Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Walter R Smith on February 9, 2010 at 9:40pm

I found Dr. Raschke's academic polemic against modernism and for postmodernism both enlightening and puzzling.

Its polemical style is accurately foreshadowed in its subtitle "Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernism" (emphasis added). Those looking for a more dispassionate discourse on this topic will find Don Carson's "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" more informative (and much more accessible). Or, if you're looking for a short audio, try this talk by Carson. A longer version is here.

Raschke's discussion of (a) the weaknesses of modernism, and (b) the value of postmodernism in better understanding modernism's limitations is, discounting the polemical style and the dense academic thickets traversed, occasionally helpful in better understanding how both movements have influenced (and continue to influence) various strands of Christian thought. Unfortunately, there's little discussion of what God says in His Word about such topics as (a) the limits of our knowledge, (b) how sure we can be of our knowledge, (c) the degree to which language is (or is not) a reliable communication channel, and (d) the relative place of knowledge in having "the mind of Christ."

Overall, I struggled to find a coherent message. Here are some of the areas that left me at least slightly confused:

1. I'm not sure about Raschke's intended audience. Raschke studied the philosophy of religion at Harvard, where he earned his doctorate. The book reviews and extends philosophical and theological territory that is of interest primarily to specialists in these fields. Since I have a long-time interest in both areas, I found the book interesting. But, unless you have some knowledge of Foucault, Derrida, Barth, Kant, Nietzsche, and other 19th and 20th century philosophers and theologians, you may find much of it a bit on the dense side. Carson's "Becoming Conversant..." is much more accessible, and in many ways, a more robust description of postmodernism (which, by the way, is a generic label for a wide range of impulses; something not explored here).

2. Although Raschke is explicitly addressing evangelicals, much of his description of a "Christianity" based on modernism seems to fit mainline Protestantism better than mainline evangelicalism. In adapting Christianity to modernism in the 1800's, mainline groups elevated reason above God's Word (e.g., doubting whether a text is accurate or whether an event is historical). The results are clearly seen in recent fissures in various Protestant groups. Although these disagreements appear on the surface to be about sexual morality, they have a common root: skepticism about the reliability of God's Word (e.g., whether what we have was inaccurately transmitted or whether its history reflects is a myth motif (in the Joseph Campbell sense)).

3. It's not clear what Raschke is trying promote (i.e., what he's for). This is not uncommon in deciphering (deconstructing?) postmodern (PM) writings. PM's assertion that knowledge is grounded in the personal and the relational (and cannot be captured in abstract propositions) struggles to communicate coherently in any form that is inherently propositional. For example, it works better in video or audio forms than in a textual form. Since most writing (I'm excluding some of the PM novelists who use language to attack language's ability to communicate) has a significant propositional component, arguments (a "modern" framework) for PM tend to struggle with coherence. In the end, I really couldn't find a compelling reason to adopt PM (any more than I can find a compelling reason to adopt modernism) as a basic framework, much less as a framework for understanding God, Christ, and His Word. I really like some of Raschke's polemic about Christianity not being a cut-and-dried rational framework...but his attempt to force Christianity into a PM frame seems backwards...seems like he should be trying to discern where PM (and, modernism for that matter) is consistent with what we know from nature and God's Word, instead of promoting a specific intellectual approach which will, like all such understandings, come and go. Or, maybe this concern mostly irrelevant...if it's a book for academics, it will fade as academic currents shift.

Since it had been 3-4 years since I read this book, I did a quick review of the book and the notes I made in the margins at that time. The only clear memory I had was that I had struggled to uncover a coherent message...in particular, I had been struck by the number of times I had written in the margin such notes as "straw man, false dichotomy, not either/or, excluded middle, apples/oranges." At that time I had not counted the total...during my review I found 54 such notes.

This is not necessarily unusual; I occasionally have this reaction when reading works in an area of thought that's in a state of flux (Network Centric Warfare theory is one such area with which I'm familiar). Polemic has its place, but my frequent reaction to such writings is that they often shed more light on ways in which the subject may be misunderstood than on the subject itself.

So, what are some of the areas where I agree with Raschke?

1. His critique of consumerist religion is pointed and correct.
2. The substance of much of his critique of "modernist" religion is also correct. As I mentioned above, mainline Protestantism is in crisis because of its ongoing movement away from the authority God's Word. Modernism was originally optimistic about man's ability to know completely (both in width and depth), and to translate that knowledge into desired action. As Raschke points out, late modernism turned pessimistic about any ability to ground knowledge in man's reason. This pessimism about knowledge is shared by PM (though for on different grounds), and is one reason why some folks see PM as another form of late modernism (see Carson for reasons why PM is better seen as distinct from modernism).
3. His reaction against what might be called "stale religion" or "understanding is not enough" or “a religion of forms” is on target. As God notes in His Word, "even the demons believe." So, more than a reasoned understanding of God's Word is essential (though it's not EITHER a reasoned understanding OR a vocative understanding...it's both). Raschke's personal journey was through an academic world that is (as mentioned above) largely modern in its understanding of both religion and Christianity. It's understandable that he would find those perspectives uninspiring. At a personal level, I've known folks who were raised in a Christian environment and reacted negatively to what they perceived to be an unholy mixture of legalism, right-wing politics, and intolerance. There is a tendency for some people to react to this experience by adopting an equally unholy mixture of license, left-wing politics, and an unwillingness to recognize sin. Some of Raschke's polemic highlighting the centrality of the relationships (both vertical and horizontal) is very good and much needed...it's the attempt to ground it in a PM framework that seems unjustified, unnecessary, and ultimately, unsatisfying.
4. He rightly emphasizes PM's origins in linguistic theory. Any discussion of post-structuralism, Derrida, etc. is going to get deep fast, but you really can't grasp PM's basic assertions without wading in to those waters.
5. He rightly emphasizes the fact that we all have different perspectives, that individual perspectives shaped those who recorded God's Word, and that our perspectives shape how we understand that Word today.
6. He accurately describes PM's skepticism about language's ability to communicate meaning. Given PM's influence in the culture today, this understanding may be helpful in reaching out to the unsaved. And, it can be helpful in better understanding where this skepticism undermines Christian faith.

There are areas where I have some concerns:

1. Christ is diminished by trying to fit Him into PM framework. This Christ seems to speak in a muddled voice where no one statement has a clear meaning. For example, Christ's emphasis on obedience (e.g., in John's gospel) seems a bit disingenuous if language is really that unreliable in communicating meaning. And, our growth as His body to become like Him would seem to lack clear guidance (again, unless you adopt a largely fideist perspective). I don't think you have to adopt a PM epistemology to gain a clear understanding of God's love and grace, of the richness of our relationship to the Father, Son, and Spirit, of the richness of our relationships with each other, of the nature of faith and scripture, of worship, and of theology.
2.There seems to be a confusion between knowing God and understanding His Word. I think most Christians would agree that a full and complete understanding of God is beyond us (though, I think it's equally wrong to assert that God is "totally other"...which means that there is NO point of overlap between us and Him and therefore, we can know NOTHING of it/Him). Our limitations in knowing God are not the same as our limitations in understanding a textual Word that He has given us. A true knowledge of God includes a knowledge of His Word, a right relationship with Him (Father, Son, and Spirit) that is lived daily (providing a richer understanding of the text's meaning), the work of the Spirit in us (and the Spirit in the Word as the one who faithfully transmitted God's Word as spoken by Christ to the writers of the New Testament (John 16)), right relationships with other members of the body of Christ, and right relationships with the lost.
3. There seems to be a pessimism about our ability to understand any meaning communicated via text, including God's Word. As noted above, it's true that we are finite in our ability to know. Furthermore, we are fallen and tend toward "deafness" when it comes to God's voice. And, it's true that everyone will have slight differences in understanding what words/sentences/paragraphs/etc. mean when they read them. However, PM's focus on language (which is a channel by which we know, not the knowledge itself) seems like "majoring in minors." God created language, He created us as users of language, He fragmented the languages at Babel, yet He chose to use it to communicate with us. If God is accurately revealed in His Word, then we have assurance that we can understand God, despite the incomplete and flawed aspects of our knowledge and our ability to know.
4. My impression from reading God's Word is that His primary focus is on our hearts, with a secondary emphasis on “studying to show yourself approved.” The exhortations of the prophets, of John the Baptist, of Christ, and of the apostles seem to assume that the listeners generally had no problem understanding (a) the intended message, (b) whether that message applied to them, or (c) how that message might translate into decisions and actions in a specific context. John and Jesus (while on earth and through those He spoke to after He left (John 16)) clearly focus on calling people to change their hearts; and, in many cases, they give clear reasons why (i.e., why it is reasonable (or even undeniable) to accept the truth claims being made). This seems to imply that the real issue if often not an inability to know, but our unwillingness to repent, to submit to God's authority, to live in relationship to Him and others on His terms.
5. Neither modernism nor PM offer an adequate foundation for a Biblical understanding of God and His Word (e.g., I Cor 1, 2). Both are ultimately skeptical about our ability to know...modernism is skeptical about (a) the reliability of knowledge as an object (e.g., Godel) or (b) our ability to know as an epistemological matter (e.g., Hume, Kant). PM emphasizes the limitations of language as a channel by which knowledge is communicated and structured, and is therefore skeptical that anything objective can emerge from that channel. In the religious realm, it seems to me that both perspectives would likely move toward the same end (though for different reasons)...skepticism about our ability to know God's Word. This skepticism seems to initially move Christianity toward a focus on a common morality (e.g., as seen in a "social gospel"), then toward some sort of universalism (e.g., all roads lead to "god" (whatever it may be)).
6. Although the author seems to distance himself from fideism, where he ends up seems to be largely consistent with it. This interpretation of faith is hostile to providing reasons to believe, even though this is a clear Biblical theme (e.g., assertions that miracles were performed "so that you may believe", "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" in the context of "obeying the gospel", etc). If you're interested in better understanding various ways in which belief has been defended (including fideism), "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Boa and Bowman is a nice overview and synthesis of them.
7. Defending belief is sometimes confused with preaching the gospel. People are not converted to a belief system; they're converted to Christ when they "obey the gospel." However, that does not mean that providing "reasons to believe" is wrong...both have a proper place in the life of a Christian in all relationships (with the Triune God, with the body, and with the lost).
8. Finally, a few examples that illustrate some of the confusion I experienced in trying to grasp the the substance of Raschke's text (often there is often a contrast drawn between PM and modernism that, while valid, excludes a Biblical understanding that would draw on both perspectives).
- p. 71 - "Language from the Creator's vantage point is not propositional at all. It is intersubjective. It is relational!" - I guess I'd be tempted to add that it's also, and perhaps more fundamentally, creative (e.g., God spoke the world into existence). However, relationships often involve conflicts of understanding or will that involve different understandings of propositions expressible only in language. It's not either propositional or relational. The propositional aspect of language is part of (but not the whole) its relational function (which might be part of its creative function).
- p. 76 - "Evangelical thought of the Anglo-American variety has long been engaged in a dance with the devil, a perilous and tricky two-step that employs for its apologetics the very methodology that more elegant philosophy has successfully exploited to crush Christian belief." - While reason has a place in forming belief (whether Christian or other), it is not autonomous. If it's true that only God can truly create, and that all Satan (and we) can do is distort what He created, then it seems likely that reason is a good thing that can be distorted. Just because someone uses reason in a distorted fashion does not mean that it's inherently evil. Sex is not inherently evil just because it can be distorted.
- p. 81 - "The God the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational." - It's unclear why this is either-or. Much of the creative work done by humans over the past few hundred years is grounded in an understanding that God is not only logical, but that we (despite our fallen and finite ability to understand and act) can understand in part what He created. As Christians, we also understand (from the Bible and a maturing relationship with Him) that God is also loving, just, gracious, and holy.
- p. 127 - "While it would be both discourteous and impertinent to suggest that the doctrine of inerrancy is equivalent to a modern gnostic heresy, there are unsettling similarities between the two sensitivities." - If you presuppose a "modern" (i.e., infinite & inerrant) knower who is promoting inerrancy, then perhaps this begins makes sense. In light of our finite and fallen knowledge, a PM theology could actually be closer to the "secret" (albeit a-rational) knowledge promoted by gnosticism than mainline evangelical theology.
- p. 133 "Sola scriptura, therefore, emanates from the imperative of sola fida, not the other way around." - I've not taken this quote out of context...the point seems to be that the faith of the knower is the source of the meaning of scripture (which is clearly a PM view). The faith referenced is, in this section, discussed as being relational, but it still seems to me to be difficult to distinguish this relational faith from fideism.
- p. 209 - "Christian truth is not, never was, and never will be propositional truth. Propositional, or purely philosophical, truth is conditional truth, even if it claims to be about what is unconditional. It can never be made into the touchstone of Christian truth, which is always personal and relational." - This is the kind of statement that appears throughout the book. I don't know whether to view this as polemical hyperbole or to take it at its face value. At face value, the statement would make more sense if it was directed to the those promoting logical positivism. Its relevance to the traditional Christian understanding of truth is unclear at best. If Raschke is addressing some strand of modern ("liberal") Protestantism, then there might be some sense in which his statement makes sense, but I'm not sure any major group approaches the extreme view of truth that Raschke describes here. As discussed above, God's use of propositional truth in His Word to communicate meaning to us does not imply that all His truth is purely and only propositional & rational.

Bottom line: This book illuminates both how modernism has overstated our ability to know and how postmodernism is much more humble about this ability. If you have an interest in philosophy or theology, you may find it interesting. But, I can't escape the impression that Raschke's arguments are more reactionary than an exploration of the possibilities of a Christianity that is beyond modernism and postmodernism. Those searching for a well-rounded discussion of modernism's and postmodernism's alignment (and lack of alignment) with God's revelation (both general and special), our ability to know, and language's strengths and limits as a communication channel, will have to look elsewhere .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Nored on June 12, 2011 at 2:08pm

Thanks, Mark. Sounds interesting. I'll check out the link.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion