Postmodernity and Christianity

This post introduces a new topic for discussion – Postmodernity and Christianity. I have tried to explain why I believe that engaging with a critique of our culture (whether late-modern or post-modern – or any other label you want to give it) is essential to gaining an understanding of our own views of the world as it is, and how it could be. I’m aware that it is a Herculean (perhaps Sisyphusian) labour to try to meaningfully think and write about a topic that is so nebulous, contentious and in flux. Also I know that even the vocabulary of post-modernism is (mis)heard very differently, particularly within the church – understood at once as something of a dirty word, and/or a shortcut for being ‘relevant’. Despite these pitfalls, I think the importance of informed, open discourse on this subject outweighs the dangers.

So below is a brief intro (as brief as I can manage) to situate this topic, and kick off some debate. If you’re up for wrestling this through, I look forward to your thoughts:

Any quest to re-imagine society as a better place is a normative one. Imagination and innovation are employed, not simply to consider a different society, but to consider what a better society might look like and how it might function. In other words, the aim is to improve on the status quo. Such a quest involves at least one assumption - that current society is not perfect, and that therefore there is impetus to imagine a better society; and, I suggest ,another assumption – that a better society is not only wished for, but is achievable. Without this second assumption, any exercise in re-imaging, while fun perhaps, would ultimately be sterile. The re-imagining of society is at the heart of what we are interested in through Metanoia. So our thinking and discussion needs to push beyond description of what is, towards normative claims of what ought to be. [Andy, your recent posts alluding to a ‘creation counterfactual’ are a great example of this].

Ideas about what society is like and what it ought to be like are supported by our assumptions, beliefs and behaviours. Theoretical or ideological positions offer a lens through which to interpret what a particular phenomenon is really like (the economy, a country, a relationship etc), for instance dogmatic Marxism might describe the institution of ‘government ‘ as being a permanent committee to advance the interests of the Bourgeois. Adopting such a belief will shape a person’s understanding of what is and also of what ought to be (especially where what ought is characterised as the opposite of what is). But such a wholesale adoption of theoretical/ideological positions is rarely our experience (except perhaps for the committed fundamentalist). The caricature it produces is unhelpful as we try to become aware of our own assumptions and beliefs and to expose these to God’s light and fire. Rather, I suggest that our ideas about what is and what ought to be emerge from a complex brew of culture, education, experience, inherited influences, prejudice etc. We may order these influences: In a particular environment perhaps we will consciously prioritise theological or intellectual concerns and repress those that are more instinctive. But our ideas with nevertheless bare something of the combined flavour of our own particular milieu.

Because each person’s accumulated influences are different, we should expect originality of ideas. But our cultural influences in particular are so strong and so distinct that I think it is worth giving serious consideration to the shape, the vocabulary and the (mis)understanding that our meta-culture gives to our thinking – about who we are, about how our society is, about what our planet is – and what all of these could/should be.

What do I mean by meta-culture? I’m referring to the overarching narrative of our existence, as learned and imbibed by us through social structures (law, politics, education...), media, gender roles, religious influence (texts, rituals, church...) etc - and by our engagement with all of these. In Jesus’ day this meta-culture would be broadly known (nowadays) as pre-modern. Our meta-culture, and that of our parents, grandparents and further back than anyone alive today can remember is modernity. I would argue that it is modernity that infuses and directs our beliefs about, and our interactions with, each other, our world and God.

I would also argue that, despite being thoroughly modern in our cultural pedigree, we are on the threshold of significant cultural change that (sacrificing complexity for clarity) is beginning to change our meta-culture and the grand narrative of our lives and our interactions. (Indeed the very notion of a single grand narrative is reconsidered). The arriving meta-culture has been called post-modernism or post-modernity. If post-modernity is on the horizon, then I will refer to our current cultural context as late-modernity.

Right then, with our terms clarified, over the course of this discussion I will share some thoughts and ask some questions about the relationship between revelation in general (and the Bible specifically) and culture, culturally -contingent understanding of ‘truth’ and the possibilities for deconstruction and reconstruction of God’s word in contemporary culture.