Is Postmodernism Overrated?

While reading a post on summer blockbuster movies by John Mark Reynolds, this side note caught my attention:

"Summer blockbusters show that the importance of post-modernism to the next generation is as much overrated as the first Matrix film.

In fact, I have come to disbelieve in popular postmoderism entirely.

Post-modernism does not exist as a powerful, popular cultural force.

There I said it . . . and however overstated it may be I think it closer to the truth than the opposite. This is despite worried or breathless (or both) people wanting to destroy it or marry it or turn it into a late night television show.

Apologetics may be ga-ga about refuting it . . . but the fact that theaters are still packing them in for plots drawn straight out of the non-ironic parts of the 1960’s suggests that Stan Lee may be more influential in this generation than Derrida."

It reminds me of what William Lane Craig has said here.  If both of these men, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, are right it holds some serious implications for those in the Emerging Church movement and those in the larger evangelical world who are transitioning into "postmodern ministry."  I hear some broad sweeping claims like, "When Church leaders fail to engage the postmodern movement, they risk becoming isolated from the culture they live in."  Maybe we should be more concerned that if church leaders swallow the idea that postmodernism is "a powerful, popular cultural force," they risk becoming isolated from the culture they live in.  And once again, the church's proclamation of the gospel will be muted or even compromised.

Comments

[Sam]

John Mark Reynolds should sit in on some of my philosophy classes. They were depressingly post-modern through and through.

Personally, I don't think anybody is a consistent post-modernist in their every day lives. Post-modern type thinking seems to permeate religious talk in our culture, but not necessarily our every day lives.

I've noticed just from talking to a lot of people that most people believe in reality and logic and all that until you start getting philosophical or religious. Then all the rules change.

[Tiber Jumper]

Sam: Why no STR explanation for John Mark Reynolds, a practioner of the eastern rite of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy?

I'm a colleague of Beckwith's at Baylor, and wonder why Beckwith is singled out while Reynolds, who has spoken for STR, is not. Here's what the faculty at Greg and Melinda's alma mater said about JMR's Eastern Orthodoxy: http://faculty.biola.edu/alang/EO/Summary.pdf

I have no problem with EO or RC. My point is that if you are going single out Beckwith, why not Reynolds too?

[Sam]

Tiber, you're asking the wrong person. I'm just responding to this post by Brett Kunkle. I don't know much about Reynolds, and I don't work for STR. I'm confident, though, that STR is not picking on Frank Beckwith. They are quite fond of him.

[Aaron Snell]

Ah, here's the missing post - and revised, too.

This is interesting, Brett - I actually think the situation is more complex than Reynolds gives it credit for (he's painting with too broad and too simple of strokes). I don't know if I'd be too quick to belittle the influence of post-modernism on our cultural outlook - though perhaps overblown by apologists, I think it is still a very real force in the world of ideas. But there is a grain of truth in John Mark's observation, and as I analyze it, I think it has to do with what Francis Schaeffer talked about - the tension that exists between(post)modern man's philosophical position and the inherent "mannishness" of man himself. I'd agree that our propensity to enjoy cheering for the good guy and liking (at least on a popular level) the clear distinction between good and evil is very telling, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to through our PM entirely. The two just currently seem to exist in tension, which is to be expected from a Christian worldview.

I'll have to think about this some more, and maybe I'll blog on it. Thanks for posting on this.

[Tom]

I think we are in a transition from "post-modernism" which was a sort of failure to a post-post-modernism...whatever that will be we are defining it now.

I think the new era can be characterized by a "secularism".

Secularism in America is a very attractive alternative to religious life.

Defining the secular lifestyle is happening all around us. People still want to come together in big groups, and feel a sense of family and community. So they confess to the shrink to relieve their consciences or they go to the football game or the concert or the beach. Who needs a church?

[Alvin]

Of importance to note in any of these debates is that while certain philosophies and ways of thinking do become popular, the average person has not vowed allegiance to any given school of thought and may be oblivious to these altogether.

The average person has no problem in many regards switching through sets of philosophical systems.

The average person doesn't think about being postmodernist, modernist, neoplatonist... he just lives his life for the most part.

Those of you who are older --not one of "these kids these days"-- do note that those of my generation (I'm 23) whatever my generation is called do not consider our interaction with the world and ask "How can I do this in a fashion in keeping with postmodernism?"

I cringe a bit every time I hear or read "postmodern" coming from older people because I suspect that I am being labeled and falsely so.

There might be some postmodernism in my life but this is blended with much else. Personally, postmodernism, where I can recognize it in my life, is the result of being in many ways a sloppy thinker and I suspect that most people today regardless of age and most people throughout history have been sloppy in their thinking to some extent. This sloppiness results from the lack of introspection and contemplation which cultivates a mind. A lack of mental effort results in inconsistencies and, at the extremes, to hypocrisy and bigotry.

This inconsistency, this haphazard switching from one set values to another, this lack of mental effort, and the ensuing contradiction is more than any one school of thought what we should concern ourselves with and call the attention of others to so that it might be corrected.

For the record, Stan Lee has been much more an influence on my life than Derrida and I thank God for that. Marvel Comics has, from time to time, reminded me of the beauteous image of God displayed in man's creativity. Spider-man is a fictional character to be proudly claimed in American culture right along side Paul Bunyan, John Henry, Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer...

Yes, postmodernism is so definitely overrated.

[Richard J Stuart]

Sit in on a philosophy class? Why? As Douglas Adams pointed out, if all the philosophers in the world went on strike, who would it even inconvenience? Reynolds is dead on when he says Stan Lee is a bigger influance on our culture than all the postmodern thinkers in the world.

[John Mark Reynolds]

I do sit in on philosophy classes all over the place. People who are decently educated (I think)often pick up the "smart buzz words" of the age in order to justify what they want to do anyway. In the fifties, we all worried about Skinner . . . because "the kids" were justifying their evil using whatever Skinner or behaviorist stuff they had picked up (like lint) in college. Push my students, UCLA students, USC students and I get a much more traditional response than their initial po-mo lead in.

Is there po-mo in the culture? Some language . . . but a great deal more hedonism (old worry) tricked out (as always) in faddy intellectual jargon.

JMNR

[Tom]

What is Post-modernism anyway?

One candidate is a theory of identity. As cultures evolve more and more roles it becomes more complicated for people to fill those roles. If in modernity we identified ourself with our role in society...then in postmodern we switch roles...sometimes many times.

Another candidate is a theory of "truth". Truth became pardigmatic rather than absolute...for what is absolute truth anyway...some historical theory?