Postmodernity
In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.Such false equations are the best way to describe philosophical movements. This is especially true in the incessant debates over postmodernity. I remain unimpressed by the discussion, and it's particularly disturbing to see such strong Christian interest in its thesis. At root it is an issue of hermeneutics (i.e., method of interpretation). When the new hermeneutic is joined to deconstruction, we call that "postmodernism."
~ George Orwell, 1984
Deconstruction is the hermeneutical arm of postmodernity that deals more specifically with texts, language, and meaning. It's central criticism of modernity is that all communication is essentially a positivistic social construction, and therefore, disparages all subjective interpretations. In other words, modernism is no more "true" to the text than any other interpretive model because in the end, all meaning is subjective. The interpreter's background and social conditioning controls their thinking more so than any laws of logic or reason shared by all.
Deconstruction argues that "conditioning" is involved in language as well as texts. Therefore, all reality is dubious because the entire means of communication and understanding lose objectivity in the morass of the individual interpreter. It is a philosophical prison from which there is no escape.
If this is true, then deconstructionists are at liberty to remove words from their framework ("deconstruct") and "reconstruct" them in terms of the interpreter. Deconstructionists claim an interpretative advantage in that by removing the texts from their alleged framework they make room for innovative insights not possible under the tyranny of modernity. This leaves objective interpretation in shambles; and out of the remains rises the two-headed phoenix of plurality and relativism.
If the majority of mankind subscribes to the subjective hermeneutic (i.e., "truth is in the eyes of the beholder"), then one might say that we are living in a "post"-modern era. But, we cannot say we are in a truly postmodern era -- it's only when we need to make 2+2=5. However, we can say that the certainty of modernism is no longer the authoritative position. It sunk metaphorically like a philosophical Titanic.
In this skeptical climate any claims to reason as the basis for certainty are labeled as domineering or dogmatic -- an ignorant fundamentalism. Since all truth is subjective any appeal to objectivity is simply self-denial on the part of the claimant.
Lest I be misconstrued, I am no fan of the modernist system in that modernity had religion as its primary target for eradication. Modernism was to usher in a scientific utopia in which God is reduced to the level of opium -- He becomes the source for euphoria. However, the question of objectivity inherent in modernism is baseless without presupposing the Christian God of the Bible. Christianity and modernity shared a common assurance in objectivity though modernity had no philosophical basis for such certainty. Therefore, it is only proper that modernity be consumed by its incorrigible offspring, postmodernism.
The new hermeneutic espouses philosophical pluralism: the belief that no one philosophical claim is inherently correct, authoritative, or superior to others. How convenient. And although unsaid, the real target here is the authoritarianism of orthodox Christianity. Other authoritarian ideologies such as Islam are also disparaged; but, loosening the shackles of the Christ-centered narrative of Western civilization is the perpetual objective for the evasive pluralist.
The Side Effects
There have been more side effects to Christianity than simply a growing interest in postmodernism. The remaining evangelicals are quickly marginalized into relativism. They have all but forsaken the battlefield for the shelter of pietism -- the arena where no man may judge you. The heart religion of Christianity is the only safe place from philosophical criticism.
In this context it's easy to see how contemporary Christian preaching degenerates into the "self-help gospel" -- Christianity is a way to spiritual, mental, and emotional wholeness. The average Christian neglects serious, objective theological pursuits. This was made clear when on Larry King Live megachurch pastor Joel Osteen stated that he did not preach on sin because of it's negative emphasis. This is similar to Robert Schuller's version of the "Be-Happy Attitudes" of the Sermon on the Mount. If the intention of the gospel is to deal with sin, and you're determined to avoid the subject, how then can you call yourself a Christian minister in any way?
The new hermeneutic is the epistemic shift from objectivity to subjectivity. It's a break from the modern certainty that you can harvest objective truth from the world through rational and scientific means.
Postmodernity does not warrant theological respectability when it is man's evasive attempt to escape the convicting voice of God. Like Adam and Eve postmodern man scatters amongst the trees to avoid the "voice of the Lord walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8). Postmodernity is a vain attempt at avoiding full Biblical compliance by hiding behind skepticism.
In the final analysis, postmoderns insist that two plus two can equal five. It's a valid interpretation for certain groups, and you should not condemn them. Do they say this with certainty? If so, then they practically operate as if two plus two equals four. There is no reason to assume that simply because there are a multiplicity of beliefs that this somehow justifies pluralism. It rather demonstrates man's sinful creativity to cover himself in diverse philosophical disguises.
It is only in the Orwellian society that the obvious is made questionable -- it's the Establishment's way of undermining the assurance of thought. Any and all attacks on meta-narratives like Christianity are not intended to replace such systems with pluralism and individual freedom. They are the philosophical scams of the scientific elite intended to replace Christianity with the creed of man and his statist system.
I cannot endorse the Christian "adoption" of postmodernism as helpful either. Christianity requires no modifiers. It is not modernistic. It is not postmodernistic. It validates the certainty of knowledge, but it also sets limitations upon man's knowledge. The Christian position is not to critique modernity and then run to the bosom of postmodernity. Christianity holds anything beyond itself in contempt -- postmodernism included.
I realize my position is unfriendly to being "relevant." Christianity doesn't need to be relevant to a society that seeks to evade the Almighty.
