Modernity and Post-Modernity from an Amateur Philosopher - Part 1

I mentioned previously that I would write further on the difference between modernism and post-modernism. And for the technical ones among you, I would be more correct to use the terms modernity and post-modernity, but I may not be consistent in my usage, so you’ll have to forgive me for that. These are not easily defined concepts, largely because their impact is so broad - impacting cultural tendencies, philosophy, art, and literature, among other things. Defining a type of thought or philosophy that prevails in society at a particular point in history is similar to describing the wind. We can describe its effects, but must perform careful examination to truly understand the wind itself.

I have divided this post into 2 parts. However, you’ll notice that they are best read as a cohesive unit. There weren’t any obvious “seams” that could be used to divide the document, but I decided to divide it to make it easier for you if you had to read it in multiple sittings and find your spot each time. That explains why the first part ends and the next begins rather abruptly.

I will only provide a summary here - to show why and how this particular topic/issue pertained to my struggle, since that is the purpose of the blog. I would also like to show how hard it is for post-modernists to exist in a modern environment (such as most evangelical churches) – which also has a personal element for me. There have been changes in evangelicalism, but most have come in the form of new expressions of church, which is a little sad. It doesn’t have to be that way.

There are some good resources on this topic from a Christian perspective, for those looking to dive deeper. But I must caution you - there are just as many poor resources from a Christian perspective, since post-modernity is so poorly understood. My rule of thumb would be to avoid the resources that seem to emphasize how bad, scary, and poisonous post-modernism is to the church and to society. I recommend avoidance not because I disagree with those authors, but because they have not accurately defined and understood post-modernity. That shouldn’t surprise us. Modern authors can’t expect (or be expected) to define that which they haven’t experienced and therefore don’t understand. As a result, the best resources on the topic, in my opinion, are from those who have lived with both thinking frameworks. There are dangers in post-modern thought, but condemning post-modernism in such a broad stoke like that is a little like declaring that wind causes terrible damage, with the power to cause death and destroy entire buildings - and that the wind should be avoided at all costs. Post-modernism is not an evil plaguing the church or society. It is merely the prevailing way of thinking in our society in which we find ourselves. There are risks and dangers, yes, but understanding the prevailing way of thinking in our society is absolutely essential to understanding how to communicate relevantly in that society. To flee post-modernism is a little like saying, in the words of esteemed philosopher, Michael Scott, “I don’t even consider myself a part of society!”


Modernity – Defined:
I’ll take a stab at some incomplete definitions. A more complete definition would require a historical analysis for how each type of thought developed. I won’t provide that here.

I will start with a definition of modernity. Then, by walking through the weaknesses of modernity and some of my personal experiences, I’ll weave in many post-modern characteristics, as I began to recognize them in me. And then I’ll try to summarize my definition of post-modern thought.

Historians and philosophers debate the exact date of the transition to modernism (from the medieval era), dating the transition as early as 1500. Defining an absolute date is not important (although modernists probably want it in absolute terms!). This transition was characterized by many changes, such as the change from feudalism to market economic principles and the impact of the Protestant Reformation. The modern era was characterized by significant scientific discovery and massive industrial development. There are several other items that could be noted, but I’d like to zero-in on some of the attributes of modern thought so that I can provide a contrast.

Modern thought (or at least the portion that pertains most to Christianity) can be characterized by its emphasis on using logic and analysis to substantiate theories, ideas, or concepts, with a goal of attaining certainty regarding things about which we were previously uncertain. There is much more, but that limited definition helps us see the impact on our faith. From a Christian perspective, the modern era produced (or emphasized) many concepts and ideas such as systematic theologies, apologetics, absolute truths and moralities, and the Christian world view.


Modernity – Weaknesses:
As you can see, the modern era yielded many amazing things for the Christian faith. But modern thought was not without weakness (and that’s where this gets more personal for me). Just as modernity was a response to the failings of the medieval era, post-modern thought has begun to take shape in our society. And, contrary to popular evangelical opinion, that is good news for the Christian faith.

One weakness of modern Christian thought, upon which evangelicalism has flourished, is that it does not have sufficient space for tough questions. I remember asking questions as a child and either being told to “stop being difficult” or simply given terrible answers. And I have talked with many others raised in conservative evangelical environments who experienced something similar. Of those raised in Brethrenism, many were scolded because questioning items of faith was a sign of insubordination. If you follow faith-related media (ie. internet, books, magazines), you’re aware of this regularly repeated theme among younger Christians: evangelicalism is not a comfortable place for people searching for the answers to tough questions.

There are a few reasons why this is true. The first is the modernist quest for certainty. Searching for certainty is a good thing. Assuming you’ve found it on every item of faith is not a good thing. Ironically, faith is the very act of believing in the context of uncertainty. Faith is not pretending that certainty exists. Sadly, most modern thinkers are uncomfortable even considering that uncertainty might exist. And that’s why questioners are often vilified - because they expose the possibility of uncertainty. I’ve talked to individuals who are labeled as weak, simply because they are searching for God, searching for truth and are willing to reconsider their previously held positions and beliefs. Imagine that? Weak for seeking God and considering the possibility that you have more to learn. A wise man once said, “when I am weak, then I am strong.”

That quest for certainty and discomfort with uncertainty is often what leads to us giving simple answers to tough questions. Why is it that we always force an answer - even when we obviously don’t have the answer? And why is it so hard to say, “I don’t know”? Somewhere in the modern era, we must have decided that the worst answer was no answer. I beg to differ.

Our systematic theologies and explanations for everything are other reasons why modern Christian thought is not generally receptive to questions. These theologies have been designed to try to understand God - and they can be helpful in that regard. But sometimes we forget that God cannot be contained by our man-made theologies and there is so much left to learn. Here’s a revolutionary concept: despite our deep and complex theologies, there are many questions we don’t know the answer to. Not every question has an answer in a chapter and verse. Spiritual leaders would do well to learn that answering, “I don’t know” is often very respectable, despite exposing the leader’s lack of complete knowledge and certainty.

Another weakness of modern Christian thought is that it has led to an emphasis on theories and doctrines to the near complete exclusion of the practical element of faith in Christ. We love to debate theology and split churches over the resulting disagreements and spend little to no time planning for or carrying out the work of Christ in our communities. The only practical element has been our efforts to convert or evangelize - where we attempt to change the way people think so that they align with our doctrines and propositions regarding the Christian faith. While I’m not completely against the efforts of missionaries and those who are involved in this work, Christ was preaching a completely transformed life - one drastically different than I’m currently living - not just a life characterized by a few certain beliefs - whose only goal was to get more people to buy-in to those same beliefs. All that to say that even our “practical” outreach efforts seem strangely void of the practical element Jesus lived out.

Perhaps the most negative byproduct of modern Christian thought is the arrogance it has fostered. When we think we can prove our point, we become confident. When we think we can prove our point, and have God on our side, we are prone to arrogance. And current history would indicate that we’ve become arrogant to the point of thinking that we have a right to impose our version of truth, morality, and certainty on all of society. Please be patient with me - I haven’t fallen off the rails - I just need some time to make a point.


My Growing Problem with Modernity:

These things became apparent to me as I become increasingly uncomfortable with the “tone” of Christians during my time of struggle. And I experienced this discomfort in 2 arenas: church and politics. I am aware that both are extremely divisive, so I will attempt to limit my comments. But I am trying to communicate something.

On multiple occasions in this period of my life, I heard sermons where the preacher lifted up his Bible and boldly proclaimed, “Because we have THE truth.” And, even though I agreed with him, I was very uncomfortable and a little angry. The discomfort scared me - was I losing my faith? Why did I have a problem with that bold proclamation?

And then came the US Presidential election in 2008. I have voted Conservative all my life, and (though I’m a bit embarrassed about it now) would have voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, had I been American. And yet, as I watched the debates and was bombarded by information surrounding the election (who wasn’t?), I was disgusted by the Christian response. I’m not talking about the media’s portrayal of Christians. I’m talking about the very words spoken by conservative Christian leaders or written by their organizations. I was disgusted by the portrayal of Obama as a potential anti-Christ, in spite of the fact that he claims to know Christ, has a compelling testimony (maybe he’s just a good actor), and has a track record of service to the poor and marginalized. Is that really the kind of person Christians should be vilifying? Probably like you, I wasn’t comfortable with all of his stances on moral issues. But I was disgusted with the Christian emphases on gay rights and abortion, to the complete exclusion of issues of poverty, peace, environment, and child slavery.

I realized that I was starting to think differently than many Christians (or at least the Christians that get the spotlight). I began to wonder if I was backsliding, or maybe losing my faith altogether. In my heart, I really felt like I was asking the right questions. But if these were good questions, why was I drifting further and further from where I once stood? I’ve since learned that this was all occurring as part of my transition to post-modernity. Here are some of my questions:

- Why don’t Christians seem to recognize that God (and the truth associated with our belief in Him) is not “provable”? I can’t lay out an argument or evidence that shows that A + B + C = God exists. Sure apologists have done some very good work - and our faith in the Bible is not completely blind, but would it kill us to have a little humility? Is it heretical to think that we may not have an iron-clad case that justifies our expectation that everyone ought to think like we do? What happened to faith?

- If 1 Corinthians 1 is correct in saying that “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” and we believe because our eyes have been opened by the Holy Spirit, why do we insist on making bold, arrogant truth claims as if to think we can beat people into the kingdom? Can we not see that we are alienating people who disagree?

- Why are we intent on imposing our moral values on a society that doesn’t even know Jesus? How can we possibly expect people to accept moral virtues of a God they don’t believe in? Isn’t that a “cart before the horse” problem? Don’t they need to know and believe in Jesus before they’ll obey Him? If so, and if we’re alienating people from Christ because of our arrogant stance on moral issues, shouldn’t we reconsider our approach? If people are alienated from Christ, then they’ll never see His moral perspective, and we won’t accomplish any of our goals. Or is this just about power?

- Related to the above, do we not see our hypocrisy in all this? We want to impose our morality on the rest of society. However, we can’t even agree on our own moral rules.

- Speaking of hypocrisy, are we not aware that Christians have historically been very late to the game on other moral issues, such as slavery, care for the environment, and sexism?

By the way, in these questions, I’m not suggesting that we not have opinions and not try to influence the political process. What I am suggesting is that we take a step back, humble ourselves, and assess whether or not we’re accomplishing what we think we are (and assess whether these are the most noble goals in the first place).

Unfortunately, those who ask these questions and conclude that there might be better ways to achieve these goals or conclude that there might even be better goals than these get labelled. We get labelled as being relativists, who have no moral absolutes and who are wishy-washy on truth. And that’s a terrible misunderstanding.