Postmodernity? (Leithart just says stuff better)
April 22, 2008
I have recently been quite skeptical of emergent engagements with “postmodernism.” In particular, I’ve been critical of what I perceive to be the almost wholesale appropriation of many postmodern epistemological developments. Heck, I’ve even come close to denying that “postmodernism” is really an historical phenomenon rather than something that literary theorists and architects made up.
In some ways, I’m still saying these things and I think that there are just a few issues on which emergents need to just slow down and take a breather. Most notably, the emergent obsession with epistemology has come to the forefront in a series of blog posts by an early emergent writer. Just for the record, I’m not a “heresy hunter” despite comments on friends’ blogs that might indicate otherwise. Most importantly, I’m not even here to bash “emergent” as I do believe that those involved in the conversation are asking some important questions and that - at the very least (and this is probably the most important thing emergents do, in my opinion) - the emergent conversation is freeing churches of all sorts to explore new ways of worshiping God.
At any rate, I’ve had quite a difficult time expressing my discontent with some aspects of the emergent movement with clarity and without sounding like a heresy hunter - that is, until I began reading Peter Liethart’s book, Solomon Among the Postmoderns. For those who aren’t familiar with Leithart, I can only say, “Shame on you!” He’s an important, learned and quite nuanced voice in the contemporary theological fray with expertise in theology, philosophy and literature. In many ways, he’s the renaissance man of the contemporary theological scene. So, without further ado, I’d like to share a few portions from the introduction of his book that say what I’ve been trying to say. Keep in mind the he’s not talking explicitly about “emergent” but I think his comments about “pro-post-modern Christians” apply quite directly to the emergent obsession with “postmodern” epistemological issues. Given the fact that much of what “pro-post-modern Christians” say about postmodernity is not really theologically or ecclesiologically interesting, he offers the following bit of wisdom:
“I’ve wanted to discover those more interesting things that postmodernists are trying to say, and as I pursued those more interesting things I increasingly found that eschatology is far more central to postmodernism, and to the Christian response to postmodernism, than epistemology.
“I hoped to show…that postmodernity is, in the sense that sociologists generally use the term, simply a fact. Whether we want to call it postmodernity or something else…we need some term to describe the remarkable set of cultural and political changes that marked the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century: the collapse of the bi-polar political world of the cold war; the globalization of trade, finance and business; the establishment of an American cultural and, increasingly, political empire; the renewed vigor of fundamentalist Islam in world politics, the belated discovery of the dominance of Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere, and the dissolution of denominational boundaries among post-Reformation churches; the rapid spread of new information and communication technologies; the rise of advertising, entertainment, and popular culture as the sacred culture of the United States; new trends in immigration and urbanization; the related shifts in how theorists talk about knowledge and language, the self, and power (Leithart, 12).”
What is so interesting to me here is that, while many emergents seem to focus quite a bit of attention on the philosophical aspects of postmodernity, there is rarely any substantive focus on the world events and actual cultural changes to which postmodern philosophy is but a response. In particular, the use of deconstructionism as a lens through which to interpret the Gospel indicates to me that some emergents simply do not understand the actual nature of the changing culture in which we live. Sure, there are some thinkers out there who talk about places of irreducable certainty and universal signifiers (and universal signified, etc); and there are those who say that there is no such place of irreducable certainty. Sure “cartesian” thought (whatever that’s supposed to mean - and I’m not sure people who throw such terminology around really understand it themselves) might be influential in contemporary Christianity (or at least in white, middle-class, American Christianity - i.e. the smallest Christian group in the world), and sure there’s a need for “new theological thought.”
My thought, however, is - “So what else is new?” The church has always and in every age and every moment had to wrestle with changing and challenging cultural realities. We who live in the post-modern world are not special in this regard. Whether postmodernity is a shift of monumental, Reformation-like proportions is not a judgment that I think anyone in the emergent conversation (or any other conversation for that matter) is qualified to make - mostly because the best judgment regarding the scope and proportion of historical movements usually occurs through the lens of - ahem - HISTORY! To attach such monstrous importance to the current age seems to me to be akin to Lewis’ “chronological snobbery” by which we always think that our era, our time is more important than others that have come before.
Leithart does think our time is important, and maybe I disagree with him. Where I think I agree is the point at which he cites the actions of Saint Benedict, one of originators of monasticism. He writes that, “At times the Christian agenda may be to wait and do nothing, which, come to think of it, was a large part of Benedict’s ‘agenda’.”
I say, “Amen” - in the sense of “let it be so.” I believe that Christians need to concentrate on being Christian and that far too often the emergent conversation works so hard to make “postmodern-conversant” people that it forgets that the goal of the church is to make Christian people who follow God’s spirit through the whims and follies of every changing scene, whether it be modernity, postmodernity, or whatever else comes our way. May the church today - in all its forms - have the faith to live through this blip on the cultural radar. May we simply do what the church has always been called to do - worship God, make disciples, care for the oppressed, and move beyond selfishness toward unity with God.
April 22, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Very Interesting - I find a lot of agreement in the pull quote you include here.
I might disagree with you assessment that emergent conversation is only focused on the philosophical - the early conversations sounded just like what Liethart is saying above. I might disagree only in causation - I think the postmodern/linguistic turn and/or the failure of the enlightenment caused some of the cultural things to occur while technology caused other parts. I find complete agreement with his comment “postmodernity is…simply a fact”. You probably viewed my PowerPoint - it is very simplisitic, as I was trying to explain this stuff in it’s simplist form - Did you notice some of the “cultural” things listed?
BTW: I do know what I mean when I use the term “Cartesian”
Of course the church always has to change - it is just difficult when so much of contemporary theology is built using modern assumptions (certainty, absolutism, universals, etc.) I even think your brief thoughts on eschatology (if I understand them) are are spot on. However, I do not agree we should “do nothing” as I think that one of the bi-products of modernity was radical individualism and consumerism and the practical expression in evangelicalism is the commodification of Christ expressed so openly in Christian culture - this seems counter to being Christian and the conversation is bringing this to light.
I find a lot of agreement in what you say. I don’t think I understand your frustration.
April 23, 2008 at 8:19 am
[...] publishes an awesome post/word regarding the emergent engagement of postmodernity (read it!): I believe that Christians need to concentrate on being Christian and that far too often [...]
April 23, 2008 at 11:27 am
“I believe that Christians need to concentrate on being Christian and that far too often the emergent conversation works so hard to make “postmodern-conversant”.”
I don’t think I see this happening as much as you seem to see it happening. Where do you see this happening that makes you frustrated?
April 23, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Enjoyed the critique. I’m fascinated with the fascination with “deconstruction.” Seems like every emergent book I read talks about this in some way, but it sounds less like a Derridean concept, to me, and more like the demythologization and remythologization of faith, which of course doesn’t make it any less important.
Sometimes I wonder if we put a fancy sounding label on things so that our growing up sounds more important to us.
Or maybe it’s just another way to draw a line between us and them.
April 28, 2008 at 5:43 pm
RE: Postmodern conversant
This is a point of frustration to me. I am constantly frustrated with people asking “what is postmodernism?”, or “what is emergent about?” and when you explain. It is met with “wow, this is much too philosophical” or “just people trying to sound important” or “People using terms they don’t understand” and “This isn’t that big of a deal”
Here is my frustration - Christian thought appears to be extremely insular and very unwilling to listen to claims that counter the assumptions in use.
Those in the emergent conversation are not attempting to make people postmodern conversant - they are just trying to explain what shouldn’t need explanation. Christian thought has just become lazy and defensive.
Postmodern conversant - i think not, just people trying to explain what shouldn’t need explanation especially for Christian thought leaders.
I have much less frustration with Analytics - at least they are paying attention to the conversation and reading.
April 28, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Adam, just a quick response…I see this happening in conversations with friends at the seminary where I am a student and I see this playing itself out in various blogs. Honestly, it’s fairly implicit as well…that’s not a great response but, it’s the best I can give in a comment snippet. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail with some more specific questions if you’d like.
Brad, Thanks for your thoughtful comments as well. I agree that some Christian thought has become lazy and defensive but I don’t think you can easily lump me into that category. I’ve got an undergraduate degree in philosophy and religious studies and hope to continue to study philosophy after I finish my M.Div. (and that includes folks like Foucalt, Zizek, and Baudrillard). What I want to articulate here is that I don’t really think that most Chrisitans think within the “postmodern” stream of thought. What I mean is that there are still many, many Christians in the Western world who are not really interested in “traditional forms of church” but who for whom certain forms of emergent church hold no hope either. I think this is mostly due to an unneccesary reliance on a particular narrative of history which has, unfortunately, gone uncontested in “emerging” circles which believes that “postmodernism” must simply be accepted without much thought to the whether it is really helpful for living a Christian life in their particular context. Another frustration that I have - which John Milbank (who, by the way, is certainly not a “lazy, defensive” Christian thinker and is quite conversant with all sorts of philophical streams) shares - is that “emergent” carries a sort of “this is the “NEW” way of Christian living and you other folks better catch the wave or you’ll be left out of the kingdom.” I see this when emergent voices make fun of traditional Anglican, Reformed, Evangelical, or Catholic Christians who simply do not buy the theory that all Church that isn’t emergent is always cartesian or somehow compromised. At the root of this sort of “wink and nod” reaction to the wider Christian community is a lack of faith in God’s spirit to work through imperfect social circumstances to enliven hearts to live out the many implications of belief in Christ. I think it is more helpful to aspire to be ecumenical than it is to try to be emergent/ing/etc. I’m not rejecting the conversation, just calling it like I see it sometimes.
April 29, 2008 at 8:30 am
Andrew,
I am not sure who to lump into the category of “lazy and defensive” just yet. Most of the emergent folk are not concerned with what is “new and hip” - I have been with them over the past 10-15 years in discussion, amd conferences and observed their careful consideration of these ideas and I think they have held their tongue for a very long time. It is just recently that anyone paid attention - maybe it is becasue books starting selling and ideas started spreading. The emergent critique is just weak - it seems people ran to wikipedia to find out about this thing called “postmodernism” and said stuff like “I disagree with deconstruction” and “Well you sound like your using a metanarrative and that isn’t very postmodern”. I am frustrated - I have patiently tried to explain things like “postmodernism” and “deconstruction” as well as other concepts to folks because I thought they cared, I have even been willing to explain things to people who only wanted to develop a critique but I have come to the point of feeling …enough is enough…if you want to understand it - go read a book! go listen to the purveyors of these ideas (by the way the emergent folks did - I was with a group in 2001 as we spent time listening and in discussion with Derrida over these ideas) this isn’t just a “new” deal this has been brewing a while and the idea still remains (at least with me) Christian thought “hooked it’s wagon” to modernity and is now trying to defend modernity…not historic Christianity…modernity. I will be curious to read your new post - I hope it is thoughtful.