This Christian Life

i sent this post to christianity today in email form because they didn't have a place for me to post a discussion thread on their site. they DO have discussion boards, but not related to articles.

here's their response to my email:
Dear Reader:
In recent years the volume of mail, e-mail, and fax responses to articles in
Christianity Today has increased enormously. As a result, we are able to
print only a small portion of the letters we receive.

Your letter has been passed along to the editor responsible for our Letters
column. She will read your letter carefully, and if space permits include
it in a future issue.

Whether you gave us kudos or cautions, we thank you for giving Christianity
Today your careful attention.

The Editors

seems to me that if they just stop trying to do things in a "modern" way and discover new ways of doing things (more postmodern) they wouldn't have to monitor and "carefully read" every email they get to decide wether or not they should print it. instead they should just use those same resources to monitor discussion boards where people can post whatever they want!

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes: ?It [a roadhouse]is so architecturally interesting . . . with its postmodern wooden booths and sculptural clock? (Ruth Reichl, Cook's November 1989).

If this is what post modernism is, I'm not sure if it should even be applied to anything but art. I could say i was a de-de-consrutctionist, a marxist, a feminist, a facist, or whatever. I guess i'm not sure i agree that postmodernisn is a rejection of modernity, but rather modern art.

I think we can all agree that we are in a new phase of cultural evolution. We are moving beyond something and into something else. The way we understand ourselves in relation to the universe is changing. Of course this is not the first time this has ever happened - the earth once the center of the universe became just one of many planets orbiting the sun, the world once flat became spherical, and the church once full of mystery with no need for the empirical became the apologetic church.

Although we can agree that something is happening we are still far from a point where consensus can begin to form about what exactly that is. During this period of adjustment we live in a place where we can only define ourselves by how we are different. So we explain what we are not until perspective allows us to speak of what we are. We call ourselves postmodern (not modern) until we have words for what we are becoming.

Ok, so, Colson says that, "the core of postmodernism is a rejection of universal truth". In part I agree with him on this. I think I might say it a bit differently though. I would say, "one important part of postmodernism is a rejection of the idea that truth must be universal".

First, to boil down an expansive cultural movement into a trite core principal seems not only premature but arrogant. To me his words sound fearful and rightfully so from a modern point of view. If our faith is based on static, unchanging, and universally applicable truth postmodernism is down-right frightening. But what if truth were alive? What if truth is in fact movement? What if truth is not empirical, universal, and absolute? What if G-d is not a cadaver for us to dissect and study scientifically? What if G-d doesn't want us to defend him? What if G-d simply wants us to live for him?

The world was once the center of the universe - imagine for a moment what that meant to the church. Imagine a world where we are G-d's project, G-d is out there, and we understand how this all fits together. Now imagine that all coming apart - the universe is HUGE, we are just a speck that floats around one of many stars. G-d is bigger than we ever imagined. That was an incredibly frightening time. And for some so is this.

Aaron, one more thing - the definition that you found is an accurate definition if incomplete. Here's Merriam Webster's response:

"of, relating to, or being any of several movements (as in art, architecture, or literature) that are reactions against the philosophy and practices of modern movements and are typically marked by revival of traditional elements and techniques"

Like modernism, postmodernism is at it's essence a period of thought which will inevitably permeate every discipline from science to art, architecture to theology.

there's lots to talk about here...i'm not sure i have time to weigh my whole corpus of thoughts. i'll stab at a couple.

first, i think a distinction needs to be made between postmodern style and postmodern ideology. postmodern style takes the form of new architecture, art, worship services that do very much reject the modern /style/, as some have asserted. postmodern ideology (which occurs primarily in academia and metropolitan institution) is in fact a hard rejection of universal truth. take black holes for example. we cannot understand postmodernity without looking at scientific discoveries such as black holes. we HAD a universally accepted truth/law: gravity. now, we cannot say that gravity acts the same /universally/ because we acknowledge black holes. that's one example of thousands.

Samuel, while your earth-at-the-center points are helpful to this discussion, perhaps they are slightly misconceived. the fact that the earth was believed to be at the universe's center was not necessarily a narcissistic notion created (perpetuated?) by modernists to fill a collective ego. instead, it was built on aristotelian thought which involves concentric spheres of existence. the "unmovable mover" exists in the farthest-out sphere and is perfect because it does not move. as the spheres move towards the center of being, they move more and more with each "layer" (picture an onion). thus, the center sphere would move the most (look around you) and thus be the lowest level of goodness. being at the center of the universe ideologically was a confirmation of the fallenness of the earth. when scientists /first/ proposed that the earth was not in this corrupt (motion-filled) position like we thought, the church was in full support. only later did they reject it for numerous (and various) other reasons.

that's very tangential. sorry.

the issue at hand, though, seems more easily understood in the arena of categorical labeling. the church may enter a stylistically postmodern era and thereby reach more adherents and actually be /more true/ to the biblical formula or worship and God-knowledge, but ideologically it cannot be married with postmodernity--postmodernity on paper most definitely rejects universal truth.

this is all off the cuff and is open for debate. there are some great books and articles i could dig up. but i'm in the middle of a crazy week so i'm not sure how much i can do right now.

thanks, Paul, for continuing to strive for understanding on matters which so greatly affect your deep passion--Jesus Christ and his church.

Nate, while it is true that I glossed over a much more nuanced understanding of the history of the Aristotelian Universe I don't think it is completely ill-conceived to claim that the struggle was in many ways a struggle of ego. I think your more complete description of the thought behind this theory of the universe actually serves my point quite well - that the Church built a very significant portion of it's world view (and thus it's theology) on a scientific presupposition that turned to be incorrect. This left the Church in precarious position (or so they felt) when science moved beyond this understanding.

So, here is my logic problem (admittedly a modern technique) -

If truth is "the property of being in accord with fact or reality" (Merriam Webster) and the addition of new facts and understandings of reality can change our perception of the greater "truth" in question then is truth thus undefinable? Keep in mind that G-d is truth (John 14:6) & G-d is infinite (Rev 1:8).

My trouble with universal truth is the part where we claim to have it figured out. If we have it figured out where is the need for faith?

I think (and this is a work in progress) my answer to the question above goes like this - truth can be known only in so much as G-d can be known. G-d is infinite so we, as finite beings, will never know G-d until we reach perfection. A state I don't plan on achieving any time soon. Is this the postmodern thesis? Not quite. Is it influenced? Absolutely.

okay, i grabbed a book off my bookshelf and am reading a couple pages WISHING i could copy the text into this space. but its late and that would kill my eyes right now. if you are interested in a highly intellectual study of this, pick up Diogenes Allen's Christian Belief in a Postmodern World. it's thick stuff but very relevant. Diogenes is a semi-retired Philosophical Theology professor here at Princeton. i had the great privelege of sitting at his feet in his last Prolegomena class. it was amazing. anyway, read the book. seriously. (Paul you can borrow my copy this summer if ya want, but my notes are in it).

please post more comments, I will visit this site again