modernism, postmodernism, and fundamentalism

Sounds good to me, tinytim. And I want to clarify, too. When that whole thing went down about modernism in the 1920's and on, I had nothing to do with it. I was off in kindergarten! :saint: :laugh:

I think you hit the nail on the head here in the following sense. Post-modernism is not about Christianity per se. It might even be called "post-Christianity" (and I even think I've heard it called that). The fundamentalist response to a philosophy or religion which does not call itself Christian is to evangelize, not fight! Therefore, I see no problems with us standing up to post-modernism or anything coming out of it that does not claim to be Christian. We'll simply try to win them to Christ!

Day before yesterday I was totally beat after a plane from Chattanooga, two hours on the tarmac in Charlotte, then another hour or more on the tarmac in Philly before landing. I had to get up early the next morning to catch my flight back here to Japan. On the shuttle bus to my motel, I had a conversation with a pleasant salesman-type sitting in front of me. As it turned out, he was a lapsed Catholic and an atheist. My immediate thought was not, "Let's fight this guy," but, "How can I point him towards Christ?" He was gracious enough to say that he thought Christianity had done great good, and so I said, "I'm glad to hear that. Some people say that the good you mentioned is a proof of the existence of God." Then we went on from there. I didn't win him on that 15 minute trip, of course, but I pray God began a work in his heart. That's how we should approach post-modernism!

 

Let us know what you learned when you get back, POB!

 

One thing I know already is John you should write a book. You have unique insight and first hand knowledge.:godisgood:

 

Yes, it is called the Emerging Church movement.

 

But that is precisely what systematic theology, at least, is: the application of a philosophical system to the concepts derived from revelation.

You have raised the question of whether attention to higher criticism makes one a "liberal" and rightly pointed out that typically fundamentalists have thought so. I question that. I find it not only possible to be something of a critic and an evangelical preacher, but also find that criticism enhances preaching by helping me see more clearly the context in which some Scripture was written.

 

Please note my wording. I singled out existentialism, which in my mind is much more pernicious than say, Plato.

Remember that I was writing from the perspective of the origin of fundamentalism. At that time the lines were clearly drawn, so that virtually no evangelicals accepted higher criticism. (And of course, all accepted lower criticism.)

I realize that the scene is much more complex now, with many more kinds of Biblical criticism, and that many evangelicals accept some of those kinds. Literary criticism comes to my mind as a fairly benign form that many evangelicals accept. Personally, though, as a fundamentalist I will always reject source criticism and form criticism, two of the early types.

 

Okay, some day!

 

It is essential that we see these theological and philisophical trends in their wider historical contexts. Separation of these trends into theological and cultural categories is artificial and potentially dangerous.

In brief, the history is:

1. There were hundreds of years of religious or religion driven wars in Europe that were due to the prevalent view that the rulers had special revelation from God and were to be obeyed as though they were God's only messengers ("divine right of kings"). There was no rule of law or, at least, no consistent legal standard that the population could trust in.

2. The religious wars ended largely to political means. In the 17th century, thinkers and philosophers began an earnest search for a new intellectual standard not based in the mysticism and revelation based one that had led to the previous trouble. We know this era as "The Age of Reason". This age resulted in a focus on absolutism as a foundation for knowledge instead of the instability that the former time (where rulers could determine truth by whim) had known. Its main purpose was to provide the foundation for the explosive changes that came in the 18th century when the religious wars had largely ended. This era is known as "The age of Enlightenment". This was a search to build on the concept of absolutism and fixed standards and this was the era that gave the West the concept of "self evident truth" (sound familiar?). This era is responsible for the concept of "classical education" which was really a return to the ancient Greek style of study and understanding based on an inductive approach. We owe our modern understanding of Biblical hermeneutics to this time. We also owe our current market driven economic concepts to this thinking. The "rule of law" is another result of this time.

While this thinking was quite helpful in the spread of the Gospel (kings could no longer dictate doctrine nor stop the people from being able to read the Bible for themselves) it ushered in the beginning of the conflict between reasoned non religious (or anti-religious) philosophers and reasoned theologians due to the ultimate difference in the source of knowledge (divine right and natural law). Christianity flourished due to the spread of universities and the mission minded folks they spawned. Political philosophies flourished and birthed (or rebirthed) concepts of republics and democratic values. Interestingly, our current understanding of democratic church government (to whatever degree it is practiced) draws from both sides. This age ended in the early 19th century.

3. The Enlightenment created the justification for Modernism in the 19th century. In this case, the non or anti-religious segment of the enlightenment thinkers saw that their religious counterparts (who saw absolute truth as being based in God) were overly emotional and limited in their pursuit of truth and sought to be free of these restraints. It is important to understand that the modernists were still committed to absolutism in the search for truth. They just didn't like the boundaries that they saw were being placed by folks in the religious community. We get evolution, higher criticism (ie: a rejection of the concept of self-evident biblical truth) from this time. This "freedom" of truth seeking led to the destruction of absolutes in the next era.

4. Postmodernism began in the years after WWII in reaction to the obvious breakdown of modernism as evidenced by the horrors of the war (it would have likely happened after WWI but limitations in the scope of WWI and the lack of global communications probably delayed the change). The European and Asian fascist dictators used the tools of modernism to build their empires (the communist dictators in the years after did the same thing) and kill millions. Truth became segmented, absolutism began to be attacked, cultural understand began to trump everything else. Theological liberalism and cultural feminism were results.

5. What we are experiencing now is a new era (post-post modernism?). The excesses of the postmodernists have created 2 generations of folks unsatisfied with a life without standards. What we are seeing now is a desire for absolutes. This is why we saw so many liberals "convert" to conservatism during the Clinton administration and after 9/11.

The challenge for conservative and fundamentalist Christians is to communicate that absolutism and fixed standards have always been here and to do so within our current culture. Our greatest weakness is that many of us are unable too decouple our favorite cultural concepts from the past several decades from the timeless truths of Scripture.

What Thomas Jefferson needed during his quest for truth in the 18th century is what Joe businessman needs today. And the answer is the same. Our task to present a truth, not a culture.

 

Hoo, boy, careful there Brother Tim. And just when I thought I had my ego under control! But thank you for the nice sentiments anyway. :wavey:

 

I disagree.

There is no justification for modernism.

If you could destroy an absolute, it wouldn't be an absolute!

And I'll agree with this, but I'm not sure why you took so long to say it!

God bless.

 

I would say it's more likely that post-modernism started in the 60s and 70s. No big deal, just my opinion.

 

My point is that all history is linked and it is the story of God working through whatever vessel he chooses. The decouple Christian and non-Christian history is dangerous in that it encourages an incorrect or incomplete understanding of what God is up to.

Of course, this can be uncomfortable for us. Where was God's hand in events like the attempted extermination of the Jewish peoples by the Nazi's? Where was God's hand in 9/11? And so on? To so separate history renders us unable to respond with any credibility when non-Christians ask us the "where was God" question.

I didn't suggest that I agreed with it, merely that the Enlightenment begat modernism. The arguments of modernists were based on the foundation of the arguments for the enlightenment which were based on the foundation age of reason which were based on a frustration based in the instability of the time of divine right of kings.

Sorry for the imprecise langage, again. You are correct; an absolute is an absolute regardless of one's perception. What I was trying to communicate was that, to specific folks, the desire for "freedom" in truth seeking was so strong that they chose to accept a no absolutes perspective.

Cut me a little slack, John. I only used a few paragraphs to cover about 400 years of history.

 

I certainly agree with this. What I disagreed with was your statement that, "Separation of these trends into theological and cultural categories is artificial and potentially dangerous." I actually think that separation of these trends into these catagories is essential to understanding them, because theology produces culture (not vice versa). To put it another way, people act the way they do because of their beliefs about God.

Okay, I'll buy this.

Didn't intend to downplay your essay. I just felt that the focus of the discussion was narrower, and was a little frustrated to have to read your whole essay (valuable as your insights might be in general) to get to the comments about the OP. But hey, tinytim says you said what he wanted to say, so who am I to complain! :thumbs:

 

Now if a product of post-modernism enters our churches we have a different problem. 2 Timothy2:1-4 suggested the emergent church as this possibility. I confess to ignorance in this area, so I hope someone will elaborate on the emergent church's connection to post-modernism (and/or modernism) and we can go from there.

 

That and a sledgehammer. Okay, we'll go with your idea.

 

I think you are both right to some extent. It was the 60s when postmodern philosophical writings were being written and getting popularized in academic circles. It was the 80s and 90s when postmodern thought started becoming prominent in non-academic circles as a cultural phenomenon. I consider the 2 World Wars climaxed by the bomb to be the apex of modernism and a key facilitator of postmodernism.

However, one of the key precursors to postmodernism and existentialism was Christian philospher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard of the early 1800s who would fit in really well in Baptist circles for his criticisms of the Danish national church for:

1. de-emphasizing personal relationships with God
2. state and church being too cosy and hence corrupt
3. national and state membership with birth leading meaningless Christian labels

I don't consider overcoming postmodernism to be so important. I think the better question is what evangelism and Christianity looks like in postmodern context.

In a modern context, things like systematic theology and the historico-grammatical hermeneutic were vital to understand Christianity while things like apologetics were important for evangelism.

In a postmodern context, effective evangelism and impactful Christianity appear to take on a more narrative approach among other things.