My Journey to Post-Modernity - Part 2

Post-Modernity Does Not Equal Relativism:
I believe in absolute truth (and so does every person I’ve ever talked to about this - regardless of religious conviction - more on that later). I believe that God does have moral standards. I do not believe that we, as individuals, decide what is right or wrong for ourselves. However, I also believe that we, as Christians, do not understand fully what God’s morality is. If we had, Christians would have led
the charge on abolishing slavery in the US, and not been the feet-draggers. If we fully understood God’s morality now, we’d be leading the charge in caring for God’s creation, ending pervasive child slavery around the world, dealing with poverty at home and abroad, and other issues I’m currently blind to. For these reasons, I think we need a large dose of humility when we think we need to impose our morality (ironically narrow and incomplete as it is) on the rest of society.

If you read evangelical writing on post-modernism, you’re likely to find post-modernism defined as the rejection of absolute truth and morality. Post-modernists are defined as relativists who believe that truth and morality are individual choices. While there are people who think like this, Christian authors grossly exaggerate their number and influence. In fact, to reject absolutes and embrace relativism, you can’t be Christian or Muslim or Jewish or atheistic or belong to one of several other religions. If you reject absolutes and embrace relativism, in my opinion, you are part of a small minority of the population.

I have never spoken to anyone who fits this description of a post-modernist. I have spoken with people who say, “what’s right for you is right for you” or “it may be true for you, but not me”. Sure that sounds relativistic and this is where I think Christians miss the boat. They jam that individual into a category and move on to find someone else to classify. But, in my experience, if you ask questions and try to understand individuals who make those kind of relativistic statements, you’ll find that they’re anything but.

For many who make the statement “what’s right for you is right for you” they often mean “you think that’s right - go knock yourself out. I don’t agree, but I’m clearly not going to convince you”. It’s no surprise that many sure-headed Christians are told “what’s right for you is right for you” as a nice way of saying “you think that’s right - go knock yourself out. I don’t agree, but I’m clearly not going to convince you”. And the same thing with truth.

The other scenario I’ve run into is what I call the “agnostic-like” approach - although many who appear this way are not agnostic. Many people believe (and I see their point) that since you can’t conclusively prove which religion is right and therefore which truth and morality to follow (although they, individually, might believe in and adhere to one), that society is not best served by each religion and viewpoint fighting to make the world adhere to its moral standards. These individuals often believe that absolute morality and truth exist, but since there’s no way to conclusively prove it, there’s no way to completely convince all of society to accept it. Almost defeated (as if to throw their arms in the air), these people resort to statements like “what’s right for you is right for you” to avoid fights that no one can win. These people may well believe that absolutes exist, but that until God (whoever He is) makes himself conclusively known, we won’t know who’s right. I know what you’re thinking. Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ did come and reveal Himself (and His Father) to us. But if you don’t need any faith to believe that (and think that there is conclusive evidence to prove that belief), I have an ocean-front mansion in Wilberforce that I’d be glad to sell you.

I mention these examples to show that, in my opinion, rejection of absolutes in exchange for relativism is a lot less common than Christians realize. Perhaps that will change in time.


Post-Modernity – A Summary:
Here is a short and very incomplete list of characteristics of a post-modernist. I did attempt to weave these through my previous babbling:

- willing to ask tough questions
- dissatisfied with previous answers, mostly because those answers are perceived to be too simple
- believe that things are not always black and white
- comfortable in uncertainty – take comfort in knowing that some things (particularly God things) are beyond our comprehension. In fact, coming to the realization that God is beyond understanding seems more mature than being naively certain about a complete understanding
- prefer two-way conversations over one-way lectures
- respect science and reason, but understand that much of the human condition is beyond the scope of both (which, in my opinion, leads to a similar skepticism of John MacArthur as Richard Dawkins)
- willing to trust our experiences. This isn’t new - we’re just now more willing to admit that our experiences do impact the way we view and process things - including God. Life is not a textbook Q&A experience - it’s far more dynamic.
- reluctant to judge or exclude based on differences
- reluctant to emphasize difference for fear of alienating others (relationship valued over doctrinal positions). Many younger high-profile Christians are accused of being relativists merely because they won’t publicly declare their positions on homosexuality and other hot-button moral issues. But the motivation for not declaring this info is at least two-fold (and has nothing to do with relativism):
1) These issues impact real people. Many younger Christians are not willing to publicly declare hot-button positions to satisfy curious minds if it’s going to undermine relationships in their lives. I recently heard an interview with a lady who works for an organization that seeks to help Christians connect with the gay community (and undo some of the damage we’ve been doing for years). She was severely pressured by the interviewer to give her biblical position on the issue. And she refused repeatedly because she had too many close relationships on all sides of this issue. She wasn’t going to sacrifice the depth of those relationships so the interviewer could categorize her. Maybe it’s just me, but I found that respectable. When did God delegate His work of condemning and judging to us?
2) There is so much more to a person than which categories he or she falls into. If the first thing you want to know is my position on debatable issues, you will have made significant judgments about me before you’ve even got to know me. And, that tells me that you’re not very interested in getting to know me


Modernity vs. Post-Modernity – An Example:

Here’s an example, unfortunately from politics again, that I think helps contrast modern thought with post-modern thought. I have no political point to make here; I’m more interested in illustrating the difference in thought processes and hopefully making clearer the challenges post-modernists face in a modern environment, like church.

Early in the 2008 Presidential election, Rick Warren held an event where he interviewed each candidate separately, asking identical questions. Tash and I watched this event as our introduction to the election process and came away with a very different impression of the candidates than we had prior to the event.

Later that week, we were at a family gathering and the topic of Warren’s event was raised. The adults in the room proceeded to share their agreed opinions: John McCain was outstanding. He gave clear, concise, precise answers to all the questions he was asked. And Obama? He waffled and wavered and avoided the questions he was asked. He wasn’t credible.

I decided I would avoid sharing much of my opinion because it really didn’t fit. On the way home, I mentioned the conversation to Tash (who’d been in another room) and how much everyone had loved McCain. She answered, “Did they listen to him?” Our take on the event had been very different than our family’s. And please understand that this is our opinion. This isn’t about politics, but rather our approach to questions and answers.

In our opinion, McCain gave clear answers, but often to the wrong questions (if you can see the video, check out his answer to “what does having a personal relationship with Jesus mean to you” – his answer has nothing to do with the question). And for those questions he did answer, his answers were so short and simple that he appears unaware of the actual complexity of the questions. McCain could summarize his foreign policy in 2 words: “More troops.” Modernists are prone to appreciate that answer, since it was decisive and clear. We, on the other hand, hated that answer because its simplicity totally ignored the complexity of the US role in the rest of the world. The exchange between Warren and McCain was a question and answer session; like they were helping each other study for a test.

And rather than seeing Obama as indecisive and unclear, we came away with an appreciation of the fact that he seemed to recognize that Warren’s questions were tough and the answers were not simple. Even on answers I didn’t like (ie. abortion) he appeared to be wrestling with the complexity of the issues. And that really resonated with us.

That was the best example I can recall where the modern and post-modern philosophies were so clearly contrasted. I’ve had hundreds of internal conversations as I moved from a modernist to a post-modernist, but that’s not much good to you. Who’s right? Who knows. I’m just trying to show that it is incredibly hard for post-modernists to exist in an environment dominated by modernity. I’ve sat through so many sermons where my insides are screaming, “It’s not that simple!”


Post-Modernity…Good News?

My definitions are incomplete, and likely contain inaccuracies. But I’m right about one thing. Post-modernity is here and its impact is profound. The game has changed (and maybe that’s why Christians have such a hate on). But just as C.S. Lewis foresaw the end of the modern era (see The Discarded Image - particularly pgs 219-223), the post-modern era won’t last forever. Society will develop a new philosophy through which to process reality. Like post-modernity, that philosophy will not change reality or truth, but it will change the landscape upon which we attempt to live out and share that truth.

I am very optimistic about how the Christian faith could impact a post-modern society, if the right adjustments are made. It won’t be through bold truth claims or victories on the treasured political issues. I don’t think the world needs our modern infatuations - in fact much damage has been done by our unwillingness to let go. My optimism is due to the fact that in the message of Jesus we find love for a world desperately in need of love; we find peace for a world desperately in need of peace. Perhaps we’ll find a way to take a step back from our theological and political debates and a step towards those who mourn and need comfort, those who hunger and need food, those in slavery who need freedom, and those everywhere who need Jesus. To my generation, those attitudes and actions speak far louder and clearer than any argument or evidence. And, having read the beatitudes again today, I can’t help but wonder if that’s what Jesus has been thinking all along.