Grenz @ JAVA
September 6, 2003
I just returned from an afternoon at JAVA (’my spot’/coffeehouse in Twin Falls). I spent the afternoon with Stanley Grenz [just a clarification that most likely does not need to be made...I didn't really hang out with Grenz...I was just reading his book], discussing the rise of the modern world. Interesting stuff…he writes in his Primer on Postmodernism: “The belief in progress arose as well from the Enlightenment reading of history. Historians in the Age of Reason painted the Middle Ages as an era of superstition and barbarism. But they were confident that humankind was now emerging out of that era…”
I wonder. Are we [those with a postmodern bent] painting modernity as an era of close-mindedness and ignorant trust in the human mind? I only ask because it is interesting what one can do with history. Modern historians used it to their advantage - making the medieval period out to be very dark [okay, no jokes about the 'dark ages'] - most likely not a fair portrayal of the times [since we seem to be turning back to premodern ideas]. Are we doing that to moderns…? Will the post-postmoderns do that to us one day? Will they use history to their advantage and make us out to be a bunch of ignorant fools because of our beliefs…?
Just makes you wonder what will come next…
I think a good question is…what is the postmodern arbiter of truth? Again, quoting from Grenz: “In the premodern era, divine revelation functioned as the final arbiter of truth…Enlightenment thinkers began to appeal to human reason rather than externally imposed revelation as the final arbiter of truth…” So what is the postmodern arbiter of truth? Is there one…or is that simply a modern obsession…even the need for an arbiter of truth?
Last question: this is probably the most annoying and overly-asked one…but I will just ask it once and get it out of my system. The essentials…the essentials of the faith. The things we can not and will not bend on. When asked, “Well, how far can one stray, or experiment with theologically….” the answer is undoubtedly, “As long as she holds to the essentials…” Great. Thanks a lot. But I don’t have any idea what the essentials are? Is there even any list of essentials at all? Let’s say we even agreed that the only essential is Jesus. But then what are we talking about? Do you have to believe everything about Jesus to be a Christian? What if you can’t get past the virgin birth. Can you be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth - as long as you still believe Jesus is the Savior?
Thoughts? I’m out for the day. I’m going to Fairfield, ID (pop 395) for a street dance this evening. Should be a…cultural(??) experience.
Tags: Postmodern, Theology, Truth
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
September 7th, 2003 at 1:02 am
Yes, I agree–the ‚Äúessentials question‚Äù is an over-cooked question (of course, it is nonetheless a good question). Whose essentials, however, are we speaking about (and yes, that is an over-cooked response {but hey, better than half-baked?})? You picked up on that problem a bit.
Isn’t part of the postmodern quest the questioning of methods–foundations–those things that have been relied upon to determine truth? That is not to say there are not starting points by which to determine ‚Äútruth‚Äù (again, whose truth?)-it is to say that they are contextual, local‚Äî‚Äúthey‚Äù apply only when certain communities create them and adopt them‚Äîthey are authoritative for particular communities. However, I would argue that they are always arbitrary‚Äîand no less valid or more valid than other methods or foundations. However, like you say‚ÄîI don‚Äôt think all are good or true‚Äîgiven what I believe to be reality, that is, given how I have pieced together the evidence.
To take a crack at your question—I would say “communities” are the PoMo arbiters of “truth.”
Grace and peace.
September 7th, 2003 at 1:05 am
By the way, I try not to look at PoMo as being better than or newer
than Mo. I simply look at PoMo as being another valid way of looking
at “reality.” I would not want to make Mo’s into a barbaric tribe. I
think people must chose what makes sense to them and live into that. . .
September 7th, 2003 at 12:54 pm
Could I suggest that the (over-used) question itself is a very post-modern one? Isn’t it just the epitome of reductionism? It’s like it’s asking, “Okay, what are the very bare minimums which I must believe to be “in?” Why would we want to ask that? And who says it’s about being in anyway?
When you wrote, “Do you have to believe everything about Jesus to be a Christian? What if you can’t get past the virgin birth. Can you be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth - as long as you still believe Jesus is the Savior?” what did you mean? Do you have to believe in it for what? If it’s about what we have to believe to get into heaven, I think I’d say that that’s got nothing to do with what we do or don’t believe and a whole host to do with what Christ has done. More to the point, I’m not really sure it’s a question we’re meant to be juggling with.
Maybe that’s why this question keeps coming up - not because pomos don’t have a good answer, but because the question doesn’t even make sense to them. Just thinking aloud!
September 9th, 2003 at 1:06 pm
Looks like I have joined in the fray a little late… man, to sit and debate PoMo all day. Now that is entertainment. Forget movies and Cleaves‚Äôs internet adventures.
First: I would like a quick shot at history. There is a saying, ‚ÄúHistory is merely an assemblage of arguable facts.‚Äù Having said this, it is easy to jump to whatever conclusion about PoMo‚Äôs in a future sense. Especially since words and there definitions change or become deprecated after certain amount of time has passed. One could argue that the ‚Äúnarratives‚Äù or stories from individual societies will adapt and change just as their communities continually evolve. If this were not part of God‚Äôs greater plan then Christ would not have placed so much emphasis on the need for individual and societal change. So of course, future societies will grin in disbelief at our stumbling around in a darkened room of thought and antiquated language. History is and must be continually ‚Äúreassembled‚Äù due to very nature of language. Do we loose potency in translation‚Ķ probably! However, a community will find historical truth as long as the voice of the individual does not interpret blindly and become the sole voice. Maybe the question should not be, ‚ÄúWill the post-postmoderns do that to us one day? Will they use history to their advantage and make us out to be a bunch of ignorant fools because of our beliefs…?‚Äù Shouldn‚Äôt the question be, would societies in the future continue the endless debate and continue to make the same mistakes that all previous societies are plagued by?
Second: “Is there an arbiter of truth?” If there is any consistency with Grenz’s writing; it has to do with his treatment of communities as being the arbiter’s of truth with the extensive assistance of the Holy Spirit and the narrative of God, within the individual. Is the glass getting darker or smokier perhaps? It is a good argument. Communitarianism is fascinating from the standpoint that it has such hope and promise. When I read the gospels, I am moved at Christ’s walk within communities and his outreach to society; responding to the individual and to the whole commune, regardless of social identity. When the Holy Spirit descends from the heavens, did it seek out the individual for the sake of enlightenment…or did the Holy Spirit create a bridge between individuals and create a community based on God’s eternal gifts. The power of society is the innate ability to humble the individual. How can any one person (Christ the Divine excluded) claim to have distilled the absolute truth of God’s message. Sure, we have big brains and all… but give me some more “humble pie” and I will be a happier dude.
Read… Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context by Grenz for a clearer viewpoint.
Third: Metanarratives …hmm. http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?metanarrative
Why are PoMo’s so concerned with Metanarratives? Because it is a “tool” to obliterate the “isms” that preceded the new and improved PoMo metanarrative! It doesn’t matter how many explanations I hear or read, I am struck by the consistent need to relegate previous Metanarratives to the grave of absurd ideas by PoMo’s. “And what should replace the great Metanarratives of the past, o’ wise and great thinker?” Why, the PoMo metanarrative of the future is new and improved to provide yet another wonderful filter to interpret the rationale of others. Be wary of the vacuum salesman wearing the PoMo tie. Maybe it is better to answer this deep thought with another question: Why are there four gospels instead of just one? Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to understand the true, singular narrative with just one gospel?
Lastly: It is good to see some discussion regarding these contemporary questions. As an individual, I am struggling to find and fit in with the community of Christians that surround me. Cleave is a good friend and his passion persuaded me to look further into the teachings of Christ. For that, I am grateful and blessed. My armchair theology is of course skewed, but none-the-less, having a voice is a gift and I am honored to be a part of this discussion. While I cannot devote daily blog writing, I hope to continue participation and see where all this hot air goes.
Feed the hungry; heal the sick; share in the suffering of others.
CEN
September 9th, 2003 at 3:00 pm
I’m glad you’re wondering about how postmoderns will characterize modernity. Will they make the same mistakes in minimizing and marginalizing the era that preceded them (just like moderns did to premodern times). They’ll apt to make the same mistake unless somewhere in this time of pendulum swinging there are voices of caution and of balance.
Putting all our trust in “communities” as arbiters of truth is dangerous — always have been and always will be. That’s why the early church eventually saw the necessity of formulating creeds (e.g. Nicene, Apostle’s) — the affirm the historic trajectory of what the church has considered essential in order not only to protect against heresy, but to safely navigate the changes ahead. There is a good reason why so many Millennials (or Mosaics) as well as Gen-x’rs and others are turning to Christian orthodoxy — there’s a good REASON why our ancient faith has survived 2000 years, and amidst incessant change, people are sensing the need to anchor themselves to a faith that has proven itself secure.
Just some thoughts… gotta run, but will likely post more later.
September 9th, 2003 at 3:35 pm
Chris: thanks for your comment. However, you mentioned in your reply “what the church has considered essential” — well, what is that? Are you saying that the Creeds are the essentials…everything in the Creeds everyone has to agree upon in order to be a Christian? I’m just trying to get at what people really mean when they say “the essentials…”
September 9th, 2003 at 4:58 pm
I guess since we are talking PoMo… we should be defining what we mean when someone says “society” or “the Church” or “Gen-X’ers”. Not to deconstruct language or anything… but words mean different things to different people in different contexts.
For example: I(CEN) said “it (meaning: Grenz’s response to the question of an Arbiter of Truth) has to do with his (Grenz) treatment of communities as being the arbiter‚Äôs of truth with the extensive assistance of the Holy Spirit and the narrative of God, within the individual.
In Chris’s response: “Putting all our trust in “communities” as arbiters of truth is dangerous — always have been and always will be. That’s why the early church eventually saw the necessity of formulating creeds (e.g. Nicene, Apostle’s)”
Now I just want to point out the use of the word “Church” in Chris’s response. Wouldn’t you call the body of the church or any church a community? You could even stretch out a little and say the Church constitutes a society (under a modern definition of course).
I am not trashing Chris’s response, but I do want to point out that at least one of suppositions of PoMo is understanding language and how poor it is at communicating ideas. Some would say that PoMos make absurd arguments for the sake of deconstruction. That is not the point at all. How can “the church” communicate the Gospel of Christ to GenX’ers (who are GenX’ers by the way) when they fail to understand the very language the Church speaks. Heal the sick; feed the poor; sharing in the suffering of others; those are direct actions of Christ. Does a Christian need a Church to tell them that those are the right things to do… I hope not.
Adam is correct in asking what “essnetial” means. What ever “essential” is, it is most definately different from individual to individual, from Pope to Pope (yeah I said Pope!) ;-)
One last thing… how successful has the church been at navigating the road of the future based on history. I agree completely with Chris’s point that putting our Trust (complete and blind trust)in communities is dangerous. What better example than the church or any religion or “ism” that has abused the very power entrusted by the people. I too hope that there are more voices of caution and balance… but they need to speak the language of the very communities that ache in pain for change and compassion.
September 9th, 2003 at 6:43 pm
Here’s my question: which presents the least difficulty: relying on the individual or relying on a “community”? They both present many challenges–but, in my view, the community of which I am a part, and I would say I am a part of many (some overlap), is less problematic–that is to say, I am all for a multicultural way of knowing. And you know something, I really believe some think of the “Church” as an individual–and I think that is not too far off. Some strands of the “Church” isolate themselves in such a way as to become one, single, individual. And in my view, those are the craziest folk.
I also think the following is simply wrong:
“Why are PoMo‚Äôs so concerned with Metanarratives? Because it is a ‚Äútool‚Äù to obliterate the ‚Äúisms‚Äù that preceded the new and improved PoMo metanarrative! It doesn‚Äôt matter how many explanations I hear or read, I am struck by the consistent need to relegate previous Metanarratives to the grave of absurd ideas by PoMo‚Äôs. ‚ÄúAnd what should replace the great Metanarratives of the past, o‚Äô wise and great thinker?‚Äù Why, the PoMo metanarrative of the future is new and improved to provide yet another wonderful filter to interpret the rationale of others. Be wary of the vacuum salesman wearing the PoMo tie. Maybe it is better to answer this deep thought with another question: Why are there four gospels instead of just one? Wouldn‚Äôt it be a whole lot easier to understand the true, singular narrative with just one gospel?”
I would argue that PoMo’s are so concerned about FOUNDATIONAL MNs because of the foundations on which they stand (they don’t make sense too many) and because of the they are used to obliterate others (not isms) who disagree and given a whole herd of assumptions: that knowing is contextual, cultural, time bound, etc. PoMo I think is all for MNs–so long as they are seen as among many valid ways of going about looking at the world. I would suggest, in the Bible, what we have are competing Metanarratives. PoMo is not new, better, improved, but simply another way of thinking–a way of looking at foundations/world etc. . .
I think one Gospel would have killed Christianity. . .I don’t know about you, but I refuse to believe one witness gets everything right, or four for that matter. The more the merrier–the more the merrier because the more Gospels, the more I am inclined to believe a true, significant, major, outrageous event actually did occur. Even if I do not believe they happened as written. . . .
By the way, it is modernism, in my view, that is all about newer is better–so please get that together. I think if PoMo’s are say newer and better–they are moderns in sheeps clothing.
Grace and peace.
September 9th, 2003 at 8:12 pm
Adam, I wouldn’t want to say that the creeds ARE the measure of what’s essential — but in the same breath I must recognize that the greater community of which I am a part (the body of Christ which spans two millennia) has established a trajectory of agreement as to what is essential.
It’s common for postmodern deconstructionists to reject this — an act often as filled with arrogance as with intentionalized method. Generation ‘O’ is a verifiable phenomemon — young adults ARE flocking to orthodoxy and to ancient faith practices. They recognize that there are things about “postmodernity” that aren’t good (pluralism being one of them), just as there have been those who decried aspects of modernity (e.g. individualism) long before postmodernity was conceived. The creeds represent an ancient covenant or affirmation of what is Christian. No matter how much we postmoderns resist this, deconstruct this, buck against this, it doesn’t change the reality of what has been for a very long time. Maybe it’s purely the fact that as Christians we are part of some-thing, some-one, some-family that’s beyond our control or manipulation — and that scares us. We moderns were experts at manipulation — at creating the church in our own image. But times are changing. Something very old is re-emerging. Something bigger than us is about to overtake us.
A final thought: communities alone possess no real guarantee that truth or good will be experienced. But as the “community in the Holy Spirit”, the body of Christ, the Church is an unquenchable, unstoppable kingdom reality.
Despite all their differences, both cultural and theological, the primitive church was effective because it was a community of the Holy Spirit which placed their faith in Jesus. If we do the same, we can never fail.
September 11th, 2003 at 3:13 am
If communities are the PoMo arbiters of truth, isn’t that just meta-relativism? My community believes this about the essentials, but your community believes that, but that’s okay … wait, that sounds like denominationalism to me. ;-)