Comments on: Evangelicals in a Postmodern World

By: Demian Farnworth

Demian Farnworth — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:58:41 +0000

Dan: I’d have to argue that the Reformers rescued us from the dross accumulated over 1,500 years. Not entirely, but more than just another generation trying to understand what Jesus taught. I’d argue that we were closest then, and have been at different times since.

Trevin: I heard Matt Chandler say recently that all we have to do is turn on the television and know immediately we are no longer in a Christian world.

By: Dan Martin

Dan Martin — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:30:25 +0000

I’m troubled by the notion, implied by Trevin’s summary of both works, that somehow Reformation thought appears to be the touchstone for our faith. I see this in plenty of discussion threads, some on this forum too.

If there is anything to “return to” it should be the standard Jesus taught. That, in fact, was what the Reformers were trying to do in their day. Sometimes they got closer, sometimes they missed the boat entirely, but either way, they were trying to re-examine the faith taught in the Gospels and Epistles. We should do no less. Our re-examination may involve the embrace of some elements of postmodernism, and the critique and rejection of others. It should ALSO involve an embrace of some elements of Reformed teaching, and a critique and rejection of others; an embrace of some elements of 20th-century Evangelical thought and a critique and rejection of others. Our standard is–and should remain–roughly 1,500 years prior to the reformers. . .who were, after all, merely another generation trying to understand faithfulness to Jesus in their own lives.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:13:15 +0000

interesting post, i like that you’ve put two views side by side for comment! i think the consensus that will slowly emerge concerning postmodernism is that we should affirm it where it is right and draw lines in the sand where it is wrong.

for example, postmodernism tends to affirm everybody through a twisted notion of relativity. truth, for instance, is relative to one’s “location” in time and space, so no belief system is wrong in postmodernism except for absolute ones (like orthodox christian faith). i agree with that . . . but i’ve accepted the bible as revelation, as word of God which trumps relativity. so, i have to draw a line in the sand.

on the other hand, postmodernism calls the self-assured bluff of modernity’s positivism. by positivism i am referring to the boast of modern methods and investigators that we can develop methods of inquiry and interpretation which will allow us to draw absolute conclusions with 100% certainty. this mindset is why evolution is gospel for some, or why historical reconstructions get carved onto stone tablets as absolute truth. i think evangelicals must affirm postmodernism’s critique of modernism’s self-assuredness.

in my opinion, evangelicals cannot embrace postmodernism in wholesale fashion, especially when its definition and scope are constantly evolving. but, we can affirm it where it is right, accept its criticism of evangelicalism when it is right, and learn to speak its language and converse with it when it is appropriate.

but, we shouldn’t focus all our energies on a perspective that is simply running its course. postmodernism’s inability to do anything but critique is catching up with and will soon overtake it.

By: Mason

Mason — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:23:47 +0000

Personally I very much resonate with N.T. Wright’s discussions on modernism/postmodernism. Wright makes the point that postmodernism is very accurate in much of its critique of modernity. Modernity (despite how some are clinging to it) is no more Christian than postmodernity, and is filled with assumptions and methods that ought to repulse us; we’ve just grown accustomed to thinking in a modernist post-Enlightenment framework.
On the other hand, Wright by no means hails postmodernity as the answer. It might be necessary to deconstruct modernity, to point out that the modernist emperor has no clothes, but postmodernism actually offers very few answers and simply lacks in different ways than modernism did.
So what is needed is for us not to cling to pre-modern/modern/or postmodern thought as the be all and end all, but rather to critique each and move through them to something better and more Biblical.

Also, on a pragmatic level, the church really is going to shoot itself in the foot if it clings to modernity after the rest of the world we are trying to reach has moved on.

By: RJ

RJ — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:55:15 +0000

Let’s face it human beings don’t like change no matter what the circumstances. I think the latest generations are coming to grudgingly embracing change but unfortunately the current leaders of our churches are generally not. One thing we can’t afford to do is embrace a fortress mentality and hunker down in our churches waiting for the second coming. Jesus expects us to be in the world even if we are not of it. Does that mean we have to change the tenets of our faith? Certainly not!