Some Christians, known as “the emerging church,” incorporate the postmodern worldview, hermeneutics, and terminology, and I wonder if this movement has any Biblical merit. Before I jump into the actual topic, some people might want a background of what “postmodern” means. Wikipedia says of postmodern philosophy, “The essential point is that the meaning of all things is colored by subjectivity, and that for a philosophy or ideology to pretend full objectivity is not only deceptive but also in some cases politically abusive.” At the least, I must agree that some human perceptions (e.g., of color) are subject to the humans who have them, but hold that this doesn’t change the absolute truth of what is being perceived. Wikipedia also notes a common (supposed?) misconception “that postmodern skepticism appears similar to relativism or even nihilism,” and McDowell, on page xlii of The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, seems to equate postmodernism and relativism, i.e. “Christianity may be true for you but it’s not true for me.” To my knowledge, however, there’s a consensus that postmodernism emphasizes confusion. I suppose the debate is mostly over whether it generates this confusion or simply exposes it.
The emerging church incorporates postmodernism by noting that we cannot fully know God and regarding “concealment as an aspect of revelation” rather than its opposite. It also includes at least one aspect of mysticism, namely dualism (i.e., that God is both known and unknown). I think the core of the emerging church is explained well in this paragraph from the last link:
Following the postmodern understanding of man as subjective, Rollins advocates an understanding of faith that pays careful attention to our limited ability to describe the subject of our faith. By describing our talk about God as iconic, and our Christian discourse as a/theological, Rollins highlights our limited ability to objectively speak of God. By affirming the place of silence and doubt within our theology, he suggests we should be comfortable with our limited ability. His overall goal is to communicate a humble faith comfortable with uncertainty and subjectivity, not pressured into foundational thinking, but resting in faith and trust that God is God regardless of our failed attempts at describing him. A nonfoundational theology values the known and unknown elements of God, recognizing the need for humility when doing theology.
Does this movement have the right idea in general? If “yes,” does it have any bad points? If “no,” does it have any good points? And how should we react to it?
Posted by Jesdisciple 