In 1
Cor 9:19-23, the Apostle Paul sets forth a strategy for ministry, “I have
become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I have
become all things to all people, so that I may by every possible means save
some.” Like any missiologist today, Paul understood
the criticality of ministering within the cultural context of the people to
whom God had called. Today, most pulpit preachers are probably inclined
to recognize the need to follow Paul's example, proclaiming the gospel within
the cultural context of their own communities, but many feel at a loss for
practical and theologically sound ways of doing so.
This is
particularly true in present-day intellectual milieu of American culture. “Whether we like it or not,” say Allen,
Blaisdell, and Johnston, “postmodern (with
all its various shades of meaning) may be one of the most accurate terms for
describing our contemporary culture.” If postmodern is the term which best
describes today’s culture, then “rapidly changing” is perhaps its second-best
descriptor. Indeed, the American culture
has not only changed drastically in the previous decade, but remains in a state
of flux sufficient to leave many preachers scratching their heads as they try
to adapt their methods of preaching an unchanging message to a rapidly changing
culture. Indeed, the preacher's greatest challenge in postmodern America
is a rapidly shifting cultural view toward religion and, particularly, the
Christian faith. This paper, then, identifies the unique theological
challenges in reaching a postmodern (broadly Western, and specifically
American) culture and presents some reasonable suggestions.
The writer’s
perspective is unreservedly evangelical.
This paper does not approach its task from a prescriptive, “how to”
stance. Rather, it combines a healthy
measure of biblical theology, systematic theology, and missiology with a view
of postmodernism from an apologetics perspective. In writing, the author hopes to provoke in
the preaching practitioner a deep theological reflection on preaching in his
own context.
This paper will
first examine the present a brief theological examination of preaching, without
respect to a cultural milieu. What does biblical theology say about the
reasons and methods of preaching? What does systematic theology say to
the preacher about his motives and his message? Is preaching even a
non-negotiable pillar of the New Testament church, as most evangelical
Christians hold it to be? If so, what
universal principles transcend culture to inform preaching and its delivery? Second, the paper will identify
postmodernism's most serious challenges to the Christian theological
worldview. Where premodernism viewed biblical truth as both given and
absolute, modernism elevated science to the ultimate position of
authority. The increasingly prevalent
postmodern worldview today rejects the notions of absolutes. This section of the paper will deal with each
of these challenges with an eye towards apologetic approaches to each, as well
as the theological flaws of each worldview challenge.
Having
equipped the reader with a basic biblical and systematic theology for
preaching, the paper shifts its view toward application. The paper will
attempt a theologically-based apologetic for answering postmodernism in
preaching. The author will then seek to bridge the theological aspects of
preaching with an understanding of postmodern theological challenges. This should inform the preacher’s thinking as
he seeks to develop his own theology of preaching in the cultural context of
twenty-first century postmodernism. The author will suggest reasonable
suggestions for theologically sound preaching in 21st century.
While much
has been written about the theology of preaching, it seems appropriate here to
boil down the most relevant thoughts. Does
preaching merely amount to the recitation of theological principles and church
doctrines in rhetorical form, or is there something theological in and of the
homiletical practice itself? Barth says
that all theology is sermon preparation. Jacobsen argues that homiletics itself is an
exercise in theology in rhetorical form. Mohler contends that, even if it may surprise
some preachers who think of theology as merely an academic exercise, preaching
is, at its very heart, at theological activity and preachers, by definition,
are called to be theologians.
The various
subcategories of theology, especially biblical theology, but also systematic
theology, inform preaching in numerous ways.
It is the intent of this section to capture timeless and universally
contextual theological truths of preaching.
These non-negotiable principles form the bedrock for preaching. Regardless of when in time or where on earth
the preacher speaks, this is the unmovable foundation for all preaching. Mohler refers to the theological task of the
preacher, explaining that, “The preacher functions as a steward of the
mysteries of God, explaining the deepest and most profound theological truths
to a congregation that must be armed with the knowledge of these truths in
order to grow as disciples and meet the challenge of faithfulness in the
Christian life.”
Meyer agrees
that, viewed theologically, preaching is a stewardship. More specifically, he defines the theological
task of preaching by writing that preaching is, “stewarding and heralding God’s
word in such a way that people encounter God through his word.” The preacher to day stands in line with the
prophets of old and, indeed, with the Apostles and Christ himself. As a steward, the preacher is custodian of
biblical truth. As herald, he stands
with his prophetic and apostolic forbearers in declaring, “Thus saith the Lord!” The hearer may encounter God through the preacher’s
message in several ways. The encounter
may be sweet, taking on the shape of hope and encouragement. Just as likely, the encounter with God may
take upon it the bitter smell of death as the preacher heralds God’s judgment
to those who ignore and disobey His Word.
Once the preacher has completed his task, the stewardship responsibility
passes on to the hearer.
The role of
systematic theology in preaching, though important, is straightforward. Citing multiple sources across the Bible,
systematic theology enumerates the doctrines of the Christian faith. By its very nature, systematic theology is
topical. Perhaps one of the most
important of systematic theology’s contributions to preaching is in its
explanation of the doctrine of Scripture.
Various systematic theologies explain what is meant by the Word of God,
the canon of Scripture, and such critical doctrines as the inspiration,
inerrancy, authority, clarity, and sufficiency of Scripture. Such are foundational doctrines in
evangelical Christianity.
A quick
glance at a small sampling of evangelical texts on systematic theologies also reveals
a basic hermeneutic for biblical interpretation. Grudem, for example, explains the differences
between exegesis and eisegesis, cautioning his readers to
avoid the latter. Such systematic theologies as Geisler’s not
only outline an orthodox doctrine of Scripture, but compare the evangelical
understanding against liberal and neo-orthodox views. Systematic theology, then, has a considerable
amount to say about the substance of
biblical proclamation. Biblical
theology, it shall be show, speaks the very nature
of preaching itself.
Biblical
theology provides a tremendous base from which to inform preaching. Of course, it is first necessary to define “biblical
theology” for, as Goldsworthy notes, the uninformed reader may be inclined to
believe that biblical theology is spoken of here in opposition to the likes of
an “unbiblical” or “liberal” theology. While biblical theology does seek orthodoxy
in its conclusions, the term is not speaking of orthodoxy versus heresy or
conservativism versus liberalism, but is technical. As opposed to systematic theology, which
elucidates the Christian doctrine on any given subject, biblical theology seeks
to allow the Bible to speak for itself on a canonical basis. Biblical theology allows each book or corpus
to speak in light of its own place in the entire biblical narrative.
In biblical theology,
the context of a given passage is not simply the immediately surrounding
passages of Scripture. Instead, biblical
theology demands each portion of Scripture be viewed from its place in the
entirety of God’s Word. Biblical
theology views the entire canon as a unified whole, declaring from beginning to
end the history of God’s redemptive work among humankind. Biblical theology
rightly sees the Bible as the one written word of the one God, declaring one
way of Salvation through the one incarnate Word of God. From Genesis to Revelation, then, Gospel of
Jesus Christ is central to every verse of Scripture.
That
preaching is a necessary part of the church’s ministry is probably a universal
assumption across evangelicalism. Griffiths,
however, challenges whether such an assumption is theologically sound. This is not to question whether the messages
of preachers are, themselves, theologically sound. Rather, if post-apostolic Christian preaching
is not a biblical mandate, then it would make sense for churches perceiving
that preaching is ineffective in their cultural context to abandon it for
another form of word ministry, such as small group study, personal
discipleship, or classroom lectures. However,
if preaching is, in fact a biblical necessity in the New Testament church, then
those who find it less effective are compelled to seek God’s guidance in
devising a preaching strategy that works in their own context.
Griffiths examines
the language of preaching in the New Testament, the word ministry of the
prophets, and the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus and His apostles. Ultimately, he arrives at several biblical
theological conclusions about preaching, each with far-reaching impact on the church’s
view, practice, and theology of preaching.
The first conclusion is that preaching is a proclamation of the word of
God. This may seem obvious at first
brush, but Griffiths argues that the New Testament shows that, beyond the
scriptural content of a sermon, the preacher acts as a herald of God. It is the preached
word today, and not merely the reading of Scripture to the church, says Griffiths, that constitutes the address of the
living God to His people today. If Griffiths is correct (and his arguments
from the Pauline corpus are indeed convincing) the implications of the forgoing
conclusion alone are enough to conclude that preaching is a theological
necessity.
Griffiths
continues to further persuasively demonstrate the necessity of preaching from
other biblical theological arguments. To
him, Christian preaching in the post-apostolic age stands squarely in a “line
of continuity” with the preaching ministries of the apostles and of Jesus
Himself. Griffiths makes a most compellingly case from
Paul’s instruction to Timothy. In 2 Tim.
4:2, Paul tells his protégé, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of
season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” But Timothy is more than just a successor to
Paul’s preaching ministry; he is first in the line of post-apostolic
preachers. As Paul instructs him, “(W)hat
you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful
men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2). Preaching is clearly a post-apostolic
function, and preachers today inherit this ministry of Christ and the
apostles.
Griffiths
further finds the Christian preacher to stand in a line of continuity with the
Old Testament prophets and their proclamation of, “Thus says the Lord!” To Goldsworthy, this is the “beginning of
preaching.” The Christian preacher, like
the Old Testament prophet is herald both of God’s impending judgment upon sin
and of His grand plan for the salvation of doomed sinners. Further, Griffiths argues from biblical
theology, preachers must be commissioned to preach. This is unsurprising, given his conclusion
that preaching, by its very nature, “uniquely reflects the nature of the
gospel.” According to Griffith, preaching is a
declaration, not a conversation; the gospel is something to be formally
proclaimed and, in turn, received by its hearers. This, says Griffiths, is in continuity with
the preacher’s inheritance of the Old Testament prophet’s role and, “uniquely
reflects God’s sole agency in achieving and offering salvation.” The preacher, the herald, like the apostles
and the ancient prophets, is commissioned, filling a special role that is not
part of the ministry of every Christian.
Worthy of
deep reflection, Griffiths concludes that preaching is an interaction between
the human and the divine, with an encounter with God at the center. It is God who acts, and is the primary agent
in preaching. “The ‘word of Christ’
proclaimed is not simply a word about Christ, but a word that Christ has spoken
and continues to speak through His heralds (Rom 10:17).” It is the Holy Spirit who is present and
active in faithful Christian proclamation.
The preacher should derive a real sense of awe, of humility, and of
comfort, understanding that it is God’s job, and not the preacher’s, to
convince the hearer. Indeed, Griffiths
is clear that preaching is far different from other sorts of rhetoric. Where other forms of speech rely on the power
of the speaker’s argument to win the day, only the power of God can move the
hearts of the audience.
Griffiths
further situates preaching squarely in the context of the local church. He notes that, for all their preaching in
public venues, Jesus and the apostles gravitated to synagogues. To Griffiths, Moses is the “archetypal” Old
Testament preacher, who declared the word of God before the assembly. In the Septuagint, the assembly is the Greek ekklesia, the same word that, in the New
Testament, speaks of the local church.
Further, the book of Hebrews is a sermon, one that the writer describes
as a “word of exhortation” (logou tes parakleseos). This is the same phrase used in Acts 13:15 of
the synagogue’s homily.
Meyer uses
language that is quite different from the explanation that Griffiths
offers. However, it seems clear that the
two authors would find considerable agreement.
Both agree that the Bible is the story of Christ as The Word, even if
Meyer is not nearly as emphatic in his insistence that every passage of
Scripture must find its way back to Christ.
For his part, Meyer defines preaching, in biblical theological terms,
as, “stewarding and heralding God’s word in such a way that people encounter
God through his word.” Meyer’s theology
of preaching then, involves three components:
stewardship, heralding, and an encounter with God.
In discussing
the role of preacher as herald, Meyer differs little from Griffiths. Likewise, his notion of preaching as an
encounter with God bears many similarities to Griffiths. However, Meyer does tend to emphasize more
the hearer’s encounter with God than the preacher’s. Moreover, Meyer does not demand that somehow
an encounter with God demands a positive experience, “the sweet smell of life.” In fact, in some cases, quite the opposite
might be true. The encounter with God
may be quite negative, “the stench of death,” and justifiably so, because the
herald’s news is, at the same time, one of God’s impending judgment upon sin and God’s merciful plan to rescue
perishing sinners.
Unique in his
approach to the nature of preaching is Meyer’s notion of preaching as
stewardship. As with Paul’s steward in 1
Cor 4:1-2, the preacher is entrusted with something that is not his own, but
that belongs to his master. To Meyer,
this stewardship takes different forms, depending on the biblical genre at
hand. However, stewardship always requires
the preacher to be faithful in exercising that stewardship. Moreover, in every case, when the preacher
has faithfully passed that stewardship over to the hearer, the hearer now bears
responsibility for the stewardship (see Ezekiel 3:18-12, and Acts 20:26-27).
Both Meyer
and Keyser are convinced that biblical theology stands shoulder-to-shoulder
with expository preaching. Passages must
be taught after a careful study of the passage and its context. To Kaiser, the sermon without careful
exposition of the text at hand essentially causes the preacher to proclaim a
word that God did not say. If the
preacher does not proclaim the word of God from the pulpit, then there should
be no wonder that the Holy Spirit is not present in his sermon. Rampant exegetical neglect, says Kaiser, is
epidemic. In fact, Kaiser calls it a “crisis,”
among preachers and the reason most sermons lack the very power of God himself.
Goldsworthy
is quick to note that, included in the concept of context is the entire Bible
itself. He laments carefully exegeted
sermons that have not so much snatched a passage out of its immediate context (indeed,
many of the sermons he takes to task are contextual in the immediate sense), but
that have forgotten the context of the Bible as a whole, and its grand story of
salvation. One example he finds
disturbing is a sermon on the marks of a good husband and father, taken from
Ephesians, chapters 5 and 6. Indeed,
Paul has described the makings of a superb husband and father but, Goldsworthy
observes, what immediately precedes this passage is a discussion of the
gospel. One can only be a good husband
and father in light of the transforming work of the gospel; to Goldsworthy, the
sermon he laments turned the text into law without any visible sign of grace.
For his part,
Adam takes no issue with the study of biblical theology, and with a proper
exegesis of the biblical text. Indeed, he
encourages these disciplines, but he warns that proper exegesis also includes
an exegesis of the audience. Many voices
in our culture, he observes, have called Scripture irrelevant or obsolete. Obviously, the preacher must reject such a
notion and remain under the theological assumption that God inspired the
Scriptures with future audiences in mind.
To be certain, there is a chronological, geographical, and cultural gap
between the biblical authors and modern audiences. Adam sees this gap as overstated. A careful study of Scripture shows the
preacher what the passage meant when first penned. A careful study of the preacher’s audience
today helps him to bridge the gap between meanings then and now, and thus
proclaim the universal principles of God’s word to present-day listeners.
The above
discussion on the biblical theological nature of preaching gives the preacher a
great deal upon which to reflect. Such a
reflection might easily be sobering. The
notion of stewardship of something as valuable as the very word of God should
motivate the preacher to ensure that he has carefully prepared for the task at
hand. Such responsible should always
drive the preacher to his knees in prayer while preparing for his task as
herald.
Moreover, the
sobering idea of standing in a line of continuity with the Old Testament
prophets, and with Jesus and the apostles should motivate the post-apostolic
preacher to diligent study. The preacher
should desire not only to carefully study the passages with which he deals on a
weekly basis, but should wish to continuously sharpen every aspect of his
knowledge. If the preacher’s job is to
proclaim, “Thus says the Lord,” then his life of biblical and theological
study, and his own personal prayer life and walk with God ought to be lived so
that, when the time comes, what the preacher says truly reflects the word of
God.
The preacher
of any age, and regardless of the cultural setting of his audience, must
approach his task while considering numerous theological principles. First, the preacher must approach the duties with
a clear understanding of what the Bible is, as the word of God. Such an approach will give him the proper
respect for the Bible, while avoiding bibliolatry, or its opposite: the idea that the Bible is somehow
philosophical or allegorical. He must be
convinced that in his hands the singular God-given, self-interpreting,
coherent, and cohesive salvation history.
It is not a textbook, but a story about God and his plan to reconcile
fallen humanity, His image-bearers, to himself. Respecting the Bible for what it is, the
preacher must then allow the Bible to speak on its own terms. Numerous of the authors this writer consulted
quoted this oft-repeated phrase, “A text without a context is a pretext.” And it is.
The preacher must be careful not to make a passage say what God never
intended it to mean.
Moreover, the
preacher must understand the seriousness of his task. To realize that it is no overstatement to say
he follows in the footstep of Christ, the apostles, and the Old Testament
prophets should not be cause for pride or haughtiness. Rather, this realization should drive the
awestruck preacher to his knees in humble prayer, relying on the God whose
words he is to speak to empower him for the challenge.
Finally, a
sound theology of preaching requires that the preacher know his audience. Indeed, that is the example the Apostle Paul
set. Moreover, the many encounters of
Jesus with people show that the savior understood his audiences, and related to
them in terms with which they were familiar.
He used agricultural metaphors.
He taught in parables that each graphically and memorably depicted the
timeless truth that Jesus desired to convey.
Further, one could argue, Jesus not only fully understood the arguments
of skeptics and His detractors, but he turned their own preconceptions and
prejudices against them.
Thus far,
this paper has briefly delved into some universal biblical theological
principles for preaching, separate from any worldviews standing in opposition
to Christianity. Preaching is, indeed, a
bedrock function of the church, with Jesus being the greatest exemplar of the
practice. Now, the focus of this paper shifts
to a prominent worldview that stands in strong opposition to the claims of the
Christian faith, namely, postmodernism.
This author will make a particularly careful examination what Allen,
Blaisdell, and Johnston have termed, “folk postmodernism,” the secular
worldview of middle class Americans who are not engaged in the depths of
academia. It is these people toward whom
the preacher must design his own theology of preaching.
As Groothuis
admits, the challenges of postmodernism to Christian theology are many. Before discussing those challenges, it makes
sense that this paper should first attempt to define postmodernism, at least in
terms that its truth claims might be lined up with those of Christian theology. However, as Erickson admits, postmodernism
eludes a strict definition. This paper, then, will not seek to define
postmodernism, for it is a worldview that, by its very nature, delights in
rejecting and evading objective categories.
Nor will this paper attempt a through-going historical reconstruction of
postmodernism. Rather, the author will
attempt to trace the general contours of postmodernity, particularly in light
of its challenges to the truth claims of the historical Christian faith.
As Kelly and
Dew note, postmodernism certainly did not arise from a vacuum. Rather, it is the product of a deep
uneasiness and discontent with Enlightenment modernism that reached a crescendo
in the 1960s. The defining marks of modernism (a
still-prevalent, but fading worldview) is a deep trust in the competence of
human reason and scientific knowledge to answer society’s pressing issues. Indeed, as Kelly and Dew are quick to point
out, it is the Enlightenment’s emphasis on science that made the Industrial
Revolution and many major medical advances possible.
Modernism, of
course, found itself at odds with the Christian faith at many
intersections. Against the biblical and
historical record to the contrary, many modernist thinkers rejected the idea of
original sin, believing instead that human beings are basically decent. Certainly, the twentieth century dispelled
such a naïve conception of humanity.
Further, Enlightenment thinking came to see European culture as the
pinnacle of civilization. Such a
societal superiority complex justified the exclusion and exploitation of
numerous non-European cultures, including the selling of African people into
the bondage of slavery. More than that, modernist
thinkers typically rejected core tenets of the traditional Christian faith. Nietzsche said traditional Christianity was
for the morally weak, while Darwin argued it was scientifically
unsupported. Marx said Christianity was
a tool of oppression, while Freud claimed it was psychologically
unhealthy. Modernists critiques, in
totality, worked hard to undermine the traditional Christian faith.
The events of
the twentieth century, with its destruction beyond all historical precedent,
would serve to solidly rebuff modernism’s overly optimistic view of humanity
and scientific progress. However, if
Enlightenment rationalism and modernism were shown to present an overly
optimistic and wildly inaccurate view of the human condition, this did not lead
the postmodern world to reembrace the biblical description of sin and the state
of mankind.
Postmodernism
does not make a clean break with modernity and, despite the discontinuities
there are many philosophical and cultural lines of continuation. As Groothuis notes, both worldviews are
mostly nontheistic in nature, favoring instead (at least in later modernism) atheism or
agnosticism. Both modernism and
postmodernism embrace a philosophical naturalism, denying the objective
existence of God and rejecting the supernatural. Smith says that both deny grace, instead
promoting “an idolatrous notion of self-sufficiency and a deep naturalism.”
As to the use
of technology and ideas of freedom, Smith argues that postmodernism is, in
fact, modernism intensified. Groothouis goes further, arguing that postmodernism
is simply modernism taken to its logical conclusion. The twentieth century proved the fallacy of
modernism’s faith in the infallibility of science and rationality, and
postmodernism rushed in to fill the vacuum.
Thus, if the modernist presupposition that theism is merely superstition
remains in place, then when rationality and scientific inquiry prove their
limits, the postmodern rejection of absolute truth logically follows.
Despite its
tendency to defy definition, postmodernism does bear certain common marks and
perhaps the most prevalent, and most challenging to Christian theology, is the
very nature of truth. “What is truth?” Pontius Pilate’s question to Jesus (John
18:38), is one that Christian theology (and indeed, almost any other
conceivable worldview) insists is objectively knowable. Indeed, as Groothuis notes, while the Bible
does not present a philosophical discussion on the nature of truth, it does
offer a coherent perspective on the issue of truth and falsehood. The biblical worldview, then, is one that
completely denies the postmodern view.
According to Scripture, truth is knowable, objective, and revealed by
God. What’s more, God’s truth is
absolute, without variance, and universal in nature. Finally, biblical truth is unified, coherent,
and is not merely a means to an end, but is, itself, an end. None of this is to mean that the biblical
worldview agrees that human knowledge of truth is either entirely comprehensive
or even close to infallible.
Postmodernism,
on the other hand, dismisses the very question, at least in an objective
sense. Still, it is not that
postmodernism sees truth as unknowable.
Rather, the one universal truth in postmodernism is that truth as
entirely subjective and relative. In
fact, Allen, Blaisdell, and Johnston call it, “radical relativity.” Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and may
be entirely different for one person than it is for another. In postmodernism, Erickson notes, even
expert opinions of those who have studied a subject to the doctoral level can
be dismissed by neophytes who interpret the evidence on the matter according to
their own subjective standards, definitions, and feelings. Indeed, as Groothuis observes, postmodernism
puts the very notion of truth in jeopardy.
There is,
says Butler, a “a defining sense of the postmodern” in which history,
tradition, and cultural memory have disappeared. “(M)uch postmodern analysis,” Butler
continues, “is an attack on authority and reliability—in philosophy, narrative,
and the relationship of the arts to the truth.” Political, academic, journalistic,
scientific, and most definitely, religious authority is suspect in
postmodernism, and in many cases, rightly so.
Rationalism and human reason, so prevalent in modernism, are dismissed
with all other means of evaluating truth claims. When it comes to authoritative claims, it
seems that postmodernism has thrown out the proverbial baby with the
bathwater. Postmodernism is an extremely
pessimistic, yet entirely pervasive worldview.
As Butler
notes, conspiracy theories have flourished in the postmodern milieu. Just as popular movies and books as Oliver
Stone’s JFK cast a paranoid
skepticism on the political establishment, books such as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code present wild theories
about the historical Jesus Christ that, if true, would certainly cast the
Church in an extremely negative light (as seems to be Brown’s intent). The popular media bombards the average
citizen with wildly divergent truth claims, and the postmodern person will not
be bothered with filtering through all of the noise to sort each against a set
of objective criteria. This is
understandable, given the information overload under which the typical person
in postmodern society exists. The one
thing the postmodern person knows for certain is that the self is the ultimate
arbiter of truth. The truth is what each
person decides is his truth. The pessimism, skepticism, and individual
subjectivity that so defines the contours of postmodernism presents a
formidable challenge for the theologian who insists there is, indeed, absolute,
truth and that such truth is not only knowable, but found in the pages of
Scripture.
As opposed to
modernism, which asserts that “knowledge is power,” the postmodernist says that
knowledge is a function of power.
Essentially, the one with the power defines what is true. Because modernism’s faith in the ability of
knowledge to bring about progress proved largely unfounded in the twentieth
century, postmodernism presumes that objective truth cannot be known. What’s more given the overwhelming amount of
information available (much of it contradictory) it follows, in the
postmodernist view, at least, that there can be no unified worldview. The shear multiplicity of religious and
philosophical views negates the possibility of one true worldview. To the postmodernist, language is merely a
human construct, incapable of relating absolute truth; the hearer provides the
meaning, regardless of the speaker’s intent.
Correspondingly, the meaning of a text cannot be confined solely to that
which the author intended to convey; instead, its meaning is what the reader
takes it to mean. Ultimately, postmodern
truth is subjective and only knowable because it is the construct of
individuals and communities.
Ultimately,
the most frustrating aspect of postmodernism is that there are no objective
truth claims to validate. Since
postmodernism rejects outside authority and elevates the individual’s
experience, postmodernism is not only difficult to define, but hard to critique. While many people in postmodern society may
not even have heard of postmodernism, let alone the likes of its great
champions, like Lyotard, Foucault or Derrida, they have unwittingly adapted
their viewpoints, confident that truth is to be found in their own intuition
and experience. The result is societally
pervasive point of view that Allen, Blaisdell, and Johnston term “folk
postmodernism.”
According to
Allen, Blaisdell, and Johnston, folk postmodernism is the tendency of a great
many contemporary people who, though lacking any formal philosophical or
theological training, nonetheless demonstrate in their sensibilities a great
affinity with the thinking of Derrida or of Foucault. The average person may be uncomfortable with
other people’s “truth,” may not hold the same view as their own truth, but are
content to let the other person keep the opposing view. Debate is stifled in the name of
tolerance. Rejection of authority
manifests itself as being “non-judgmental.”
While the
folk postmodernist may quietly wonder whether anything goes, he most desires to
be viewed by others as unbigoted and open-minded. “Who am I to say how others should live?” the
folk postmodernist down the streets asks himself. Statistics seem to back this up. According to a 2014 survey by the Pew Forum
on Religion and Public life, a clear majority of American adults (64 percent)
said that right or wrong depends upon the situation, while only a third of
adults said there are clear standards of right and wrong.
Kelly warns
against choosing the most radical or fringe elements of postmodernism in
judging the entire school of thought. In
arguing for a fair critique of postmodern thought, Kelly says:
“The Principle of Charity encourages us to put forward
the best-dressed versions of postmodernism and to read and interact with both
the fringes and the mainstream in an attempt to portray fairly and critique
sympathetically what various postmoderns have to say. The number of theologians
and philosophers (and historians, too) who read the postmodernists as crass
relativists does an injustice to the breadth and depth of the postmodern corpus
and to the authors of the texts.”
To be fair,
then, this paper will seek to find the opportunities for Christian theology to
discourse with postmodernism. In fact,
this author seeks to find more points of contact than differences between
postmodernism and Christian theology.
This is not to argue that postmodernism is not, in many ways, inimical
to the Christian faith. It is. But a simple exploration of the contours of
postmodernism should make problems with that worldview self-evident to
evangelical students of theology.
To be clear,
this author is entirely uninterested in compromising the essential elements of
the Christian faith in order to render it more palatable to postmodern
sensibilities. Rather, the author seeks
to build on opportunities to advance the Christian worldview in a way that communicates
accurately to postmodern understanding.
In other words, this paper looks to find ways to overcome the
communication barriers that inevitably insert themselves in a discourse between
strongly divergent worldviews.
With its view
of objective truth as an ontological impossibility, or nearly so, postmodernism
presents severe challenges to the Christian worldview. Simply put, if God is not extant, or at least
not knowable, then the idea of Scripture as the inspired, and inerrant Word of
God is, at best, an unprovable theory. Moreover, even if a postmodern individual
accepts as fact that the Bible is the Word of God, he is likely to reject the
areas of biblical authority that he dislikes, using the argument that the words
were “true for them and then” (the original audiences), but “not true for me.” That argument may or may not be true to an
extent for a given biblical passage, but the arbiter of contemporary truth in
postmodernism is always the individual speaking for himself. The Pew Survey may give significant insight
as to the pervasiveness of such views, at least in America. In 2014, Pew found that a mere 31 percent of
U.S. adults say the Bible is the Word of God, and to be taken literally, while
27 percent said that the Bible is the Word of God, but not to be taken
literally. But most shocking in this
survey is that 33 percent of the respondents said that the Bible is not the Word of God. One recent cultural blogger this probably
sums up most folk postmodern views most concisely. Responding to Christians who tell her what
the Bible says on any given issue, she replies, “So what?”
Yet,
postmodernism does provide a way, however subjective, for the individual to
determine his or her own truth. Owing
probably in great part to Foucault’s thinking, postmodern thought today rejects
a uniform concept of self, especially the rationalist self. There is no human nature; there is only the
power and structures that have shaped each person individually. Yet nevertheless, the individual’s own
experience is enough to define truth for
that individual. Filtering out all
of the external noise in the world, postmodernism says people ought to trust
their own experience.
Certainly,
this is an idolatrous, self-centered, self-exalting view that is entirely
pessimistic in assuming that people act as they do to gain power. This view says the Christian’s experience
does not trump, for example, that of the Buddhist. Moreover, by its very nature experiential
judgment necessitates some form of emotionality. The Christians is reminded of Jeremiah’s
warning about the emotions. “The heart
is deceitful above all things,” says the prophet (Jer 17:9). But it is the notion of experience where the
Christian faith may have the deepest affinity with postmodern thought, and it
is experience that could prove a starting point for Christian dialogue with
postmodernism. Indeed, the psalmist
writes an invitation to experience God, “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!” (Ps 34:8).
Postmodern
people may accept or reject parts or the whole of the Christian worldview, and
any other, for that matter, based upon “what works for me” and what is “true
for me.” However, at its worst,
postmodernism is no more antagonistic to the claims of Christianity than was
modernism. Further, posit some,
postmodernism may show theologians and preachers alike the way to return to a
biblical proclamation untainted by modern rationalism. In any case, the failings of postmodernism as
a worldview provide ample opportunity to exposit a theological and
philosophical worldview of mystery, hope, and confidence where it is so
desperately needed. For his part, Allen seems extremely skeptical
about the prospect of engaging postmodernism by finding any sort of common
ground. Postmodernity’s subjectivity,
pluralism, and rejection of metanarratives in favor of simple narratives
appear, at least to Allen, just plain wrong, and a threat to biblical authority
that must be tackled. He is concerned
that Loscalzo and Allen, Blaisdell, and Johnson (with some justification,
particularly on the part of Johnson) have ceded too much theological ground in
attempt to accommodate postmodern ears. But there must be some way to communicate the
uncompromising truth of the biblical message in a way that postmodern society
may be more likely to receive, without compromising the foundational doctrines
of the Christian faith.
Raschke
believes that Groothuis, among others, has far overstated postmodernity’s
opposition to sound theology, painting postmodern thinkers with a broad brush
of evangelical anti-intellectualism.
Raschke rightly faults Groothuis for a failure to even engage with
anything postmodern writers haves said.
To Groothuis, Raschke says, postmodernism is simply every avant-garde
trend to have come along since the 1960s and represents all that is wrong with
contemporary American culture. Raschke’s point is worth considering. Indeed, for all its challenges to orthodox Christian
theology, postmodernism may share some common ground with the Christian
worldview. This common ground may
actually assist the apologetic task. Smith takes what is, perhaps, one of the
most radical Christian views of postmodernism.
He argues that what Christians think
the postmodernists are saying is not at all what they are trying to
communicate. Rather, he believes
(provocatively, he admits) that many of postmodernism’s claims share a “deep
affinity with central Christian claims.” This is not to say that Smith believes
that all things postmodern are good,
but rather, that modernism (and Christian adaptations of modernism) has often
overshadowed essential truths about the church.
Postmodernity,
despite its continuity with modernity, is the enemy of modernity. Because modernity is the milieu in which many
Christians have operated since the Enlightenment, many Christians wrongly think
of postmodernism as the enemy of the Christian faith. Modernism, Smith argues, has caused
Christianity to become intellectualized and individualistic rather than
incarnational, and this shows in the consumerist desires of modern church-goer,
including in their preferences for certain types of preaching or preachers. Olson finds several points of common interest
between postmodernism and Christian Pietism that may give rise to the tools
needed to proclaim the gospel in the postmodern milieu. Critically, he says that Pietists rejected
the intellectualized faith that had come into being in their day. Pietists believed that, while reason had its
place, faith is more a matter of the heart.
Faith is something “more caught than taught.” Olson believes that many postmodernists who
are open to religious ideas may find a great affinity with the experiential
nature of the Christian faith.
Postmodernism
may allow for types of word proclamation that are more in line with a biblical
theology of preaching. First, says
Smith, classical apologetics is very “modern” in nature, centering as it does
upon human reason. Presuppositional
apologetics, on the other hand, says Smith, is moth postmodern and Augustinian,
in that it acknowledges the role that presuppositions play in understanding
what is recognized as truth. “For this
reason,” Smith argues, “postmodernism can be a catalyst for the church to
reclaim its faith not as a system of truth dictated by a neutral reason but
rather as a story that requires ‘eyes to see and ears to hear.’”
If preaching,
as the kerygmatic proclamation of the Word, and not an exercise in
rationalistic philosophy, then it seems that the Christian witness might find
fertile ground in a postmodern culture.
That is if, as in all other successful missiological endeavors,
preaching occurs within the cultural context of a largely postmodern society. Still, it seems highly doubtful that
postmodernism is itself an antidote for what ails a modernist church. However, Smith has presented many hopeful
arguments that portend well for the future of biblical proclamation, if the
church but acts upon the opportunity.
The most
important point of contact between Christianity and postmodernism is a mutual
rejection of the modernist belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity. Certainly, the Christian faith and
postmodernism see differing underlying causes for the fundamental evil of humanity. But it is here where biblical theology can
step in and insist that there is hope for humanity. Further, as Erickson argues, the postmodernist
view that it is impossible to be unequivocally certain about any system of
thought is both correct and helpful. It
is not that Christianity does not possess absolute truth (it does) but rather,
that with human limits it is impossible to say that we understand that absolute
truth in an absolute manner. The
Christian, says Erickson, would do well to approach his own faith with the
understanding that he will always be required to balance certainty against
faith.
Erickson also
believes that postmodernists rightly assert that all human knowledge is
conditioned. In other words, each person
operates from his or her own vantage point, judging what he or she sees, both
consciously and unconsciously, based on his or her own life experiences. The societal group to which a person belongs
further influences the human understanding of his or her own situation and circumstances. Christian theologians are not exempt from
such preconceptions and presuppositions derived from their own experiences. What’s more, the postmodernist recognizes,
with the Christian theologian, that there are dimensions of knowledge that
remain beyond the reach of pure science and human reason.
A Christian
dialogue with postmodernism, then, demands a sense of humility, authenticity, and
of intellectual integrity. Christians
should welcome such an opportunity to carry on a conversation with such traits. Christian theology should be upfront in its
admission that the Bible never claims certainty that fits the standard of
empiricism and human reason demanded in earlier modernism. Indeed, as the Apostle Paul admits, “now we
see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor 13:12). Our
understanding of things spiritual is imperfect, yet believers hold on to faith
that on the other side of eternity, they will understand completely.
Postmodernism,
at its heart, is a worldview of skepticism, even cynicism. It offers little in the way of hope for the
human condition. It cannot speak with
confidence because it denies any sense of right or wrong. While Christians can and do make the mistake
of speaking (on certain issues) with certitude that the Bible plainly does not
justify, the Christian worldview does offer a hopeful confidence. As postmodernism does not acknowledge any sense of certainty, it is a
worldview utterly devoid of any hope.
The Christian worldview places no faith in the ability of humankind, and
postmodernism would probably agree no faith is warranted. However, one can easily show that the
Christian worldview it is an entirely optimistic outlook that sees, in the
power of the triune God, ultimate redemption, significance, and hope for the
eternal future of people who will surrender in faith and trust to Jesus Christ. Further, where postmodernity is a
self-centered worldview, Christian preaching can present a theology of
belonging to something infinitely larger than oneself.
Theologians
and apologists can readily show that postmodernism, with its subjective value
judgments and its real lack of answers to the problem of the human condition, is
an entirely empty and unsatisfying philosophy for living. Further, says Smith, Christians need to
recover their identity as a “peculiar people,” and instead, “seek to retrieve
the strange ways and ancient practices of the communion of the saints in order
to re-form who we are…and the outcome should be a robust confessional theology
and ecclesiology that unapologetically reclaims premodern practices in and for
a postmodern culture.”
Loscalzo
believes that postmodern society is hungry preaching that proclaims the mystery
of God. Although the world of
postmodernism is one of information overload, Loscalzo wonders why people are
gathering so much information, and what good that information is to them. Despite being awash in information, he notes,
people feel driven to know more, and
more, and yet remain completely unable to effect any change with what they
know.
Loscalzo believes it is in articulating what it has in premodernity that the church will be
most able to passionately, apologetically, proclaim the gospel to the
postmodern world. The church, he says,
must reclaim its “absurd roots” and articulate the “wonder and mystery of our
faith.” However, he cautions that postmodern people
are skeptical or apathetic about the deductive logic systems and philosophical
categories that Christian theologians and apologists typically use. Christian academia is presenting an
apologetic for a generation gone by. For
instance, a discussion on the ontological argument for the existence of God
will move few postmodernists. This is
unsurprising, as such logical arguments posit an objective truth that
postmodernists do not even believe exists.
Yet rooted in the mystery of the Christian faith, says Loscalzo, are
coherent answers to the questions people have asked since ancient times. Even
in a postmodern milieu, people still ask questions about their origin, their
purpose, and the meaning of life. Despite
the relativism of postmodern culture, people still wonder about right and
wrong, and have an innate sense of fairness and justice. Likewise, even though postmodernism is
nontheistic, most people wonder about God’s existence and His nature. They ponder the truth claims of the world’s
religions and want to know if those worldviews might just be true. And, most importantly, most continue to
wonder about the existence and nature of an afterlife.
While Christianity coherently answers each of these questions, Loscalzo
cautions against the presuppositions preachers have typically worked from. That is, preachers once preached deductively, saying, “The Bible says.” This presupposes that their hearers, lost or
saved, agreed, and, mostly, they did.
The Bible says what is says on a matter, and that left the matter
settled for all. Loscalzo believes that,
rather than bombarding the audience with theological truth, the preacher today
must act inductively. In inductive preaching, the preacher unpacks
the message differently, leading the
audience to those theological truths.
Such preaching relies heavily upon life’s experiences and story-telling
that comes across as authentic.
Inductive preaching, though devoid of argumentative propositions remains
countercultural, unafraid of confronting the pluralism and relativism of the
postmodern worldview. One simple adage of a theology for postmodern
preaching would be, “Preach like Jesus did.”
Although
postmodernism has much earlier roots, Loscalzo believes it really came into its
own in the United States following the political, cultural, and social upheaval
of the 1960s. The American Dream seemed
to have collapsed, replaced by the nightmare of threatened nuclear
conflict. The civil rights movement
brought attention that fact that African-Americans were mostly unable to share
in the American dream, despite the abolition of slavery in the U.S. a century
earlier. Moreover, night after night (as
this student recalls from early childhood) television brought the horrors of
the Vietnam War into the average American home.
The naïve optimism of the Pax
Americana of the 1950s was gone, replaced by the disillusioned skepticism
of postmodernism.
Even if
people do not believe there is hope,
it does not mean that they no longer desire that. The need for hope is certainly hard-wired
into the mind of every human being. The
Christian message says that, despite all the hardships in life, despite the
pain, evil, and suffering in the world, there is a God who is in control of it
all, who has a plan in all of it, and who offers an eternal hope that actually
begins in this life. If the Christian faith is pessimistic about
human nature (an attribute shared with the postmodern worldview) it expresses a
hopeful alternative to the failures of humankind. As have unbelievers throughout the centuries,
many in postmodern culture will reject the gospel in any way that it is
communicated. However, for many
struggling for hope, and emphasis on articulating a theology of hope may be a
powerfully effective tool for conveying the Christian message.
The
enormously skeptical postmodern worldview sees that nothing is certain. There is no bedrock truth. Everything is relative. There is nothing about which anyone can
really be confident. This is, of course,
entirely counter to the Christian message, but more than that, it is an
enormously unsatisfying view.
Christianity possesses a theology of confident certainty. This, says Raschke, is not the dogmatic
certainty of the Reformation (or, indeed, of later fundamentalism), which he
believes, with some justification, paved the way for the Enlightenment’s scientific
view of certainty. Rather, the Christian
worldview exudes a certainty built on belief, and backed up experientially.
Moreover, the
Christian message tells us that to enjoy that certainty, we must believe. Where postmodernism lacks in providing any
certainty, at least it rejects the notion that we can or must demand scientific
certainty in everything. Although
postmodern beliefs may be unbiblical, contra the modernist, the postmodernist
is at least willing to believe in
something. Indeed, even the
deconstructionist postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida admitted, “I don’t know.
I must believe.” A biblical view of certainty may well appeal
to those seeking an alternative to the uncertainty inherent in postmodernism.
As the
Apostle Paul says, even the Gentiles know right from wrong because God has
written it on their hearts, and given them a conscience that tells them wright
from wrong (Rom. 1:18-20; 2:14-16). If
there is any absolute in postmodernism, it is that all things are
relative. Yet, here again, postmodernism
shows itself an untenable worldview, because it stands in tension with the
biblical idea that the human conscience has been wired to instinctively grasp
that there are, indeed absolutes of right and wrong. Indeed, even children have an innate sense of
injustice. Even brought up in a
postmodernism, there is a point where many people will ask themselves, “Does
anything really go?”
Perhaps the
message of the Christian faith most appealing to a postmodern world may be that
God is a God of justice, while at the same time, a God of mercy. Admittedly, any postmodernist will be quick
to toss the problem of evil and suffering in the world back onto any theologian
making an attempt at engagement.
Frankly, however, the problem of evil and suffering has been effectively
wrestled with and dealt with in centuries of Christian thought. The challenge to the theologian and
apologist, in dealing with postmodernism, is how to convey these truths in a
relational, experiential way: there are
absolutes because my experience with God show me there are absolutes!
To be
certain, the postmodern worldview contradicts biblical truth at many
levels. Yet, preachers must understand
and try to reach the people to who they have been sent in the context in which
they live. Biblical truths, no matter
how unpalatable they are to postmodern sensibilities, remain biblical
truths. Biblical truth is absolute in a
world of relativism, and objective in a world of subjectivity. It is not because biblical truth changes that
the continuing work of theology throughout the centuries is to restate those
truths for contemporary ears. Rather,
theology continues to exposit biblical truth afresh in each generation,
precisely because the culture changes and meanings shift. The theological tasks of preaching as
heralding and stewarding are remain, and preaching remains relevant in a
postmodern world. We are simply called
to do what Word proclaimers have always done:
to understand our cultural context and proclaim the Word in a way that
it makes sense to contemporary ears.
In many
senses, postmodernism is no different from any other worldview opposed to the
Christian faith. The Bible tells us that
not all people will respond positively to the gospel, and history certainly
bears that out. Yet, the Holy Spirit
works to convict the hearts of sinners, while the Father draws men and women to
Christ. Postmodernism is similar to
other missiological challenges of days gone by:
Christian missionaries reach out to a culture different from their own
and who speak a language different from their own. The only difference from traditional
evangelistic missionary work is that the person whose culture differs lives
next door, and the language he speaks sounds a lot like the same language the
Christian witness speaks, even if the meaning is entirely different.
Christian
thinkers must, then, stop fighting the old battle against over-rationalistic
modernism, and engage postmodernity with this central Christian message: That there is an encounter to be had with the
living God and His Christ. It is an
encounter of mystery, defying completely rational explanation. It is an encounter that brings with it
relationship with the true and living God and with the body of Christ in the
church. It is an encounter from which
one walks away changed for the better, and at peace with truths far more
satisfying than unadulterated skepticism, nervous uncertainty, and cynical
relativism.
If biblical
preaching is to prosper in any new culture, the local church preacher must
learn the ways of that culture and the language of that culture. Further, the local preacher must work
diligently to set aside the mistaken notion that it is his own culture he is
reaching is his own. It is not. Once the local American preacher learns the
principles his foreign missionary counterparts have long mastered, he should be
much better able to communicate biblical and theological truth to the culture
in which God has called him to minister.
Comments
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. I welcome respectful disagreement with my posts. Such discussions can cause me to consider perspectives I hadn't examined before. However, I also reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. Why? Simple enough, this is MY blog, with MY thoughts, and I want to have a civil conversation that is, at all times, God-honoring in nature.