-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trends in Postmodern Theology
- Thread starter CRB
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm not a fan of post-modernism, but then again I'm not sure I know precisely what it is. To me, post-modernism is characterised by hyper-existentialism that tends to put all opinions on an equal plane, no matter how irrational or uninformed those opinions may be. That is, the existentialism makes everything subjective and therefore equal.
I was talking with a fundamentalist student the other day in a seminary and he said that any sort of methodology is a bias, so everyone reads Scripture just seeing what they want, and he wants to see his understanding of "orthodoxy" to the exclusion of any logical reading of the text. He claimed that was a post-modern reading, and it was just as valid as applying an academic methodology. Some liberals do the same thing.
That is not an intelligent post-modern reading of the text, but I do think that an existential ecclecticism would characterize the "method."
As for its relationship to orthodoxy, post-modern readings can strengthen orthodoxy if the reader desires, but for consistency's sake, the interpreter will have to accept all other views as valid, which may seem to some people as a weakening of orthodoxy.
I'm not a fan.
I was talking with a fundamentalist student the other day in a seminary and he said that any sort of methodology is a bias, so everyone reads Scripture just seeing what they want, and he wants to see his understanding of "orthodoxy" to the exclusion of any logical reading of the text. He claimed that was a post-modern reading, and it was just as valid as applying an academic methodology. Some liberals do the same thing.
That is not an intelligent post-modern reading of the text, but I do think that an existential ecclecticism would characterize the "method."
As for its relationship to orthodoxy, post-modern readings can strengthen orthodoxy if the reader desires, but for consistency's sake, the interpreter will have to accept all other views as valid, which may seem to some people as a weakening of orthodoxy.
I'm not a fan.
The term "postmodern" is relatively new, coined sometimes in the 70s. Our era is best termed "late modern" because we are still in the midst of "progress".
Postmoderns do tend to be ecclectic, but that's a result of their work rather than a motivator or driving characteristic. Radical Orthodoxy is very much that way, even encompassing gay rights (Graham Ward, Cities of God). I've still to do a good study of the Emergent movement.
Postmodernism is really just a growth of our era's Relativism. Not only are all ideas equal, but nothing really matters anyway. (Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody) It is essentially nihilistic. That does not mean suicidal like the French philosophers of recent decades, but willing to part with any all all ideas -- ready to dismiss anything when required.
Postmoderns do tend to be ecclectic, but that's a result of their work rather than a motivator or driving characteristic. Radical Orthodoxy is very much that way, even encompassing gay rights (Graham Ward, Cities of God). I've still to do a good study of the Emergent movement.
Postmodernism is really just a growth of our era's Relativism. Not only are all ideas equal, but nothing really matters anyway. (Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody) It is essentially nihilistic. That does not mean suicidal like the French philosophers of recent decades, but willing to part with any all all ideas -- ready to dismiss anything when required.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Post-modernism takes into account that reality is perceived and interpreted into language, rather than captured in language, and that knowledge consists not of "truth" but of more or less useful models.
Thus, "academic methodologies" for scriptural interpretation produce more useful models than fundamentalist agenda-driven methods, in that they take account of and harmonize more of the data in a systematic way that minimizes contradictions and complex explanations for outliers in the data. This is, of course, assuming your purpose is to explain the relationship between all the data is the most complete and harmonized fashion. If your purpose is manipulation and control of human behavior for certain political purposes, the fundies have a more useful model. But neither method produces a model that is the truth.
Thus, post-modernism serves to always keep inquiry open because it reminds us that any certainty we have in our knowledge, no matter how useful that certainty is for predicting outcomes and tailoring our behavior for our benefit, is nonetheless merely a perception of truth.
That's a far cry from saying that every subjective perspective is equal. Some are quite useless depending on what you think your purpose is in a particular decision. Does a creationist take his kids to a faith healer or a trained medical doctor? If the former, he may end up like this.
On the flip side, post-modernism rejects the modern faith in human progress toward truth because it shows our knowledge as a product of the limited perspective that it is.
Thus, "academic methodologies" for scriptural interpretation produce more useful models than fundamentalist agenda-driven methods, in that they take account of and harmonize more of the data in a systematic way that minimizes contradictions and complex explanations for outliers in the data. This is, of course, assuming your purpose is to explain the relationship between all the data is the most complete and harmonized fashion. If your purpose is manipulation and control of human behavior for certain political purposes, the fundies have a more useful model. But neither method produces a model that is the truth.
Thus, post-modernism serves to always keep inquiry open because it reminds us that any certainty we have in our knowledge, no matter how useful that certainty is for predicting outcomes and tailoring our behavior for our benefit, is nonetheless merely a perception of truth.
That's a far cry from saying that every subjective perspective is equal. Some are quite useless depending on what you think your purpose is in a particular decision. Does a creationist take his kids to a faith healer or a trained medical doctor? If the former, he may end up like this.
On the flip side, post-modernism rejects the modern faith in human progress toward truth because it shows our knowledge as a product of the limited perspective that it is.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I don't really know what most of it's all about, but some of the post-modernist stuff I've heard is off-putting if it has been characterised accurately. Apparently condemning honour killings, and wife burnings is cultural imperialism...
Postmodernism ("late modernism" may be a better term) reflects, as is in your statement, the result of the current neo-Platonic state of philosophy. The result has been a relativism which has ended up with a nihilistic epistemology. From my reading of postmoderns (Ward and Milbank), that's where we should have listened, at least in principle, to Nietzsche -- the nihilism was inevitable.
There are some in evangelical circles who are adopting postmodern theology. James K A Smith @ Calvin is a promoter of RO. And the Emergent movement finds its roots in anabaptist thought. To me these represent a real concern.
You're correct in your statement about the constraints, at least as far as how postmodernism views language. Derrida's deconstruction of meaning in words allows words to be used for any reason at any time. I found this to be true in RO (Pickstock would readily manipulate the words Aquinas). And it shows up outside of theology. The living document view of the US Constitution employs this same technique.
So, while postmodern theology is freeing in that one sense, it completely misses the intended purpose of the author, thus removing communicated Truth from Revelation, returning all to subjectivity.
There are some in evangelical circles who are adopting postmodern theology. James K A Smith @ Calvin is a promoter of RO. And the Emergent movement finds its roots in anabaptist thought. To me these represent a real concern.
You're correct in your statement about the constraints, at least as far as how postmodernism views language. Derrida's deconstruction of meaning in words allows words to be used for any reason at any time. I found this to be true in RO (Pickstock would readily manipulate the words Aquinas). And it shows up outside of theology. The living document view of the US Constitution employs this same technique.
So, while postmodern theology is freeing in that one sense, it completely misses the intended purpose of the author, thus removing communicated Truth from Revelation, returning all to subjectivity.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You guys funny.Aside from Dopp, you're like fish cursing the very water we are swimming in.
I don't see a problem with that. :slap:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
doppelgänger;814739 said:
Quite so. Thanks.