Many social observers agree that the Western world is in the midst of tremendous change.  Stanley Grenz has said that we are “. . . experiencing a cultural shift which rivals that innovation that marked the birth of modernity out of the decay of the Middle Ages.”[i]   If modernity is a period characterized by a cultural paradigm coming to an end, then Thomas Oden is correct when he states that “whatever it is that comes next in time can plausibly be called postmodernity.”[ii] 

What precipitated the beginning of this paradigm shift?   As noted earlier, the first significant use of the word postmodernism took place in 1939 when Arnold Toynbee.  Toynbee argued that the modern age ended in 1914 and that what emerged from the ashes of the first world war should be described as “post-modern.”[iii]   Others, like Michael Kohler, looked to the second world war, with the horror of the holocaust and appearance of nuclear weapons, as the starting point of modernity’s demise.[iv]  Still others, like Stanley Grenz, look to the academia to find the impulse to dismantle  modernity in the rise of deconstructionalism  as a literary theory in the 1970s.[v]  However one chooses to date the beginning of modernity’s demise, one thing is certainly clear:  the world view that dominated humanity’s outlook for the last two hundred years is in the process of collapse.  Carl F.H. Henry writes:

Postmodernism . . . holds that the so-called world that emerged intellectually from the sixteenth century onward has come to an end at the close of our twentieth century as surely as the so-called medieval era had its day.[vi]

 Postmodernism points to the birth of a new cultural paradigm that will eventually replaces modernity. 

That new paradigm cannot yet be fully described because it is still in the birthing process.  We are in a transition period between modernity and what comes next.  What we can do is look at the types of change we see taking place in our culture and then postulate what will make up this new world view. What will the postmodern era look like?  This is a difficult question to answer.  For the most part, postmodernism has been defined in terms of what it is not—vis-à-vis modernity. A.K.M. Adam has written:

It is always fair to think of postmodernism as a movement of resistance.  The name itself suggests that postmodernity defines itself over against “modernity.”[vii]

 Though it certainly appears to be exercise in negativity, it is virtually impossible to describe postmodernism without stating what it is not by way of comparison with modernity.  This illustrates the reality that modernity, though in a state of demise and defeat, is not fully deceased.  Though it is quite ill and facing a terminal illness, modernity is still an influential aspect of human culture—particularly in the West.  It would be a mistake to think that the overarching assumptions of modernity have completely passed out of existence.  Indeed, as Terrence Tilley has noted, by defining our era as post-modern, we invariably drag modernity into the present.  When we declare ourselves as postmodern we ironically display the present power of modernity to define who we are.[viii]

Postmodernity defines itself in terms of a break with modernity.  David Dockery states that “postmodernity describes a dislocating human condition that is being experienced in these last years of the twentieth century.” By dislocating he means that the various changes taking place in our culture have the tendency to “throw people out of worldviews they have traditionally held.”[ix]

From what assumptions of modernity are people feeling dislocated?  Earlier we looked Stephen Toulmin’s description of modernity.  In his book Cosmopolis:  The Hidden Agenda of Modernity, Toulmin declares that the epistemology of modernity viewed truth as what was written, universal, general, and timeless.[x]  Near the end of  his book, Toulmin argues that postmodern individuals are increasingly accepting as valid those things that are oral, particular, local, and timely.[xi] 

In a very different way, Stanley Grenz identifies three aspects of the profound changes we face. 

First, the postmodern mind rejects rationalism as the only means for understanding truth.  In modernity, rational methods were sought out to make evident the fundamental accuracy of particular philosophic, scientific, religious, moral, and political assertions.  Modernity placed most aspects of reality under the analysis of reason—thereby resulting in a resolute confidence in human rational capabilities.  The postmodern mind rejects such a faith in human reason.  Truth—the postmodern individual will assert—cannot be limited to a purely rational proposition.  “Because truth is nonrational,” Grenz says, “there are other ways of knowing, including through emotions and the institution.”[xii]

Second, the postmodern mind understands truth to be subjective.  This is in opposition to one of modernity’s primary convictions:  that truth is purely objective. Modern persons believe themselves to be dispassionate about truth—like Detective Joe Friday who claims to be interested only in “the facts.”  Grenz argues:

The modern knower professes to stand apart from being a conditioned participant and to be able to view the world as an unconditioned observer, that is to peer at the world from a vantage point outside the flux of human history.[xiii]

 The postmodern mind no longer accepts the judgment that knowledge is objective.  Quite the contrary, the postmodern mind understands knowledge to be contextual, relational, and personal.  Grenz says:

The world is not simply an objective given that is out there, waiting to be discovered and known.  Instead it is relative, indeterminate, and participatory.[xiv]

 Finally, the postmodern mind is no longer convinced that knowledge is inherently good.  Modernity argued for the intrinsic goodness of knowledge claiming that when it was coupled with the power of education it would eventually make the world a better place.  Over its roughly two hundred-year existence, such confidence in the intrinsic goodness of knowledge has taken on messianic characteristics.  The primary assumption was this:  human reason, freed from tyrannical forms of government and superstitious religion, could provide humanity with a peaceful and prosperous world.  The magnitude of the destruction in the First World War—followed by the appearance of weapons of mass destruction at the end of Second World War—shattered the myth that advancements in human reason had any soteriological value.

In the emerging postmodern era, humanity’s unbridled optimism in the power of reason has almost vanished.  Instead of great blessings, most have discovered human technology to be its greatest curse.  Instead of creating a world of peace and prosperity, advancements in human reason have given us the technological ability to destroy all life on the planet in a matter of minutes.   Instead of a harmonious and affluent lifestyle for all humankind, what we see instead is world-wide oppression, racial and ethnic bigotry, rampant hunger, and the destruction of the environment. Carl F.H. Henry writes:

Postmodernity no longer trusts reason, technology, and/or science to bring about a better world.  Modernity—the age of science and reason—brought with it World War I, World War II, fascist and Marxist totalitarianism, Auschwitz, the increasing poisoning of the planet, and bare escape from international nuclear destruction.[xv]

 Modernity’s optimistic trust in the power of human reason has been replaced by a gnawing pessimism.  It is no longer accepted as true that “each and every day in each and every way we are getting better and better.”[xvi]

As “modernity” continues its decline as the dominate cultural paradigm, we enter “the transition zone” – that period of time between the hegemany of modernity and the birth of what will emerge out of this post-modern period.  In our next post, we will explore some of the ways that theologians are apporaching this period of transition. 

[i] Stanley J. Grenz, “Star Trek and the Next Generation:  Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 90,

[ii] Thomas C. Oden, “The Death of Modernity and Postmodern Evangelical Spirituality,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 25.

[iii] Thomas Docherty, “Postmodernism:  An Introduction,” 1-2.

[iv] Michael Kohler, “‘Postmodernismus’:  Ein begriffsgeschichtlicher Uberblick,” Americkastudien 22 (1977): 8-18, cited by Albert Mohler  in The Challenge of Postmodernism,  68.

[v] Stanley J. Grenz, “Star Trek and the Next Generation:  Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 92.

[vi] Carl F.H. Henry, “Postmodernism:  The New Spectre?” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 36.

[vii] A.K.M. Adam, What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism?” 1.

[viii] Terrence W. Tilley, Postmodern Theologies:  The Challenge of Religious Diversity.  (Maryknoll, New York:  Orbis Books, 1995), vi.

[ix] David S. Dockery, “The Challenge of Postmodernism,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 13.

[x] Toulmin, Cosmopolis, 30-35.

[xi] Ibid., 186-192.

[xii] Stanley J. Grenz, “Star Trek and the Next Generation:  Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 94.

[xiii] Ibid., 91.

[xiv] Ibid., 94.

[xv] Carl F.H. Henry, “Postmodernism:  The New Spectre?” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 36

[xvi] Stanley J. Grenz, “Star Trek and the Next Generation:  Postmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, 94.

billnieporte

See author's posts