Apomogetics

Jimi,

Thanks for this post. Do I hear you suggesting an attempt at apologetics using new tactics more finely tuned to a postmodern culture?

If so, I think we might miss the whole point of postmodern deconstruction. The short-coming of modernism is not that its tactics no longer work, but that it attempted apologetics at all. It mistook a call to follow in the way of Christ with a notion that we must preserve a particular ancient metaphysics for all times. It attempted to place religions in competition with science for truth about the universe. I think a postmodern apologetics means not doing apologetics at all. We no longer need to fight over which human attempt to put truth into language wins the battle for power. No language or art can imprison truth. Human language makes fragile attempts at articulating an ultimate reality beyond description. Postmodernity is not about having an apologetics debate in a bar instead of church. It wouldn’t mean setting modernist apologetics to culture-current rap music. Postmodern faith is about no longer having that fight at all. When we engage in conversation and look through another person’s language we often realize that we are attempting to say the same things.

The words you use in your treatise operate on the metaphor of a war (battle, defense, on guard) against postmodernity. That leads me to speculate that you’ve taken a modern stance and seen postmodernity as some kind of evil. Is that what you meant to convey?

To me, Apologetics is like a competition between art forms. Is a painting of love more true than a sculpture of love? Modernity was concerned with which language we use for the Catholic Mass, which version of the Bible is more accurate, and what type of buildings and programs gain the most converts. Postmodern faith is interested in the life-giving ideas expressed through the Mass, the universal meanings behind the Bible’s stories, and new ways to participate as we bring the stories to life. The bottom line is that modernity fought over which discipline could best articulate truth – art or science (a fight between Moses and Darwin). Postmodern faith realizes that both of those descriptions of the universe are profoundly true. Neither technique for describing reality can imprison truth. From my perspective, the fight is over.

A couple of months ago, I spent an afternoon in a group, discussing and trying to deconstruct apologetics in the light of postmodernity.

We came to this conclusion: The very nature of post-modern culture means that any attempt at apologetics must not only answer completely different questions. And I think this is where, Jimi, you are coming from. But also it needs to answer those questions in a completely different way which is compatible and extends from our culture itself.

So rather than to give up a pursuit of apologetics at all, I would argue that we need to find an alternative “how”.

I think that “how” for the culture we live in is praxis.

In a culture which communicates in experience, apologetics needs to be experienced by people through an interaction with the community of faith, and with a alternative way of living. Our praxis, and the shalom and encounter with God it brings, will bring legitimacy to the story we wish to tell.

I hope that some of that makes sense, and provokes more thought.

“As apologetics is changing—as we move from a modern, familiar environment to a new, less familiar one—our apologetic also needs to change. Modernity constrained us to operate in a rationalistic framework—that is, based on reason alone—and our apologetic accordingly focused on logic, evidence, proof, answers, scholarship, reasons, arguments, and appeals to authority. As we move into the emerging culture, however, our apologetic will focus more and more on beauty, goodness, experience, questions, mystery, community, and humility.” —Brian McLaren (Adventures in Missing the Point, pg. 101)

What tools do we have to understand this paragraph? Do we use “ beauty, goodness, experience, questions, mystery, community, and humility?” No, we use reason and logic. Is this statement written from a “postmodern” perspective or a “modern” perspective?

If it is written from a modern perspective it is undermined by the author’s own “reasoning.” If it is written in a “postmodern” perspective I should not use reason and logic to comprehend it, but beauty, goodness, experience (?!), etc.

Unless of course, Mr. MacLaren is implying that reason and logic only apply to his writings.

Interestingly each response to this blog’s author all used old apologetic reasoning to make their points. They argued with reason, logic, and appeals to authority.

I wish postmodernism well. It is a great source of comic relief. The secret to great comedy is irony. Let’s just say if postmodernisms reserves of contradiction were oil…, there would be no energy crisis. It is busy running about trying to construct deconstructionism. It is making a case (an apologetic) for the elimination of apologetics. It absolutely disdains absolute truth. It hates the empiricism of modernism (knowledge gained through experience), and rejects it in favor of the empiricism of postmodernism (experience without gaining knowledge). It strives diligently to quantify terms that will undermine terms ability to quantify. It disqualifies qualitative statements. For postmodernism reality is unrealistic. Objectivity is permited only when making a case for subjectivity. And the list goes on and on and ….

Perhaps the greatest irony is that while the postmodernists must(and will [that is if they want to keep their jobs and enjoy the many benefits of the scientific/technological/medical ect. advances that have been made via modern empiricism]) employ the emperical principles of modernity in the secular/vocational/
scientific realm, they will fail to employ them in regards to the pursuit of their doctrine and therefore practice and therefore experience and (if you’ll indulge one more therefore) therefore not only fail to move beyond modernity, but will be catapulted back to an obtuse mystical faith reminiscent of the dark ages.

And that my friends is the great failure of both modernism and postmodernism. In modernism the quest for truth was limited to the scientific/secular. In postmodernism the quest for truth has been replaced by the embrace of contradiction.

For me the shift into postmodernity is a broadening of awareness compared to modernity.

Where Modernity emphasised reason, the literate, and words, postmodernity engages the narrative, the oral, and visual and other languages. There will be overemphasis at times in this shift, but I am not aware of any rule that says reason, the literate and words are no longer valid. It’s a bit silly to suggest that Brian McLaren should not be using reason, or that he is being hypocritical to do so.

All this stuff of culture – our languages, tools, and perspectives, are evolving. Modernity had a bias, which is being redressed.

So why not “apomogetics”? It’s a valid statement that postmodern Christians can reason and find meaning, using words and discourse if they so wish. I’ve suggested something similar in “the ambivangelical”; (see http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/the-ambivangelical. C’mon Christian soldiers, shoot me down!)

I think these comments underscore the misconceptions about postmodernism. It is poorly understood even WITHIN emergent discussions so it is no wonder that critics misplace their criticism. Many of the blogs, articles, and books do seem to advocate a postmodernism that somehow opposes reason. That is unfortunate. I wish more of the key authors in Emergent discussions would address this point. If postmodernism was opposed to reason, then I’d want no part of it. Nobody would! Thankfully it isn’t.

I don’t think Postmodernism has a beef with reason, logic, truth, or modern science. PostMODERN thought is a full embrace of what modern reason has given society (modern reasoning is part of our culture now that is what we mean by postMODERN). However, it also fully embraces the power of sacred stories, parables, scriptures, rituals, art and myths to convey meaning (that is what we mean by POSTmodern). This doesn’t need to be a paradox. Science describes reality in measurements while religion describes reality through stories (myths). Both can be true but operate on different levels. It is only a problem when we try to read religion as science or read science as religion.

When postmodernism has a beef with modernity it is because modern secularism over reacted by throwing out religion once we realized our stories were not perfectly accurate history textbooks. Also, postmodernism has a beef with the reactions of modern fundamentalists who desperately wanted our myths to be interpreted as science (hyper-literalism, creation museums, left-behind books, etc.).

I think postmodernism is critical of modernity’s reactions to reason, not reason itself. Unreasonable logic is just as silly to postmoderns as it was to moderns.

peace

>Many of the blogs, articles, and books do seem to advocate a postmodernism that somehow opposes reason. That is unfortunate. I wish more of the key authors in Emergent discussions would address this point.

It’s your philosophy Mike. These are your boys. Please give a reason for this behavior.

>PostMODERN thought is a full embrace of what modern reason has given society (modern reasoning is part of our culture now that is what we mean by postMODERN). However, it also fully embraces the power of sacred stories, parables, scriptures, rituals, art and myths to convey meaning (that is what we mean by POSTmodern). This doesn’t need to be a paradox. Science describes reality in measurements while religion describes reality through stories (myths). Both can be true but operate on different levels. It is only a problem when we try to read religion as science or read science as religion.

Yes Mike when you have a philosophy that deals with contradictions by claiming multiple realities, not only do you not have a paradox, but a paradox becomes an impossibility.

>When postmodernism has a beef with modernity it is because modern secularism over reacted by throwing out religion once we realized our stories were not perfectly accurate history textbooks. Also, postmodernism has a beef with the reactions of modern fundamentalists who desperately wanted our myths to be interpreted as science (hyper-literalism, creation museums, left-behind books, etc.).

I’m sorry Mike, modern secularism seems to have left me behind. You see, it never gave me any evidence that the Bible was not a perfectly accurate book. I guess I must be pre-modern.

Actually I quite agree that apologetics have little utility in a post-modern paradigm, for the post-modern mind has been plundered. There simply is nothing left to defend.

Dale,

I don’t think you are listening enough to realize the points that we AGREE on. What’s your goal here? Are you interested in understanding others or are you more interested in making up division that doesn’t exist? Even the most ardent apologist would suggest the first step is to fully understand the other point of view before you can provide an alternative. It is possible that the failure to understand other view points was the biggest mistake of modern apologetics. Apologists who look for fights usually get what they seek.

Why don’t you start with explaining how anyone here or in any emergent books/articles/blog has advocated…

“claiming multiple realities”

If you’re looking for an ally in debating such a claim, I’m with you. I just don’t know who it is we’d be debating or what that even means.

>“claiming multiple realities”

By “claiming multiple realities”, I simply mean “embracing contradiction”. Sorry for the confusion?

As far as the points we agree on…, could you please dileneate them for me?

Mike L – If postmodernism has a “beef with modernism’s reaction to reason” that’s what ought to be stated. In all my reading that isn’t the case. Reason and logic are “passe” according to pomo’s, if we are to understand life today.
Most of us need refresher courses in philosophy and its history as there are way too many “straw-man” arguments being made. Postmodernism is a reaction in general to modernism not a correction. The only dogma worth embracing is God’s revelation of truths revealed in Scripture – however that has certain presuppositions that seemingly most pomo’s reject out of hand.

Dale,

I think there are many things we would agree about. I love and hold a deep devotion to the Bible. I am a follower of Jesus. I am in awe of the wonder of God. I have a strong concern for those who have harmed by the evils of injustice. I suspect we share those values. What do you think?

Like you, I think modern secularism is off base and belittles scripture. Like you, I disagree with anyone who would advocate intentional confusion or ambiguity about things that do not need to be paradoxical.

Ray,

I agree that “straw-man” arguments are not helpful. So in order to avoid that, would you mind giving a more specific example of…

“certain presuppositions that seemingly most pomo’s reject out of hand”

It might be helpful to eliminate the possibility that your argument is not also against a straw-man.

peace

I posted this earlier, but i guess it did not take or was taken down.
You say you have a deep devotion to the Bible, so I’ll ask whether that entails, inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy in the original autographs. Most pomo’s seemingly reject these out of hand.
Concerning epistemology – can truth be known? And I mean by our minds not “experiencially.” I understand you may believe truth is a person, not a proposition. However, I would ask you separate the content of truth with the concept of truth. Are these straw man arguments?

Ray,

Comments here are rarely deleted. More often than not, the commenting system causes problems for people, who think they’ve posted their comment when they really haven’t. Just FYI. Please be patient and vigilant and your comments will come through. It may take entering that frustrating “image code” two or three times before it works, but it should work (eventually)! ;-)

Thanks Steve, I appreciate that.

I’m a secular progressive, and I found these discussions to be quite interesting.

That said, I don’t think apogetics is in good faith postmodern. It seems like a means of keeping the comforts you associate with Christianity while attracting skeptical crowds to your religion. It does not seem to be an honest evaluation of the state of your faith.

I’m curious what the Christians who know acknowledge the reality of postmodernism would advice members of other religions do. Would they convert to Christianity because it’s more moral or to save their souls or it’s just “better”? Does it not matter anymore? Where do non-Christians fit in with apogetics now? Is there a motivation to be Christian at all? Especially an objective motivation?

I don’t think there can be a proselytizing religion based on postmodern tenets, Christianity itself is based on subjugating and enforcing power rules (masculine-feminine, rich-poor, saved-unsaved), and it has resisted postmodernism because the religion has a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. It is conservative with no interest in change.

Acknowledging the lack of an objective reality does no good if you continue to perpetuate the myth that there is one; attempting to fight against corrupt institutions is meaningless if you’re a corrupt institution.

Apogetics is not postmodern, at the core it is still Christianity dressed up a bit with plenty of judgment and a high school understanding of philosophy.

As a follow up, and a shorter query since what I posted went unanswered, how is apomogetics not simply a bastardization of the principles of postmodernism or more accurately relativism used simply to further the goals of mainstream American Christianity?