The Church and Postmodernism

By Ben Wulpi

Spring 2010

1
Introduction

“What is truth?” asked Pilate to the Lord on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion .1 The question applies

today just as much as it did 2000 years ago . People are still asking the same questions, searching for

meaning in what they find to be true . This is a question that seems even more prevalent today, as

people seek truth in all forms of religion, spirituality or philosophy . In a society that is increasingly

relativistic, truth is becoming more difficult to grasp on to, when many are saying that their truth is not

the same as your truth.

Postmodernism is a philosophical position that many Christians fear is advocating this sort of

relativism. It seems to threaten our understanding of truth and interpretation, and be profoundly anti-

religious. We don’t want anyone or any philosophy telling us that ours is not the only form of truth,

because, as we know, our way of truth is God’s way of truth, and no cultural philosophy can tell us

otherwise. Postmodernism’s claim is that there is no absolute truth, so it cannot be compatible with

Christianity and we must reject it. Or rather, this is the claim of postmodernism as expressed by many

Christians fearful of its changes.

Along with the extreme modern reaction from Christians, some Christians are embracing

postmodernism full-out, and take it to the extreme and create churches that do embrace relativism and

present a watered-down version of the gospel . The key is to understand what postmodernism really is in

order to find the proper balance of how to do Christianity while engaging with our culture .

As this paper will show, I believe that these radical fears and radical embracings of

postmodernism result from misconceptions about what postmodernism really is . I will show that

postmodernism is not damaging to our Christian faith, but rather, that it is conducive to a life of

1
John 18:38

2
biblically-grounded faith. Postmodernism is in fact a philosophy in which Christianity can grow and

thrive.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the paradigm of postmodernism and how it relates to

Christians, specifically in the areas of truth and interpretation of Scripture . The paper is split into three

main sections. The first deals with the philosophy of postmodernism and what it truly is, first trying to

submit it to definition, which is no easy task . Then I move on to postmodernism’s foundations, primarily

as a reaction against modernity and the foundationalism of Enlightenment epistemology . This involves

looking into the foundations of modernism as well, which I can in no way do justice to in a paper of this

size. From there I discuss certain characteristics that constitute postmodernism, from the specific ways

in which it rejects modernism to Derrida’s deconstruction and Lyotard’s incredulity toward

metanarratives, drawing special attention to postmodernity’s relation to pre-modernity . This is a

fascinating connection to make, especially when we realize the suppression of epistemology of the

Middle Ages by the emerging modern thought of the Enlightenment . The connections between

postmodern and pre-modern are especially strong in regards to how they read texts, which is the

primary direction of this paper.

The second section focuses on truth and interpretation in regards to postmodern thought . I

begin this by looking in to the philosophy of Jacques Derrida known as deconstruction . Derrida, who was

the key figure focus of my research, has much to say about how we read texts and employ our language .

The philosophy of language is one of the key elements in postmodern thought, and the use of our

language has a great deal to do with how we view our world . A key part here is the comparison between

the philosophies of Derrida and Hans-Georg Gadamer in regards to language . I then look into the

objectivity/subjectivity question. One thing characteristic of postmodernism is that it denies the

possibility of objective interpretation, which is a big deal for many people who rely on scientific

3
objectivity for their interpretations of truth . I explore this question and how it relates to our finding

meaning in the world, as well as the question of whether or not subjectivity leads us into relativism . I

then turn to focus on the key theories supporting the connection between our interpretations and

reality, and the distinctions between modern and postmodern in that regard . Then I will continue to

look at a couple of the different theories and means of interpretation that are done today . For

postmodernism, the element of our context is vastly important to how we do our interpretation, and for

modernism, the elements of form and intent are the key factors that give authority to a text . The main

question in interpretation here is where the authority of a text lies, so I will go through three different

modes of interpretation and how they view authority .

The final major section of the paper applied our investigation to the reading of Scripture . I

explore the differences in modern and postmodern readings of Scripture, especially drawing from the

theological postconservative approach of Stanley Grenz and John Franke . The main issue at question

here is how Scripture is the inspired word of God . Did the Holy Spirit inspire the authors as they wrote,

or does He appropriate the written text after the fact and use it to speak to us today? Again, the

question of subjectivity arises, as postmodernism asserts that a community reading of Scripture must be

the basis for our theology.

In the end, I propose that Christians appropriate postmodernism, although with a due measure

of caution. If we are to engage with our culture for the sake of the culture, we have to know how to be

able to speak to them on their level, which entails us being culturally aware . But more than this, I

believe postmodernism is a bed of fertile soil in which the church can grow and even thrive . By applying

its critique of modernity, the church can be free of the constraints which they have unknowingly allowed

modernity to thrust upon their understanding and expression of faith . Postmodernism can help a church

that is struggling to reach the culture around it .

4
What is Postmodernism?

“Postmodernism” is a term that has many connotations associated with it but is often found

lacking in measureable definitions . It is a notoriously difficult philosophy to define or contain to a few

easily understandable sentences. And that, in a sense, is what it aims for . Postmodernism shuns quick-

fix answers and quotable axioms that modernism tends to exalt, preferring dialogue over sound-bites

and stories over bullet points. Most often postmodernism can only be delineated in terms of its relation

to modernism. Take the definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example:

[Postmodernism] can be described as a set of critical, strategic and

rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition,
the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other
concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic
certainty, and the univocity of meaning .2

To define it as employing concepts for the purpose of destabilizing other concepts is one of the

hallmarks of trying to describe postmodernism . These “other” concepts are typically rooted in modern

foundationalism and the supremacy of science and reason . Or, as Smith suggests, “Postmodernism can

be understood as the erosion of confidence in the rational as sole guarantor and deliverer of truth,

coupled with a deep suspicion of science—particularly modern science’s pretentious claims to an

ultimate theory of everything.”3

It is also necessary for my purposes here to distinguish between the terms “postmodernism”

and “postmodernity.” Postmodernism is a philosophical position taking a critical stance toward

modernism, although not necessarily an iconoclastic stance . Postmodernity is a period concept, and is

used as a description of certain cultural conditions pertaining to Western countries especially in the

1970s and 80s. According to Ward, this is an important distinction to make, for while the philosophical

2
Gayle Aylesworth, comp. "Postmodernism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/>
3
James K.A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 62

5
ideals of postmodernism lead to a societal skepticism with the worldview of modernity and can lead to a

period we might call ‘postmodernity,’ “there are indications which suggest ‘postmodernity’ as a

particular cultural emphasis is over,” while many believe the philosophy of postmodernism will always

be with us.4

Foundations of Postmodernism

We can’t really get a sense of what postmodernism is without taking at least a cursory look at

modernism, since the modern critique would not exist apart from its context of modernism . For the sake

of space, I will briefly outline modernity’s foundations and core values . It’s easiest to point to the

Enlightenment, the period of Western civilization in the 17 th-18th century in which reason and science

were upheld as the final legitimating authorities for all philosophy and culture . The Age of

Enlightenment was an optimistic one, fueled by the belief that “a scientific application of human reason

to the natural order (for economic and technological development) as well as to the human order (for

social and political reform) would produce the best of all possible rational worlds .”5

One of modernity’s key aspects is the emphasis on foundationalism . With its root in Cartesian

philosophy, foundationalism holds that certain beliefs are basic, that is, they are the basis for many

other beliefs and are self-evident and self-justifiable . This is the key to modernist epistemology, that we

can know some things with all certainty because they are basic . And those beliefs serve as the

foundation for more derivative beliefs which build and build on each other to create an epistemological

tower that (supposedly) cannot be shaken . Another key factor of modernism is what’s called

“correspondence theory.” This theory of truth claims that true beliefs and true statements correspond

4
Graham Ward, ed. The Postmodern God: A Theological Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), xxv.
5
Joseph P. Huffman, “Faith, Reason, and the Text: The Return of the Middle Ages in Postmodern Scholarship,”
Christian Scholar’s Review 29:2 (Winter 1999): 282.

6
to the actual state of the world. It is this trust in a corresponding metaphysical realism that gives

modernists epistemological confidence—we know that what we know is backed up by actual reality .

This epistemological confidence leads to a modern cultural sense of confidence in its own progress .

Postmodernism would make it its goal to destabilize this confidence by shaking the very

foundations upon which modernism stands, questioning the very ideas of epistemic certainty,

foundationalism, and corresponding metaphysical realism, among others . Historically, it can be said that

postmodernism started emerging as far back as the late 19 th century, but most would say it really gained

momentum in the latter half of the 20 th century. Some look to the end of modernity to find the genesis

of postmodernity. For instance, some say the philosophy of Martin Heidegger announced (but did not

accomplish) the end of modernity.6 Some suggest that certain events pronounced the end of modernity

and birth of postmodernity, such as the student riots in Paris of May 1968 or the demolition of a Le

Corbusier-inspired housing development in St . Louis on July 15, 1972.7 All this goes to say that the

advent of postmodernism is by no means certain or clear in many people’s minds . The primary point to

emphasize is that postmodernity came about as a result of the disappointment in modernity’s failings .

Optimism was replaced with skepticism, and the foundations of modernity began to come under

question.

Characteristics of Postmodernism

To begin to describe some of the key characteristics of postmodernism, we must look at it in its

relation to modernism. Functionally, it is post-modern, a reaction to the values and ideals of modernism .

But some suggest that postmodernism is often in actuality more of a hyper-modernism, an extension or

6
Ward, The Postmodern God, xxxii.
7
Ibid., xxiii

7
intensification of modernism.8 But primarily it stands as a critique of modernism, calling out the many

faults inherent in modernist thought . I will touch on a few of these key critiques, elaborating on some

later.

The first, which I have already mentioned, is a rejection of modernist foundationalism .

Postmodernism rejects this idea that we can have basic beliefs, maintaining the position that we cannot

have epistemic access to the real world. Foundationalism presupposes exactly what postmodernists

deny, namely, an ability to know things as they really are, apart from our language use . Postmodernists

hold that our language, rather than revealing the truth of the real world to us, stand between us and

reality, such that “we do not inhabit the ‘world-in-itself’; instead, we live in a linguistic world of our own

making.”9 Postmodernists would say that foundationalism has led us astray, leading us to believe that

we can have objective, unmediated observations of the real, objective world . But this simply cannot

happen, they say.

Another key element of postmodern thought is drawn primarily from the work of Jean-Francois

Lyotard, and that is his claim that postmodernism is “incredulity toward metanarratives .” Lyotard has a

suspicion toward the very nature of metanarratives, which he says are a distinctly modern

phenomenon. Metanarratives are stories that not only tell a grand story, but also claim to be able to

legitimate or prove the story’s claim by an appeal to universal reason .10 Rationality makes this universal

claim in modernity, using itself as a source of legitimation . Using the idea that everything is ultimately a

narrative that requires legitimation, Lyotard calls out modernity for claiming rationality as self-

8
Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, 26.
9
R. Scott Smith, "Language, Theological Knowledge, and the Postmodern Paradigm ," in Reclaiming the Center:
Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern times, ed. Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and
Justin Taylor. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 110.
10
Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, 65.

8
legitimating. While not crucial for the direction of this paper, this “incredulity toward metanarratives” is

a large part of the postmodern critique .

At the heart of what the postmodern critique attempts to accomplish in tearing down

foundations is the philosophy of deconstruction, of which the French philosopher Jacques Derrida is the

author and founder. Derrida’s famous claim is that “there is nothing outside the text,” claiming that

everything requires interpretation, and we must interpret the “texts” of the world in order to truly

experience reality. This pulls strongly at the foundations of epistemic certainty that modernity holds so

dear. I will speak much more about Derrida and deconstruction later .

The Middle Ages and Textual Authority

One standard that postmodernism attempts to recover is the values of the medieval paradigm

that modernism shoved under the rug for the sake of progress, seeing them as unenlightened or mythic

(subsequently labeling that time period the “Dark Ages” as a foil for modern cultural self-identity) . This

project of the Enlightenment exulted in its own progress from ignorance to knowledge and reveled in

the optimism given it by science and reason to continue making our world better . The modern negative

views of the Middle Ages are called medievalisms, which serve as culturally constructed “truths” about

the past not based on detailed study of the surviving evidence, but on the needs of the given culture .

Postmodernism has in some significant respects returned to the Middle Ages for its deconstruction of

modernist epistemology. “Just as the Middle Ages had been used previously by modernists as a foil for

extolling the virtues of Enlightenment modernity, the medieval world is currently being employed by

postmodernists to critique modernism.”11

11
Huffman, “Faith, Reason, and the Text,” 287.

9
 The most important connection between postmodern and pre-modern (and the key focus for

this paper), is their approach to reading texts, in contrast to the modern approach . The crucial aspect of

interpreting texts is in assigning authority to them . With the Renaissance, a tradition of humanist

philological scholarship emerged, becoming more secularized with the Enlightenment . A critical textual

basis for truth and knowledge became the backbone for historical truth . Using the scientific method,

modern scholars considered a document true or false based on whether or not it contains the formal

authenticity it claims to possess. Truth is based in the “pure” authenticity of texts, and authenticity is

judged by the external form of the text . For example, since the Middle Ages produced a plethora of

forgeries of historical documents (e.g. the Donation of Constantine), the modern historical scholars saw

the Middle Ages as morally dim and lacking in critical sensibilities—hence, the “Dark Ages .”12

This critical approach had other cultural consequences, according to Huffman:

Not only did it undermine traditional religious authority substantially,

but replaced it with a new ‘scientific’ (or positivist) approach to truth for
the humanities mirroring the natural sciences . The ‘truth’ discovered by
this scientific approach to texts—that is, that so many medieval texts
were not formally authentic—gave as much cultural authority to
modern philology as the seventeenth-century discoveries about false
notions of the universe’s form had given to the scientific method .13

The “literal truth” of form had become superior to the traditional medieval mode of identifying truth in

the content of a text. In other words, those elements of a text that deemed it “authentic” or not became

the arbiters of truth, rather than any truth that might be found within the text . “Historical truth now

meant only the ‘facts.’”14 One form of identifying truth was exalted above the other, and the distinction

was drawn between objective “facts” and the value or truth of a text .

12
Ibid., 288-289
13
Ibid., 290.
14
Ibid.

10
 Postmodern scholarship has been raising doubts about this traditional modernist approach to

textual authority. They assert that the Enlightenment-based modern definitions of and the distinctions

between fact and falsity are culturally constructed and thus limiting factors in doing history, or any other

of the human sciences. Some postmoderns think that “facts” are actually a 17 th-century invention.15 For

postmodernists, the external form of any given text is no more important than the internal content of

the text, and in fact, the heart of the matter is located within the discourse contained within the text.

This postmodern method emphasizes the content of a text over its formal concerns, and allows the text

to speak on its own terms. This serves to reject the modernist polarity between absolutely true and false

texts. Like the medieval understanding of texts, postmodernism “emphasizes the meaning of a text as a

marker of social and cultural practice rather than as a mere record of historical facts .”16 Postmodernism

claims that “form” is something merely designed for its social and cultural usefulness, and does not have

a total claim to the truth of any given text . Postmodernism reminds us that the task of comprehending

human history must incorporate both the literal, historical meaning of the text as well as the

metaphorical and allegorical, which is something the medieval exegetes knew long ago .

How does all this make a difference for how we view truth today in a postmodern context? This

question of textual authority will prove to be vastly important for understanding the postmodern

critique in regards to truth, and how we interpret that truth .

15
Smith, R. Scott. "Language…” in Reclaiming the Center, 112.
16
Ibid., 296

11
Postmodernism and Truth

In this section we will explore how postmodernism impacts what we see as “truth,” and how we

approach that truth. This is a strong point of contention between moderns and postmoderns, and rightly

so, since truth is an important aspect of how we live our lives . Many moderns fear the lengths to which

postmodernism goes in interpreting truth, for in some cases postmoderns can move beyond a

“hermeneutic of suspicion” to a far more damaging “suspicion of hermeneutics .” Indeed, a generalized

statement of the postmodern attitude toward interpretation is “incredulity toward meaning .” In this

section I will begin by examining the philosophy of deconstruction, which will set the stage for the rest

of the section. Moving on into the concept of language, we see just how much our language impacts our

philosophy and has a bearing on truth . I then look into the question of objectivity and subjectivity, and

how truth relates to these. Then I discuss the different theories in regard to the reality of truth,

comparing the modern idea of correspondence theory with the postmodern coherence theory . After

looking at all these points, I dive into the topic of interpretation, or hermeneutics, and see how these

concepts impact our actual understanding of truth .

Derrida and Deconstruction

First, a look into the philosophy of deconstruction, borne from the mind of Jacques Derrida, a

controversial French philosopher who was at his peak in the 1970s and 80s . To define deconstruction is

even more difficult than defining postmodernism, for deconstruction sees concepts like “meaning” and

“mission” as restricting and containing. “The very meaning and mission of deconstruction is to show that

things—texts, institutions, traditions, societies, beliefs, and practices of whatever size and sort you need

—do not have definable meanings and determinable missions, that they are always more than any

12
mission would impose, that they exceed the boundaries they currently occupy .”17 Deconstruction strives

to push beyond these boundaries to interrupt and disunify .

There is a tendency to misunderstand deconstruction to say that it promotes a relativism in

which anything goes, and texts can mean anything the reader wants them to mean, and many other

terrible things. Because of this, Derrida and deconstruction have been blamed for just about everything,

and therefore,

it is not uncommon to portray Derrida as the devil himself, a street-

corner anarchist, a relativist, or subjectivist, or nihilist, out to destroy
our traditions and institutions, our beliefs and values, to mock
philosophy and truth itself, and to undo everything the Enlightenment
has done—and to replace this with wild nonsense and irresponsible
play.18

According to Caputo, the way out of these misunderstandings is to realize that deconstruction, by

critically undoing all philosophies and language games and social structures, is setting out to get to the

core of what is “undeconstructible,” affirming that which is to come .19

The motive behind Derrida’s strategy of undoing stems from his alarm over illegitimate appeals

to authority and exercises of power. In this, he challenges the pretention of the philosopher and the

exegete to have arrived at a fixed or correct view of things . To Derrida, this is a bluff that must be

deconstructed.20 The business of deconstruction is to open and loosen things up, and to allow space for

questioning. At its root is ethics—giving voice to the interpretations that have been marginalized and

silenced by those dominant interpretations that create the status quo, silencing those who see things

differently. Thus, we are free to interpret the world differently . At the core of deconstruction is the hope

17
John D. Caputo, Deconstruction in a Nutshell: a Conversation with Jacques Derrida . (New York: Fordham
University Press, 1997), 31.
18
Ibid., 36.
19
Ibid., 41-42
20
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: the Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary
Knowledge. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998), 21-22.

13
of justice and freedom, and a looking forward to a future that is good . According to the commentary by

Caputo, everything in deconstruction is pointed toward a “democracy to come,” which tackles the

current forms of democracy (which Derrida says are not really democratic at all) in order to open them

up to a future democracy that will fulfill democracy’s own promise . For one party to claim the authority

and the “correct” way to do things is not democracy, and deconstruction sets out to give other

interpretations a voice.21 Derrida insists that deconstruction is good news for our world, and it’s on our

side, continually exposing our structures to a “certain revolution in a self-perpetuation auto-

revolution.”22

Deconstruction has a great impact on the implications of our hermeneutics . Hermeneutics is

relevant not only to interpretation of texts, but to all life, insofar as everything from a theater

performance to a baby’s crying is a “text,” that is, an expression of human life that requires

interpretation. Everything requires interpretation, according to Derrida . And with that reality, there will

always be conflict of interpretation or at least differences in interpretation, which leads us into

somewhat of a hermeneutical pluralism that points out the falsity of objectivity . This pluralism though, is

not something we should run from, says James Smith, but is rather a reality we cannot escape and is

something we should actually embrace. “A kind of deep ‘directional’ pluralism is endemic to our

postlapsarian condition; that is, there is a level of interpretive difference that concerns fundamental

issues such as what it means to be authentically human and how we fit into the cosmos .”23 Because we

are fallen creatures, interpretation is always necessary as a disruption of the immediacy of

understanding. Because everything is a text, we come to Derrida’s claim that “there is nothing outside

the text.” This means that everything must be interpreted in order to be experienced . “Texts that

21
Caputo, Deconstruction in a Nutshell, 43-44.
22
Ibid., 37.
23
Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, 50.

14
require interpretation are not things that are inserted between me and the world; rather, the world is a

kind of text requiring interpretation .”24 For our interpretations we must have a mediating lens through

which to see, and that lens is language .

The Importance of Language

As mentioned in the previous section, postmodern thought claims that it is language that stands

between us and the world . We cannot experience the world but through the mediation of language . It is

the key to our interpretation. Our words are simply symbols for the meaning behind them . And, argues

Derrida, Western philosophy supposes that when we write our words down, we are, in effect,

translating them once again, so our written words are symbols of symbols—twice removed from reality .

Thus, voice is given privilege over writing, because voice gives immediate access to full presence, “where

presence is linked to comprehension and the denial of mystery .”25 Writing is seen as a contamination

and a corruption of the purity of speech, in some sense a violence against speech . Writing is derivative

because it is re-presentative—presenting the concept of a word in a symbol on top of what has already

been presented.

Derrida argues that, rather than writing being a violence against language, all language is

violence. “His deconstruction sets out to disturb the myth of a pure voice—a speech uninhibited by

interpretation and mediation—by unveiling the interpretedness of all human discourse .”26 According to

Derrida, all language is violence because language is, at first, writing . There is a “writing” that precedes

speech, which he describes as “arche-writing,” a writing of which all language is composed . “Writing,

rather than being exterior to a pure speech, is always already interior to language, essentially rather
24
Ibid., 39.
25
James K.A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic . (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 116.
26
Ibid., 118.

15
than accidentally, as its very possibility .”27 Thus, the violence against pure meaning does not just stop at

language, but goes down to the signifiers behind our language . This is even more support for Derrida’s

claim that “there is nothing outside the text .” Interpretation is a structural matter, and everything must

be interpreted. And rather than “presence” in language, Derrida insists that “absence” is essential to

writing. All writing, in order to be what it is, must be able to function in the radical absence of its

context. This idea is called iterability, or the possibility of repeating, and therefore identifying, certain

marks that make writing legible, making it communicable and transmittable in different contexts for any

possible user in general. Writing must be able to be decontextualized . And, Derrida concludes, these

traits must be characteristic not only of writing, but of all language, and ultimately in the totality of our

experience, since experience itself is constituted by a system of marks, spacing, and deferral .28 For

Derrida, everything is a text, and our experience of the world lies in interpretation .

One opposing view of language is given to us by the German continental philosopher Hans-

Georg Gadamer, who was one of the most important voices in philosophical hermeneutics in the 20 th

century. For Gadamer, language is not an insurmountable barrier to truth, but rather a medium of truth .

He views language as an image of the reality, and the function of an image is to make the thing apparent

of which it is an image, thus having a revelatory function . It is not just a copy, but it is a disclosure of the

thing itself that shows us the thing in a way in which it was not available to us before . In this way, the

presentation of the thing does not experience a diminution of its reality, but actually acquires a richer

intelligibility by being made manifest. “Language does not simply re-present a preexisting intelligible

order, but actually develops over time the intelligibility of reality .”29 Gadamer uses the example of the

Christian idea of the self-presentation of God in the Incarnation . God, by being made manifest, became

27
Ibid., 119.
28
Ibid., 119-121.
29
Brice R. Wachterhauser, ed. Hermeneutics and Truth. Evanston, Ill. (Northwestern University Press, 1994), 16.

16
more intelligible to us, the interpreters of God’s nature . Jesus Christ was a revelation of God Himself, an

Incarnation in which all the fullness of the Deity was pleased to dwell .30 With this example, language

serves an incarnational function, and dispels the notion of a dualism between the noumenal reality in

itself and the phenomenal reality which we experience . There is a unity in language that makes meaning

all the more intelligible for us. And for Gadamer, the grounds for understanding lie in “dialogue,” i .e. the

search for agreement on some issue carried out in the trust that we can understand each other and the

world. It is through such dialogue that intellectual traditions are formed and advanced .31

Language has become the preeminent problem of 20 th century philosophy, and there are many

different ideas other than these two I have presented here . But how does this philosophy of language

apply to actual texts in order to show us meaning? If Derrida and other postmoderns are right, then it

could lead to the conclusion that everything is a human construct—an interpretation—and what we

take to be determinate reality is actually an effect of our linguistic practices . Interpretation actually

produces the text themselves, and thus the meaning . But if Gadamer is correct, then the texts

themselves could actually contain more meaning than we think . So do texts really have any authority in

and of themselves? These are questions I will come back to later .

Objectivity and Subjectivity

One of the primary concerns of moderns in regards to postmodern philosophy is the issue of

objectivity. Many see Derrida’s claims that everything must be interpreted and fear that interpretation is

a wholly arbitrary endeavor, in which the reader is lord . Because of these fears, deconstruction signals

the impossibility of communication. Can we really know if anything is objectively true?

30
Cf. Colossians 1:19
31
Wachterhauser, Hermeneutics and Truth, 14.

17
 One thing that postmodernism suggests is that objectivity might simply be a modern ideal .

Richard Rorty suggests that humans try to give sense to their lives by placing them in a larger context in

two ways. Firstly, we can find meaning by telling a story of their contribution to a community,

exemplifying a desire for solidarity within that community . Secondly, we can try to find meaning by

describing ourselves as standing in immediate relation to a nonhuman reality, distancing ourselves from

persons around us in order to find objectivity without reference to any particular human beings . In the

Western culture, tradition has shown to seek meaning by turning away from solidarity to seek meaning

in objectivity. Truth is to be pursued for its own sake, not for the good of oneself or one’s community .

We want to be able to examine our communities in light of something that transcends it, seeking to find

that which is common with every other community . 32 This agenda has been pushed further by the

exaltation of science and the search for objective truth . Postmodernism attempts to reduce this

distinction between objectivity and the search for solidarity (which one might see as subjective) .

It does this by emphasizing the vast importance of the context of our communities in the

process of interpretation. According to Derrida, context “goes all the way down,” is limitless, and is

never absolutely determinable. So what is called “objective” is in fact, determined by context—just a

vast, very old one.33 It is our communities that fix contexts, and contexts which determine meanings . It is

this that we call “objective,” when in reality our meaning is determined by our context and worldviews .

No matter how hard we try to be “objective,” we cannot read or listen or interact or live apart from the

contexts of our communities and worldviews. When we attempt to apply scientific objectivity to our

32
Richard Rorty. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth . (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 21-22 .
33
James K.A. Smith, “Limited Inc/arnation: Revisiting the Searle/Derrida Debate in Christian Context,” in
Hermeneutics at the Crossroads, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, James K.A. Smith, and Bruce Ellis Benson. (Bloomington:
Indiana UP, 2006), 120-121.

18
moral and political lives, we end up living pointless fantasies about our own objective knowledge .

“There is nothing wrong with science, there is only something wrong with the attempt to divinize it .”34

With the questioning of objectivity comes accusations of relativism . The contextualization of our

truth-claims is not a threat to their truth value—it only appears so, because we tend to implicitly think

of the rational subject as separable from the interpretive context in which it finds itself . But we can find

no context-less subject. Contextualization does not preclude having a shared, common reality—it

actually presupposes a common world. All differences of perspective or point of view nevertheless

presuppose that they are different perspectives on one and the same world or reality . 35 For

postmoderns, epistemological justifications must be holistic—encompassing the reality of our contexts

and worldviews and discontinuing the fruitless search for true objectivity . This simply recognizes that

our communities and contexts are inseparable from our ability to interpret, and this is something that

postmodernism wants us to recognize.

Correspondence and Coherence Theories

These questions of language and objectivity raise more questions about what exactly the

relationship is between our language, perceptions, and ideas and the actual reality . Generally speaking,

the principle difference here between modern and postmodern is the difference between two theories

of truth: correspondence theory and coherence theory . Correspondence theory, which is the modern

ideal, is the idea that fact x is true if and only if it corresponds to some fact of reality . To give an overly

simplistic example, if I say that my shirt is red, then that statement directly corresponds with my shirt

having the actual quality “red.” Correspondence theory is strongly associated with metaphysical

34
Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, 33-34.
35
Wachtterhauser, Hermeneutics and Truth, 6.

19
realism, the idea that there is a noumenal reality directly corresponding to our observations of the

phenomenal. The truth or falsity of a statement is determined by how it directly relates to the world .36

With coherence theory of truth, which is often claimed by postmoderns, truth is coherence with

a specified set of sentences, propositions, or beliefs . The truth of any proposition is determined by its

relation with another set of propositions (“propositions” here being used not in any technical sense, but

simply as a bearer of truth value, whatever that may be) . According to coherence theory, the truth

conditions of propositions consist in other propositions . In contrast, the correspondence theory says

that the truth conditions for propositions are not other propositions, but rather objective features of the

world. Whereas the issue in correspondence theory is having a foundation in metaphysical reality, the

issue with coherence theory is consistency among propositions .37

It should be clear how correspondence theory fits in with other modern concepts, especially

epistemological foundationalism. Ideas must have their foundation in reality, and those realities must

have their foundation as well. Beliefs are justified by looking to their foundation . And coherence theory

works well with postmodern ideas, because truth doesn’t have much value outside its context, and

beliefs are justified by looking to the other beliefs it is connected with, creating a sort of web or mosaic

of knowledge, “each belief interdependent and supported by its relationship to other beliefs within the

mosaic, and justified, not by a belief’s correspondence to reality, but in its overall fit with other held

beliefs.”38 One could view the distinction in characteristics between these two as vertical and horizontal .

Correspondence theory has a vertical aspect to it, an idea being built on the foundation of its

corresponding reality, and that reality being built on another foundational truth, and so on . Coherence

36
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <plato.stanford.edu>
37
Ibid.
38
Stephen J. Wellum, “Postconservatism, Biblical Authority, and Recent Proposals for Re-Doing Evangelical
Theology: A Critical Analysis,” in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern
times, ed. Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor . (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 169.

20
theory can be seen as more horizontal, with ideas or beliefs looking to other ideas or beliefs around

them for justification.

A lot of the ways in which we view truth and reality have to do, again, with our language . Many

postmodern philosophers and theologians see what we call reality as merely “language games,” in which

meaning is not a function of a connection of language to reality, but of language to more language . In

other words, meaning and truth have no direct external connection to “facts” waiting to be

apprehended, but meaning and truth are rather an internal function of language . This obviously entails

the abandonment of the correspondence theory . These language games come about as a natural part of

our communities to develop rules and social mores .39 This linguistic turn in philosophy entails that

“language is no longer viewed in a realist way, that is, as ‘mirroring’ or ‘picturing’ reality, but is viewed

as a social affair governed by various ‘language-games .’”40

Interpretation

Now that we’ve explored some postmodern elements of what truth is and its relation to reality,

we must look at how exactly we can interpret that truth . If Derrida is even close to right in saying that

everything is a text and requires interpretation, then our interpretations and hermeneutics are

incredibly important not only to such things as how we read Scripture, but also to how we live our lives .

“Interpretation is an inescapable part of being human and experiencing the world .”41 In the next few

pages, I will go through different basic theories of interpretation, modern and postmodern means of

39
A.B. Caneday, “Is Theological Truth Functional or Propositional?” in Reclaiming the Center: Confronting
Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern times. Ed. Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor .
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 145
40
Wellum, “Postconservatism…” in Reclaiming the Center, 169.
41
Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, 38.

21
interpretation, and then discuss how this applies to authority and understanding, with the goal of

discovering if there is actually any meaning or truth after interpretation .

First, to outline two differing theories of interpretation . A normative approach to interpretation

tends to give rules, methodological procedures, and criteria for “correct” interpretation . In contrast,

descriptive theories treat understanding as a mode of being, as something that happens to interpreters

above their wanting and doing. To give a rough generalization, normative accounts tend to be

epistemological, and descriptive accounts tend to be ontological . This raises the question then, is

“understanding” an active occurrence, one that we cause to come about, or is it passive, where

understanding happens to us?

The modern methods of interpretation have strong methodological roots and focus primarily on

authenticity, as described above. The issue, as we’ve moved throughout history, is in what the standard

for authenticity is, and where authority lies . Here I will focus on three different modes of interpretation,

focusing on three different paradigms of authority, adapted from VanHoozer’s Is There a Meaning in this

Text? The first is on author-oriented hermeneutics . A text is understood when we recover the author’s

consciousness. “The goal of interpretation is to understand the text as well as or better than its

author.”42 With this hermeneutic lies a problem with the metaphysics of meaning, raising questions such

as What is an author? and What is an intention?, questions which seem clear-cut initially but become

foggier when held up to the postmodern critique . A “hermeneutical realist” would hold that there is

something prior to interpretation, something there in the text, which can be known, and to which the

interpreter is accountable. On the other hand, a hermeneutical nonrealist denies that meaning precedes

interpretive activity; the truth of an interpretation depends on the response of the reader .43

42
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 25.
43
Ibid., 25-26.

22
 The second mode of interpretation is text-oriented . This aims at describing the immanent sense

of the text—its formal features, or linguistic and literary conventions, rather than the intentions of the

author or historical context. “The goal here is to explain the text’s form and structure (e .g. knowledge

about the text) rather than to understand its reference (e .g. knowledge of what the text is about).”44

The risk here is with falling into hermeneutic relativism, in which everyone can have a different method

for interpreting the text and finding meaning based on their own methods . There must be a norm for

governing interpretation, making sure that the interpretation process is governed by certain rational

procedures, though these must be modified to take account of the variety of literary genres .45

The third mode of interpretation is based on the reader, a method that emerged in the 1970s

and 1980s, when many critics rejected textual positivism, where the text is the object of scientific study,

beginning instead to examine the role of the reader . Reader response criticism stresses the

incompleteness of the text until it is constructed (or deconstructed) by the reader . These criticisms also

observe that we always read from within a tradition, from within a clearly circumscribed set of social

and cultural practices. Readers can’t help but read from this perspective . This raises the problem of the

ethics of meaning. A more radical reader response critic might go as far as to give the reader initiative to

use the texts for their own aims and purposes, where the text is simply an opportunity for the reader to

pursue his own agenda. Here in this view, the text is inactive and it is the reader who is the producer of

meaning. This view denies that interpretations are constrained by the text .46

The primary thrust of a modern attitude toward interpretation is in asking what the author is

trying to communicate. A postmodern approach, on the other hand, emphasizes more of the internal

content of the text, and the context of the reader . This allows the text to speak on its own terms, and

44
Ibid., 26.
45
Ibid., 26-27.
46
Ibid., 27-28.

23
interpretation involves dialogue between author, text, and reader . With this approach, the truth of any

given text is not bound up or contained by its form, which postmoderns say is something merely

designed for its social and cultural usefulness . Postmodernism emphasizes the meaning of a text as a

marker of social and cultural practice rather than as a mere record of historical facts .47

Gadamer, again, is one thinker who proposed we reorient our hermeneutics away from

epistemology (i.e. interpreting to know the author’s mind) toward ontology (interpreting for self-

understanding). “Understanding for Gadamer does not come about by following some method for

correct interpretation but through a disclosure of truth that bears a resemblance to how we experience

art or the playing of a game.”48 For Gadamer the emphasis lies in the “event” of understanding, as it

happens to us. Understanding happens when we participate not in the underlying meaning but in a

conversation about that meaning. Understanding is a matter of agreement with another about a certain

subject matter, and to understand it is to be seized by the truth of the matter . With this understanding,

the interpreter is not at the end of the line of communication, but rather in the middle, in the midst of

conversation. “Understanding is to be thought of less as a subjective act than as participating in an event

of tradition.”49 And it is language that is the medium through which the thing in itself (what Gadamer

calls the sache) makes itself known. Understanding happens when the sache comes to language. But

Gadamer says that the interpreting subject (you and me) is not merely a passive recipient, because

understanding takes participation—opening oneself to what speaks to us, so as to correspond to it . We

can take place in the discourse, and hermeneutics is ultimately about discerning this discourse .

The Context of Community

47
Huffman, “Faith, Reason, and the Text,” 296.
48
Vanhoozeer, et al. Hermeneutics at the Crossroads, 13.
49
Ibid., 15.

24
 Community is critical for a postmodern hermeneutic . Our context functions as the framework

that determines how a thing is seen or understood, and it is the community that fixes that context . The

community determines the rules of the language games within which we interpret our world . One thing

that Derrida emphasizes strongly is that

There are important, legitimate determinations of context; in particular,

the context for understanding a text, thing, or event is established by a
community of interpreters who come to an agreement about what
constitutes the true interpretation of a text, thing, or event . Given the
goals and purposes of a given community, it establishes a consensus
regarding the rules that will govern good interpretation .50

Postmodernism pushes us to recapture the central role of community not only for biblical interpretation

but also for how we make our way in the world .

With the postmodern hermeneutic emphasizing so strongly the elements of context and

dialogue, the modern evangelical might (and often does) see straight past the details and declare that

postmodernism is preaching a gospel of relativism, that there really is no absolute truth and everyone is

right, no matter how wrong they are. The point they are missing though, is the difference between

relativism and pluralism. Postmodernism encourages us to embrace pluralism—the idea that the truth

turns out to be “many” rather than “one,” understood by realizing that the object of hermeneutical

truth is ontologically rich in complex meaning, far too rich to be understood merely in one context .51

There are so many different communities, all with different perceptions and interpretations, and you

can’t say that one is right over the other . There is still truth after interpretation is all said and done, but

no one person or community has the claim to the totality of this truth . We should embrace this

pluralism and learn from it—learn from each other .

50
Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, 53.
51
Wachterhauser, Hermeneutics and Truth, 23-24.

25
 When our hermeneutics really come down to it, the issue that’s up for debate is where authority

lies. Does authority lie within the form of the text, and with the intent of the author, as modernists

would suppose? Or does authority lie in the content of the text and the context of the reader, as

postmodernists assert? As Christians we need to think about these things theologically, which means we

must include the authority of God in our interpretations . And for this, we will turn and examine the

hermeneutics of Scripture, and how postmodernism views the text of the Bible to see what happens

when we throw Divine authority into the mix .

Scripture, Theology, and the Church

The Bible has been affirmed for centuries as the Word of God, the Divine revelation of God’s

message to the world. As Christians, we recognize that the Bible contains more than just a divine

message; it constitutes a divine method of delivering that message . The Bible doesn’t just contain the

gospel; it is the gospel. And it is the bearer of ultimate truth . According to St. Augustine, both

qualitatively and quantitatively, more of essential truth is to be found in Scripture than in all the learning

of the world. 52

The difficulty in interpreting Scripture is in the multiplicity of authors . Ultimately, God is the

author of Scripture.53 But God used human authors to write the books of the Bible—human authors with

worldviews and contexts and agendas. A religion such as Islam doesn’t have this problem because their

doctrine says that the Qur’an is divinely written, an exact replica of the book written in heaven . With

Islam, the authority rests purely in the fact that the Qur’an is directly Allah’s word . With Christianity, the

52
David J. Hesselgrave, Scripture and Strategy: the Use of the Bible in Postmodern Church and Mission . (Pasadena,
Calif.: W. Carey Library, 1994), 9-10.
53
Cf. 2 Timothy 3:16

26
authority of the Bible comes from the Holy Spirit’s inspiration and illumination . But the question

remains, how does the Holy Spirit inspire?

Modern and Postmodern Views on Authority

The traditional modern understanding of Scripture is that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

comes to the biblical authors as they write . In this “deputized discourse” model, God essentially dictates

to the authors what to write, every word intentional for God’s purpose . God also uses the intentions of

the authors, so that His speaking is tied to the text by the intention of the biblical author . This view

supports doctrines such as the inerrancy of Scripture, and leads us into textual critical methods of

interpretation—trying to figure out what the author was really trying to say, and thus what God is really

trying to say.54

A postmodern approach to Scripture (also known as postconservatism and led by the efforts of

Stanley Grenz and John Franke in their book Beyond Foundationalism) looks at our interpretation a bit

differently. Instead of God’s dictation in deputizing the biblical authors for His purposes,

postconservatism advocates a “textual-sense interpretation,” in which “the meaning of the biblical text

is found in the text but not necessarily directly tied to the author’s intent, since once the author creates

the text it takes on a life of its own…In a sense, the text has its own intentions, which has its genesis in

the author’s intention but is not exhausted by it .”55 With this approach, the Holy Spirit speaks through

Scripture by appropriating the biblical text to speak to us . With this, the Spirit’s intention is not simply

and completely tied down to the author’s intention in the text . The Spirit’s ‘illocutionary act,’ that is, his

act of speaking to us, is connected to the author’s original intention, but not bound by it . Thus, the Bible

54
Wellum, “Postconservatism…” in Reclaiming the Center, 178-179.
55
Ibid., 179.

27
as a book is not authoritative, but the place of Bible as the instrumentality of the Spirit gives it authority .

Because the Spirit chooses to speak through this text, it is to be read authoritatively and with reverence .

Because of this, to base our interpretation completely on exegesis and trying to figure out what

the author’s intentions is insufficient: “We must never conclude that exegesis alone can exhaust the

Spirit’s speaking to us through the text . Although the Spirit’s illocutionary act is to appropriate the text

in its internal meaning, the Spirit appropriates the text with the goal of communicating to us in our

situation.”56 But the Spirit’s speaking does not come through the text all by itself . We must interpret

through the lens of both the theological tradition of which we are recipients, and of the culture in which

we are embedded. So for Grenz and Franke, the three sources of theology are Scripture, tradition, and

culture. “Since the Spirit speaks through all three, we carefully listen for the voice of the Spirit who

speaks through Scripture, in light of His speaking through the tradition of the church, and within the

particularity of culture.”57 For them, Scripture, tradition, and culture are not three different moments of

communication, but rather they are one speaking . They are quick to affirm though that Scripture is more

foundational than tradition or culture, affirming it as the “norming norm” of the church . This view

narrows the distinction between the inspiration and the illumination of the Spirit, emphasizing the one

act of the Holy Spirit in speaking through the biblical authors and speaking to us today .58

For Grenz and Franke, the goal of the Spirit’s speaking through these means is to create a

“world,” that is, to project a way of being in the world, a mode of existence and pattern of life .

Ultimately, this is God’s eschatological world—that which He intends for His creation . That is why we

must read Scripture as a theological text, in order to discern the Spirit’s voice as it is centered in the

56
Ibid., 180, quoting Grenz and Franke.
57
Ibid., 182.
58
Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1994), 380-383.

28
biblical message as a whole, which then will govern our theology . Postmodernism reduces the

distinction between biblical studies and theology and doctrine . The task of theology is to listen to the

Scriptures, tradition, and culture in order to seek what ought to be the interpretive framework for how

to live in Christian community. In this they essentially deny sola scriptura as the only foundation for the

Christian interpretive framework, but rather the foundation is a combination of our experience of

redemption in Jesus and being in a community of believers and Scripture . Sola Scriptura is not valid

because Scripture has no authority in itself, but is only authoritative given the fact that it is the vehicle

through which the Spirit speaks. Also, they affirm the Catholic tradition, that Scripture is also a product

of the community of faith that produced it .59

Rather than being the collection of the writings of individual authors,

our Bible is the product of the community of faith that cradled it . The
compiling of Scripture occurred within the context of the community,
and the writings represent the self-understanding of the community in
which they developed.60

This does not, as some might fear, lead to subjectivism, because the Bible is Scripture regardless of

whether or not we subjectively acknowledge this status . It is Scripture because it is the book of the

church.61

A Shift of Epistemology

Grenz and Franke propose an epistemological shift in our theology from foundationalism to a

“chastened reality.” Because we humans, within the bounds and limitations of our language, cannot

view the world from an objective vantage point, but rather structure our world through the concepts we

bring to it, we must transition from a realist to a constructionist view of truth and the world . They deny

59
Wellum, “Postconservatism…” in Reclaiming the Center, 180.
60
Grenz, Theology for the Community…, 386.
61
Ibid., 388.

29
foundationalism and correspondence theory, claiming that evangelical theology has aligned itself too

closely with the project of modernism, adopting the modernist epistemology to the doings of theology .

They say that instead of answering the question of truth from an epistemological foundationalism

standpoint, theology must answer the question of truth along communitarian and pragmatist lines . The

crucial question to Grenz and Franke is how a non-foundationalist theological approach can lead us to

statements about a world beyond our formulations . They think that for now, we cannot know the world

as it really is, because we are epistemologically limited to our contexts and language games . But God’s

(and our) eschatological future is much more (objectively) real than what we experience now . In the

present, we must content ourselves with an epistemological and metaphysical nonrealism, but we can

anticipate in the future an eschatological realism . And the task of the Christian community is to

construct a world that begins to reflect God’s own will for creation, founded and centered in Jesus Christ

—in a sense, working in hope for the Kingdom of God that is “already, but not yet .”62

A theological method such as this need not lapse into subjectivism, as some fear . The way to

avoid this is to ensure that the individual is not placed ahead of the community . The Bible remains

authoritatively Scripture because it is the book of the church . And that is why a theological reading of

Scripture must always take place in a communal setting . Our interpretation is governed by our

ecclesiology.63

The Church and Postmodernism

62
Wellum, “Postconservatism…” in Reclaiming the Center, 175.
63
Ibid., 182.

30
 Postmodernism has become a hot-button issue in the church today (a few decades after the

actual occurrence in society). Many people have very strong feelings either for or against it, and some

go too far in either direction without really understanding what postmodernism is . Some reject

postmodernism out-right, and refuse to allow it to infect their churches . Others embrace it in their

churches and take it too far, weakening the message of the gospel into relativistic fluff that often

advocates universalism and doesn’t look much like the historic Christianity . So the issue remains, if we

are to appropriate postmodernism, we must learn to appropriate it well . Movements like the Emerging

Church and Radical Orthodoxy have been working to bring about a postmodern church, and notable

names like Doug Pagitt, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and others are at the forefront of

engaging with a postmodern culture for the sake of the gospel . How well they are doing this is yet to be

seen.

When postmodernism critiques the values of modernism and Christians get up in arms over it,

this shows us a Christian culture that has become far too entrenched in a modernist worldview and has

maybe lost sight of the church’s mission in this world . That being said, there are valid reasons why many

reject postmodernism. Many Christian thinkers believe that a postmodern approach tends to surrender

biblical authority, that in which we ground our beliefs and build our theology . Instead of a secure

grounding in Scripture, the Word of God, the burden of theology will be placed upon various community

interpretations. “That kind of subjectivity will greatly undercut the very doing of a normative evangelical

theology. Ultimately, without the living God who discloses himself in an authoritative and reliable Word-

revelation, theology loses both its identity and its integrity as a discipline and is set adrift, forever to be

confused with sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and the like .”64 The worry is that if there is no

foundation, theology cannot stand, and loses its very identity and purpose . It is this worry over the

64
Wellum, “Postconservatism…” in Reclaiming the Center, 193.

31
potential for subjectivity to weaken the strength of biblical theology that causes many Christians to

reject postmodernism.

Postmodernism’s call for a pluralism of truth makes many uncomfortable as well . Aside from the

confusion of pluralism with relativism, it sores the ego to realize that one cannot have a claim to the

totality of truth, and must rely on others to discern truth in our world . But I think that’s an important

lesson for us to realize, and one that helps foster community . As Christians, we should not fully adopt a

pluralistic theology, but must be able to embrace a measure of it in order to engage an increasingly

pluralistic world. Take Paul, for example, in his evangelism to the philosophers at the Areopagus in

Athens as recorded in Acts chapter 17 . Surrounded by the idols of a pluralistic philosophical religion,

Paul engaged them on their level, telling them of the unknown God that he preached . No matter what,

we must always be ready and willing to engage with the culture around us for the sake of the gospel .

Regardless of one’s feelings toward postmodernism, one has to admit that there is a great deal

we can learn from it. The critique of modernity is something that we should no doubt pay attention to,

especially when it points out our own flaws in regards to our relationship with modernity . One of the

most important things postmodernism points out is the way modernism (and in many cases, the church)

has exalted science and reason to the level of gods . For Christians, to do this is idolatry. Not that these

are not important for living in our world, but they do not possess the totality of truth as they claim to

do. We must be aware of our epistemology and how we do our theology and subsequently live our lives .

Postmodernism suggests that we move away from this narrow epistemology and toward an

epistemological holism—one that embraces all forms of knowledge and truth . To refuse this is to remain

in ignorance.

Modern foundationalism leads us into historical critical methods of interpretation, ones that

attempt to formulate the truth from the ground up, through exegesis, textual criticism, and the like .

32
Certainly we need these methods, but they cause us to approach texts, especially Scripture, with

skepticism—as if they are false until proven true . It is an attempt to understand in order to believe .

Postmodernism takes a more Augustinian approach, in saying “I believe in order to understand .” This is

the creedal stance for the believing reader as well as the proper epistemological sense for human beings

in general.65 This involves an act of faith, but one that is necessary for true understanding .

A postmodern worldview can actually be quite beneficial to the church, for it is one that

collapses the dichotomy of secular and sacred, allowing for faith and theology to be acceptable modes

of knowledge in society once again.

If you are a Christian, the end of the modern world means the collapse
of a secular creed, the creed that has dominated university and research
centers. The end of the modern world means that Christianity is
liberated from the narrow, constricting, asphyxiating stranglehold of the
modern world.66

Whereas modernism has marginalized the ideas of Christianity as irrational and superstitious,

postmodernism offers a re-legitimation of Christianity as a voice of truth in the world. It is a worldview

that opens up new doors for understanding, and one that allows much more for our reliance on the Holy

Spirit to speak to us through God’s Word . It produces a society in which people are asking deeper

questions in search for meaning—questions outside the realm of science, providing a potentially fruitful

mission field for evangelism, if we learn how to do it well in a postmodern culture .

In the end, I believe postmodernism is something that the church cannot ignore and should not

shrug off. We should embrace it as a philosophy that has a great deal to teach us, and within which

Christianity can thrive once again. I am not suggesting that we strive to become a “postmodern church,”

any more than we should strive to become a “modern church,” but rather that we simply be the Church

and allow the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ be central to all that we say and do.

65
Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in this Text?, 30.
66
Huffman, “Faith, Reason, and the Text,” 286 – footnote 16 .

33
34