According to Wikipedia
Postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, and interconnectedness or interreferentiality.

A viewpoint lacking clarity and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction and ambiguity does not seem to be one worthy of adoption.

I agree with the author though.
“I am convinced,” writes Paulien, “that God’s hand is behind these changes in the world and that we are heading to a place of His choosing.”

Dr Paulien's ten points are the clearest summary of Post-Modernism. To me it is the most convoluted thought process--known to man. It seems to me to come right out of the flower children era. I would call it Pot-Modernism. I am glad Dr. Paulien can make sense out of it. But I think he gives it more credit than it is due. I get the feeling he is more hopeful about it than realistic. Great review none the less. Tom.

"Radical Conservatism" would mean that Paulien sees the theological task as that of recovering the best of existing and past theologising in ways meaningful and accessible for the present world?

It always amazes me how unaware some people are of the debilitating effect scientism and "scientistic materialism" has had on theology. Non-religious (and also religious) postmodern thinkers could arguably said to be most interested in countering scientistic certainty, a pursuit which was quite invested in repudiating religious belief, which explains in large part why postmodernism is seen by so many Christians as grounds for fertile reflection.

I may be moving beyond Paulien and/or Larson but I'd wager to say that which postmodernism critiques best is fundamentalism. Not just the religious kind but the science folk also. On that note, an article I recently enjoyed is I don't believe in atheists which is an interview with Chris Hedges.

Thank you both for reiterating that this work is being done not to relativize but to contextualize. To reclaim the (dis)comfort of mystery in the pursuit of a more clearer understanding of the truths that matter.

Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end.
From Labourers Together With God p. 297 by EGW.

Michael, Tom and Johnny

The information from wikipedia is helpful, the reference to "postmdernism" as "potmodernism" is funny and the interview at "Salon" of Chris Hedges about the "New Atheists" is very provocative and, I think, helpful.

I don't yet see the connection between "New Atheists" and the "neo-cons;" however, I very much see it between them and the religious fundamentalists.

My thanks to all three of you for your comments!

I gather that by definition postmodernism is not one thing. Indeed, the minute someone says, 'postmodernism IS............" we might suspect that we are in trouble.

Perhaps we should say something like, "All postmoderns reject both premoderism and modernism, but beyond that they have very little in common."

I think one distinction is between its deconstructive and reconstructive forms. Paulien describes the more deconstructive ones, as seen in its rejection of meta-naratives (the big story that "explains" everything). But there are reconstructive forms of postmodernism as well.

Process philosophy and theology describe themselves in these terms. Process thinkers were among those who first started using the term "postmodern theology," and that was way back in the 1960s!

Another way to slice the pie is to think of modernism as a method of thinking, on the one hand, and a set of beliefs, on the other. Those who are postmoderns can reject either or both with differing outcomes.

I agree that when postmoderns criticize the excessess of science they serve us well; however, in so far as they say that the modern scientific method is no better or worse than other modes of thinking, I think they go way too far. And I say that specifically as a Christian.

How many effective medicines do pre-modern civilizations provide? Over the centuries, they have developed many remedies and some of them are very effective. Nevertheless, it was not until the modern era that the average person had a decent chance of living three-score and ten years.

This makes me uneasy with sweeping rejections of science.

As you can tell, my reactions toward postmodernism are decidely mixed, perhaps more so than Paulien's. But they are at least as mixed about modernism and premodernism.

I wonder what my Dean means when he says that "I am convinced that God's hand is behind these changes in the world and that we are heading to a place of his choosing."

Maybe we can get him to explain!

Thank you!

Dave

Sounds like a finger on the pulse. I wonder what the adopting of this reframed picture of our culture would do to our whole denominational philosophy towards and practice of evangelism.
We have traditionally made our home in meta-narrative, proof texts, and neat, tidy packages of systematic doctrinal summaries. Would we rethink our ways?

I also wonder how this would affect our church structure, if this were to be taken seriously. We have become the type of institutionalized church that arouses distrust.

And would our official position on women's ordination need to be rethought, in light of the themes of equality and inclusiveness that over-arch the scriptures... themes that this culture values, and won't give us the time of day if we don't in practice? Time to put our money where our mouth is?

Thanks...

Frank

If postmodernists could be persuaded to use human language, instead of Derrida's C++, when they write, I would think that most people would find it to make a lot of sense.

Post-modernism, to me, is an attempt to point out that what we know and learn about the world is filtered through the human mind. It doesn't have an opinion about right and wrong, it only wants people to become aware of the mental and cultural matrix into which we pour our knowledge of the world. It's a plea for humility when we make Truth-statements.

Post-modernism calls our fact-laden matrices stories. I don't object to that. Christianity has always been a story. To the Romans it was the story of a group of Jews who could not come to terms with the fact that their leader had been executed. To the disciples it was the story of how God's Messiah was put to death, ascended to heaven and was waiting to return. Stories are different ways of making sense of facts.

To be aware of the fact that we work within paradigms is not a bad thing. It does not invalidate the world of facts nor does it condemn faith statements. Nor does it say that all stories are equally good (although some have been carried away to say so. But, as one politician said: You're entitled to your opinions but not to your own facts.")

I recently read David Wells book Above all Earthly Pow'rs in which he critiqued both postmodernism and the Evangelical church's response to it. He isn't as positive as what Dr. Pauline appears to be and has some interesting observations that we might want to factor into the equation. First he makes an argument that postmodernism resembles gnosticism and the present observable result of postmodernism is nihlism.

Whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Wells, it makes for another interesting read on a difficult target to pin down. I do agree in principle with Dr. Pauline that postmodernism isn't something that God wasn't aware and He had a hand in it to deconstruct our absolutist worldviews.

Although I wasn't at the meeting, I have read the manuscript and discussed it with Dr. Paulien on numerous occasions.

My sense is not so much that he is enthusiastic about postmodernism as he is realistic. Postmodernism is out there, and quite pervasive. Debunking it won't help us reach the people who hold that point of view. So rather than focusing on what's wrong, it's my sense he has emphasized the opportunities it presents for the gospel

As I understand the Bible, the Gospel challenges every culture, modernism and postmodernism alike. Every culture is human, and imperfect. To the extent that postmodernism confronts modernism as does the Gospel, it is useful in helping modernists recognize modernism's defects. One of the problems of modernism--as it has come to be manifested in Christians and SDA's--is modernism's certainty.

We have THE TRUTH, and we will smash anything that threatens it. An example of that extreme usage can be found here: http://groundsforbelief.com/?p=30

Certainty has become an SDA addiction. We forget that "we know [only] in part; we prophecy in part," and begin to think our knowledge is absolute. It's exactly that sort of certainty that has provoked the postmodern reaction that "no one has all truth."

On the other extreme, some pastors-- people I know and like-- have bought into the idea the "postmodernism is the answer, the REAL road to Christianity."

I believe both extremes are mistaken, and I'm pretty certain Dr. Paulien does also.

Hi Ed

I think you are right about the manuscript. I think it takes a balanced approach; however, because many SDAs are so negative, that he says some positive things in postmodernism is refreshingly different.

I understand that you are very well acquainted with the manuscript. Just how much is for you to say!

"Grounds for Belief" looks like a great project! I hope it continues to go well.

Thanks!

Dave

If the postmodern world view brings about humility, honesty, authenticity and inclusiveness, perhaps that is the place God has chosen to bring us. I believe God has worked through the strengths of every era to show us more of what He desires us to be.

As I noted earlier, Post-Modernism is a legacy of Tim O'Leary and the rebellious nature of the 60-70"s. They not only reject history, they reject contemporary English, they reject any institutional solutions to the world's problems, they are the elect! While they have an agenda--it is for someone else to accomplish, not them! Sound familiar? Tom

Hi Tom

I wonder if the "60s Upheaval" and postmodernism are like partly overlapping circles because I think I know some who are either one but not the other.

Some say postmodernism begins way back at Hegel. That's a long time ago!

Again, though, because it is not one thing, it is very likely to have more than one geneolgy.

Thanks!
Dave

Dave

You may be correct, but in any case it is calling the pot calling the kettle black. Postmodernism sticks to an artful rethoric. As we used to say out West: "It is easier to shoot the bull than to rope a steer.". I see not positive action only more words--much like Paul Tillich. Tom

Tom
I find it very hard to proceed because postmodernism is so many different things. But thoroughgoing determinism has been a big feature of modern thought in virtually all of its branches. In so far as quantum physics, chaos theory and emergence theory break and other things break this open to create a little space for genuine freedom, if in fact they do this, I think postmodern thought is a good thing. But as you say, many of its other and more popular expressions don't help and may even hurt. Thanks!
Dave

Postmodernism cannot be escaped. It is here and in the first world countries. The problem: How is Christianity to be presented to these people who live and breathe in a postmodern world and their thought processes are filtered through that sieve?

The old methods, still used in third world countries are totally ineffective. Ask yourself:
When was the last time you decided to attend a widely advertised expose on Bible prophecy--NOT by SDA? Were you attracted from curiosity or genuine desire to know? Or, have you been contacted by JWs or Mormons and listened to their beliefs? If so, why or why
not?

Only in this century have people been as well educated and part of being educated is learning to think and examine critically what you are told. That is the problem: Once the general population of a country learns to read, becomes literate, and can question for themselves, no longer are pronouncements by gurus of any effect. We have become doubters; yet no faith was ever tested without there first being doubt. No longer do the ancient myths hold sway over whole populations as they once did. We no longer trust in our preachers, our politicians, our governments, nor each other, without first developing that trust by personal experience.

Just wondering if the book's author will join this conversation since I definitely need more help and further explanation, from him if possible, in regards to the following:

1) '... the fundamental insight of postmodernism is that the confident claims of modernism are nothing more than a historically conditioned construct, of no more value than the narrow-minded “certainties” of pre-modern or non-Western cultures.'

What caught my attention in particular was the second half of the statement regarding non-Western cultures. Hardly a postmodern view.

2) “I am convinced,” writes Paulien, “that God’s hand is behind these changes in the world and that we are heading to a place of His choosing.”

I'm interested in the argument or reasoning behind his conclusion, how he was able to persuade himself. Or, wasn't this purely an assumption?

3) “In most Western countries,” he writes, “people under the age of 35-40 tend to be postmodern.”

How about those better than 40, and others whether or not they're Westerners that breathe and inhabit the same postmodern/Western cultural environment? How can we tell if one is truly postmodern or not?

'Young adults may well name their own outlook as "postmodern." However, such a self-designation does not necessarily point to the habit, or even the capacity, for ordering one's world in a postmodern way.'

- Practical theology and postmodern religious education
Religious Education, Summer 1999 by O'Brien, Maureen R

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3783/is_199907/ai_n8875805

What I find interesting in all the naming and renaming of different generations and eras, is that no matter where we come from, or where we wish to be headed, we ARE in the here and now, right now! What I continue to encounter in much that is written and published about Postmodernism, both in Adventism and Christianity at large, is a philosophical presumption that by denouncing and proclaiming the errors and moral deficits of this age, we may thereby drag humanity (Christianity at the very least) back to the "moral, rational, and responsible" modern age. (Presumeably kicking and screaming, in the case of our younger, more technologically inclined folk.)

I've had occasion to hear Dr. Paulien speak on two different occasions during the time this book was in its "gestational" phase. What I always experienced, was a profound joy in the reminder that God has, does, and will continue to work in each and every generation, despite whatever names, attributes, deficits, advantages or challenges each time period presents. What imobilizes us is wistful residence in a time we can no longer change or effect, or else a crippling fear of the future, which is also beyond our control. Jesus appeared during a profoundly violent and morally corrupt age. Somehow, God found this timing perfect, preferable even, to the more "golden" eras of Israel's history. Might that not give us some hope and courage to live and act boldly, no matter what the title we give to these days?

Very excited the book has arrived!
-Shelley

Post-Modernists have every right to be disappointed in the enlightenment and the modernism it hatched. Look at what a mess we are in! Wars without number, ethnic disputes by the score, even the day to worship has killed thousands. It is Friday, Saturday, or Sunday? The commandment is for rest not worship in the first place. Worship should be without ceasing.

But if Post-Modernists want to teach us, inform us, reform us, or just tell us off, they had better learn to speak to us. I recall, the army giving each G.I. a book on how to speak Korean. One big motor pool corporal let out an oath and said: “If these “Gooks” want to talk to me they jolly better learn English!”

It doesn’t take a genius to realize the world is sick. But to-date the Post-Modernists have no better answer than the neo-con’s .

I’m glad someone took the effort to try and understand them. It might break down some ego-centric walls. Never-the-less we still have the problems.

Doesn’t anyone have a better answer than: “Behold I stand before an open door”? Tom