In Truth and the New Kind of Christan, Scott Smith gives a sustained response to both postmodernism and the emerging church movement. His primary concern is postmodernism’s affect upon the church through its denial of objective truth. In particular, Smith explores and summarizes the writings of Brian McLaren and Tony Jones. He seeks to take their positions seriously and understand their viewpoints. In the end, while he agrees with some of the criticisms that postmoderns have made, he concludes that the positions that these and other emerging church leaders have taken pose a dire threat to the Christian faith.
Smith makes several concessions to postmodernism. He agrees that Christians cannot know things with absolute certainty, and that this level of confidence is too great a test for knowledge; however, he says that there are things that we simply know that do not need to be explained or defended because they are self-evident. While there are certainly things in my life that I would believe to be self-evident, the problem with this view is that there is no universal agreement as to what is self-evident. Even the example Smith cites, that murder is always wrong, is contradicted by Dub Richardson’s account in Peace Child of an African tribe that upholds treachery. Smith says that the African tribe must view this as cannibalism, not murder—a position for which he cites no evidence. It appears that he simply has discounted the evidence that does not fit into his paradigm.
Smith also disputes the idea from postmodern philosophy that language creates reality and is something from which it is impossible to escape. He infers from these writings that Jones and McLaren hold to this constructivist view. He then extrapolates these emerging leaders’ understanding that language is constructive to conclude that those who hold to this view end up constructing God, something which is adulterous, idolatrous, and ridiculous. He also cannot see how this does not lead to relativism.
The philosophers and emerging leaders that Smith cites, however, have not claimed that God is merely a construction or that all truth is relative. Smith fails to see other possibilities, such as that God through the Holy Spirit may shape language constructions. God may reveal himself in different ways to particular communities, and if he is at work in these language constructions, this would not make these constructions idolatrous.
The language theories of postmodern philosophers may need to be examined. It may be that these philosophers have not thought through the implications of these theories in all circumstances; however, it is difficult to see how Christianity would die if a large number of people believed in the constructive nature of language. What Smith, Jones, and McLaren all seem to agree upon is that postmoderns must be approached in a far different way than moderns were approached. Perhaps it is my American pragmatism, but it seems that if we do what both sides on this issue agree upon, the cause of Christ will be furthered.
