real;” the real has been deconstructed, and German males are no longer the only ones who have a hold on it. However, there is the possibility of risking a loss of “reality” altogether, precisely in the way defined above. So, I do tend to think that there’s a real danger, here, of hyperrealism–the loss of the self and the world into the pure imagery, where the possibility of control resides only with those who are best able to produce imagery…marketing firms. Perhaps Baudrillard is too much; perhaps Baudrillard’s world is not the only way (though certainly Grahm Ward argues for his). But Baudrillardd seems in many ways to be a good prophet to the possible downsides (if one wants to take them as such) of the postmodern. I’ll put one of Roderick’s videos of Derrida up next; it may be a more fair interpretation (even if not quite as exciting, in some ways) as Baudrillard. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
[...] Townes Introduces Womanist Theology: Homebrewed Christianity 69Bible in Five Statements (Meme!)Crazy Texan Monday and Postmodern JargonSt. Nick, Santa, and SlaveryAndrew Cohen & Philip Clayton at the Parliament of the World’s [...]