|
By
Brian McLaren | posted 1999
| I know some -- including
some people I greatly respect, such as Os Guinness --
say that the postmodern transition that some of us are
so intrigued by is just a mirage. |
It's just a phase,
a media event, not a big deal. And of course, I partly agree
... it is a phase (meaning it's not the eternal state), and
it is getting a good bit of attention from some media, which
is usually a dangerous thing; but it is a big deal, in my
opinion, and shouldn't be lightly dismissed. At least, that's
how I see it.
Os has suggested
that since postmodernism is essentially a negative philosophy,
it can not last. My sense is that on the philosophical level,
where Os focuses his energies so astutely, that's more true
than on the popular level. And while the philosophers often
get balls rolling, popular culture, the arts, and even religion
often turn the rolling snowball into an avalanche that takes
on a life of its own, a life beyond anything the philosophers
would have anticipated, or even desired. Sometimes that could
be for better, and sometimes it could be for worse, a case
of Frankenstein's monster, an experiment run amok.
Sleep or Wake
up?
In this case,
I think the postmodern transition unleashed by philosophers
as far back as Kierkegaard and Neitsche could go either way.
Here is my sincere belief: If we people of faith in Christ
would arouse ourselves at this critical moment, and engage
ourselves for the next hundred years with rare passion and
purpose during this time of transition, the world of 3,000
AD could be a vastly different and better place than it will
be otherwise. But if we people of faith sleep on, calling
this transition a minor phase, failing to rouse ourselves
at this hingepoint in history ... I fear for our descendants,
and I know we will have to apologize to the Lord for our ostrich-
like indolence.
That's why I want
to beat the drum pretty loudly, perhaps to the point of being
obnoxious, and say, "This is a big deal! This is significant!"
The guardians
of modernity will not want to accept this. Since all of our
theologies (Calvinism, Arminianism, Pentecostalism, etc.,
etc.) and all of our religious structures are modern phenomena,
of course there is a tendency to want to conserve the modern
foundations on which they were build, or preserve the modern
atmosphere which they breathe and in which they thrive. To
take seriously the idea that a postmodern revolution is taking
place -- a revolution no less dramatic than the shift from
medieval to modern times -- would imply that perhaps cherished
structures and theologies are in for cataclysm. Guardians
of those institutions don't want to think about that.
No wonder people
heavily invested in those structures want to deny the transition.
And no wonder less invested people like me and many of my
friends are excited by the transition, since we've not been
all that satisfied with our modern versions of Christianity
of late.
Looking at the
future with hope
Os Guiness raises
a really valuable question: is postmodernism a negative philosophy?
In true postmodern fashion, I guess I'd have to say that depends.
If you're a modern, it sure looks negative. But from the other
side, I find it opening the door to some very hopeful possibilities.
Let me outline, very briefly, a few dimensions of the hopefulness
I see in the emerging culture of postmodernity (I say culture
because I don't mean a slavish or fundamentalist adherence
to postmodern doctrines of Derridas or anybody else):
-
Instead of
having to see ourselves in rationalistic, reductionistic
terms, as modern machines or determined stimulus-response
organisms in a closed environment of cause and effect,
we get some fresh air again. We can talk about spirituality.
We can talk about mystery. We can say, "Yes, science
has given us wonderful things, like Claritin and appendectomies
and Velcro (and Viagra?). But there's more to life than
what science delivers or explains, and it's a relief to
be able to breathe freely again as spiritual beings, not
just biochemical organisms, machines in machines."
That's pretty hopeful.
-
Instead of
being obsessed by analysis (the breaking down of wholes
into parts, or effects into causes), we can explore synthesis
and systems thinking, where we look to bigger wholes,
and purposes that pull from ahead, not just causes that
push from behind. These are very exciting enterprises,
and lead us to spiritual vistas!
-
True, we have
lost our modern sense of control, power, and certainty
in this transition. But since the fruits of control, power,
and certainty (from paving over wetlands -- because we
were sure that parking lots were better than swamps, to
ethnic cleansings -- since we were sure that our people
were better than theirs) haven't been entirely salutary,
maybe there's something better than control, power, and
certainty out there. Maybe that something is love, stewardship,
faith. And maybe we'll find some ways to create a kinder
and gentler world (truly, not just as a slogan) on the
other side of this transition, in an atmosphere of love,
stewardship, and faith.
Necessary change
To those of us
on the postmodern side of things, there's no doubt ... the
process of leaving modernity has been hard. It has been a
true disillusionment -- unsettling, full of grief and fear.
We feel like refugees, forced to leave the comforts of the
only home we've known. But it's only the earliest stages of
disillusionment that are depressing and negative. After you've
marinated in the disillusionment for a while, and let go of
the past, it's strange ... you look toward the future and
see some new things, some new hope. You find out that your
new homeland has a lot to offer.
Now my hunch is
that among my generation (I was born in 1956), about 30% of
us leaned toward postmodernity (although we didn't have that
word for it): this was the spirit of the counterculture, the
hippies, etc. Counter-culture meant counter-modernity. That's
why we valued flowers and eastern religion and peace and love
and music and poetry and all the rest -- because we were sick
of pavement and western religion (that had become arid and
rationalistic in both its forms, liberal and conservative)
and conquest and manipulation and noise and "facts"
and all the rest.
Backsliding Hippies
Most of that 30%
"backslid" into basic modernism in the 1980's, because
who can resist a good economy? But under the surface, under
the modern masks, I think that third of my generation (they're
being called "cultural creatives" today) is still
postmodern. (By the way, all the excitement about baby boomers
returning to evangelical churches in recent decades probably
really only meant the modern baby boomers. My guess is that
evangelical churches still don't understand the cultural creatives,
99 out of 100 of the churches anyway.)
Meanwhile, I think
the figure reverses for the next few generations -- 70% postmodern
and 30% modern.
Everywhere I go,
among young and old, I sense the same malaise, the same feeling
that something is wrong -- not with God and Jesus and the
Bible, but with our take on them, our "use" of them,
our posture in regard to them. Most people don't see the "something
wrong" as our modern take, modern use, or modern posture
... but give them the language, and they say, "Yes, that's
it. You're articulating exactly what I've been feeling."
Close your eyes
if you want to...
|
|
|
"How
do you want to posture yourself for the spiritual re-formation
that is about to occur?
Do
you want to study the fine art of inquisition in order
to repress the emerging culture?"
|
So, ignore this
transition if you want to, and treat it like a phase if you
want to. I think you'll miss one of the most exciting times
in anyone's memory.
Here's how I think about it: Imagine yourself a Roman Catholic
monk in say 1510, in Germany or Austria or England or Switzerland.
The world is about to change. The institutions and theologies
that have sustained and nourished your faith are about to
be challenged. Jon Huss has already been burned at the stake,
and a fellow named Martin Luther is beginning to think some
dangerous thoughts. Your institutions are bastardizing themselves
(if not through indulgences, then through TV/radio evangelists,
the religious right, and other fear-based fundraising machines).
How do you want to posture yourself for the spiritual re-formation
that is about to occur? Do you want to study the fine art
of inquisition in order to repress the emerging culture?
Or maybe simply observe it, uninvolved? Critique it, feeling
smug, as if only "they" are in danger, and not also
"us"? Tame it, trying to neuter it and co- opt it
into a gentle, incremental evolution (and so preserve our
modern structures, etc.) instead of a radical, energetic innovation?
Or help lead it, passionate, involved?
Something to think
about. You can guess where my heart is.
|
