don't take my word for it But in a nutshell.
It is my understanding that over the last hundred years there has been a gradual shift in the way that people receive and defend truth. This philosophical change will take probably another 50 years to complete, depending on how long those who hold the old modern process of truth live.
The modern era's concept in obtaining objective truth was to define indisputable foundational facts. These facts were then used as a foundation(hence the name) and the basis to build all of their other beliefs and opinions on. Because these facts were considered to be absolute truth the logic was if we could give these facts to those who didn't have the truth (because we were smarter or had better connections to God) they would have to agree with us, become part of us, or in their ignorance continue to live apart from us.
I could break this down for you with a variety of examples but that would take a lot of time, but I have no problem verbalizing some if we ever meet.
I find most of the Christians that "embarrass" me are Christians that are desperate to hang on to their old "modern" approach to defending their faith. They believe that by being right they cannot be questioned therefore they can be rude, aggressive, isolated, and of course in their eyes lovingly share the final truth with non Christians or wrong Christians.
This shift in philosophy to what has been commonly call a postmodern approach has affected every area of society. In the Christian culture this shift in how we interpret truth and defend truth involves far more than just the facts. Our truth is obtained through a variety of inputs, or filters that allow us to question what we believe, or questioned what other people believe, and do so without breaking relationship with others or with God. It also gives us the opportunity to adjust our behaviors, and our beliefs throughout our life without destroying the we are, or who we were.
My understanding that life is a journey,and that oftentimes many things that we hold onto as truth may turn out to be more complicated, completely untrue, or not as vital to who we are as we once thought them to be.
In our Christian walk this means much of what we believe we take on faith. We walk it out in our personal journeys to make adjustments based on the relationships we have and the circumstances we live in,or experiences we have had .
Having come from a fundamentalist, very conservative background I know that short of a very powerful move of God most people in the "modern" culture cannot be argued into a more personal and holistic faith. For them to change is for them to admit they were wrong, and unfortunately that means tearing down everything they've ever lived for, or believed in.Their concept of objective truth would be thrown out and that can not happen or they think it means God would be thrown out as well.for some even the concept of dialoging about such things is absurd...unlesss you change your mind and agree with them in the end.
I truly feel sorry for them, and I hope they can experience the fullness of joy and of faith as I have.God is bigger than a list of facts and way bigger than my brain can contain .I do still believe there is absolute truth but how I get it and if I get it I am still working on.
I hope this nutshell helps bring some understanding between you and some the "others" in your life.
Well without getting crazy that's all I have for now
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think Christian moderns need to become postmoderns to dialog successfully with postmoderns. They need to have an injection of humility into their epistemology. (Maybe that's the very powerful move of God you prescribed.)
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of non-Christians in the science community who I would consider moderns. They've got extremely well considered epistemologies and most Christian moderns can't hold a candle to them. Of course, in a modern/modern discussion saying you don't know or you don't know how you know is an end to the discussion.
It's very different discussing things with a postmodern. They genuinely appreciate the phrase "I don't know" or more particularly, "This is what I think but I don't know how I arrived at this conclusion." Saying that requires a measure of humility. It does not require a rejection of absolute truth or that people can be sure of anything.
I'd love to talk to you about all this. I come from a different background. I was an atheist before coming to faith in Jesus. However, I was a modernist in my epistemology. I rejected "relatavism" (which is derogatory Christian lingo for postmodernism). If you pressed me I would need to make the distinction, "I don't know that there is no god, so in that respect I'm an agnostic, but in terms of how I've chosen to live I'm an atheist."
Now I'm still an absolutist (modern), but I'm much more hesitant to insist that I know something for sure. One of the more interesting issues for me is having a rationale for a high view of scripture without the circular logic of "The Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so!".
I should stop. One of the critical things to do in order to discuss this topic is to define modernism vs postmodernism (or at least characterize them with some examples). I'm not sure I'm using the terms the same way you are.
In particular, I'm a bit confused about how modernism is at odds with a personal faith. It sounds like Dispensationalism, which is necessarily modern, but not the whole of Christian modernism.
Bob, this is good stuff to read, and knowing we share some very distinct and unique similarities in our individual journies, I'm looking forward to reading more from you.
ReplyDeleteYour statement I want to comment on is when you say, "I do still believe there is absolute truth but how I get it and if I get it I am still working on." I think this is a significant statement because this is the very beginning of knowledge: to believe that there must be something knowable. It is also the beginning of inquiry, which, as you imply, so many "embarassing" Christians don't do. In fact, as you know, any sense of uncertainty in a modern Christian's mind is often considered unfaithful, if not sinful, and inquiry rarely happens as a result.
As for reaching the postmodern non-Christians, before they can accept the truth of Jesus, they must first believe there is something to believe in; they must first assume that there is something out there to inquire about (truth). In the modern era, that assumption was already there. Times have changed, the assumption is gone, and unfortunately, too many well-intending Christians evangelicals don't understand our culture's major shift in receiving and defending truth as you have described.
What is interesting about your post is the refreshing and critically important blend of modernism and postmodernism. It is modern in that it is full of conviction, it calls people "wrong," it presents what you see as true, and it calls for people to change. It is postmodern in its self-criticism, its sense of uncertainty, its acceptance of diverse paradigms, and its emphasis on personal "journies" and "relationships" over "facts" and "absolutes." I think this blend is a recipe for success in ministry today: without the first ingredient, your blog is pointless; without the latter, it would be ineffective.
Looking forward to more from you... in the meantime, I wish you and your beautiful family a merry, merry Christmas!
I do think that the concept within modernity that allows for people to be right and wrong is very seductive.
ReplyDeleteTo define modernity and postmodernity would be incredibly difficult because of course words are in a state of fluctuation, based on a culture that is defining them, and the presuppositions of those that are reading them, and the experiences of the individual who's trying to understand them.
But if I had to I would work from a general definition I would say that modernity wanted information that would be boiled down to irrefutable facts which would build a foundation of truth that no one could deny, and then they can build on that foundation whatever house of knowledge they wanted people to live in.
Historically this took place toward the end of the medieval time, and was spurred on by the arrogance of church leaders that would deny scientific research, and artistic or philosophical developments because" they" were inconvenienced by the information.
Ironically the church bought into the modernistic mindset and began to develop their own foundation of irrefutable facts upon which to build the church. This ultimately led to the division of churches, the development of thousands of church-based schools, denominations, superstar pastors and ministry leaders, etc.
theologically dispensationalism also came out of a modern mindset and was looking to break down information and make knowledge more noble to everyone. Historically dispensational theology is relatively new.not that I'm saying dispensationalism is wrong only that over time it has been here for very long. A relational/covenant theology that allows people to interact with God and have more influence on what God is doing. Dispensationalism allows God complete control over all historical events and future events and are relationship with him is based on obedience and knowledge.
Postmodern is in a general definition a recapturing of the relational connection to truth. And the allowance that facts may change, and definitions may need to be reworked. Theologically God and the recapturing of faith over facts.a postmodern theology understands that definitions may have been influenced by the presuppositions of those involved in writing them. So I believe they look for things that not only may sound right but also have withstood the test of time. The longer a particular concept has been around for more it holds the possibility of being true. Postmodernity would also look for truth to withstand the personal experiences of those that they had a personal relationship with within their culture, or the circle of influence.
Being willing to be wrong regarding my beliefs has opened up a lot of opportunities to discuss things and allowed for the willingness of listeners to put credibility to my beliefs. My apologetics used to make fun of those who disagreed with me by poking fun at where they were obviously wrong. This apologetic was designed to win people over to my foundational truths therefore allow us greater influence of culture and prove everyone else wrong.
My new apologetic allows for other people to disagree at me and other people may also be right. I apologetic is not worried about winning people to my side but rather showing that my faith is real and my God has influence on the way I live and interact with culture. This gives me more influence in today's culture. It's almost like being willing to be wrong it makes what I have to say more right.
I think in today's world we actually have a blending of the two epistemologies, we must be able to interact with both.
When my child is 45 they probably won't be able to say that, nor will they have to be able to do that.
Happy new year
Happy New Year!
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking a stab at the definitions. It helps.
I've been absolutely amazed how quick the shift in thinking has taken place during the past 20 years.
Still, science marches on as a primarily modern activity. I didn't see much of a change there during this 20 year period. I don't think 30 years will be long enough for science to lose the major influence it has on popular thought. Thus, I predict the jumbled epistemologies will live on.
On the other hand science has had an eroding effect on modernism in other areas (such as orthodox theology). Since that's what we are trying to share with people, the language of postmodernism is what we should primarily use. (I should correct that last statement: the God at the center of that orthodox theology is what we are trying to share.)
One of the very helpful things about postmodern thought is that people are more willing to listen to stories of personal experience and not dismiss them on the grounds that they are not independently verifiable.
Blessings,
Andrew
I ran across this lecture by Don Carson. He's critical of both Modernism and PostModernism (but especially the latter). However, he treats the subject with academic fairness most of the time. He's also funny in a professorial way. It's worth hearing.
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/carsononpostmodernism
Interestingly, he defines postmodernism solely in terms of a claim that our ability to know is limited instead of, as you have, in affirming the role of relationship in knowing.
It would be very helpful to me for you to describe (or give examples) of how the postmodern person uses relationship as a means of knowing. More to the point, I'm looking for examples outside the realm of religion and apologetics. I think removing that element (that you and I care so passionately about) will provide clarity about how the postmodern mind approaches truth.
I don't mean to presume that you have signed up for this discussion. I'm just enjoying it and hope you are too.