What a chic word “postmodern” has become! Today, “postmodern” is an incredibly common word, thrown out there to describe an infinite assortment of circumstances. We live in a “postmodern” society. He/she/it thinks “postmodernally.” That is a very “postmodern” attitude you are displaying. You are the first “postmodern” generation. The question that begs to be asked, however, is: what does this mean? What does “postmodern” really mean? That is an important question to answer, especially if the scholars are correct when they make the bold statement that we are living through as radical and monumental of a shift in western history as the shift from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era.

Just what is postmodern, then? In an age that has largely been built on a keen awareness of linguistics, it seems startling and surprising that a clear definition is lacking. But this is also an age that has prided itself in linguistic interpretation, and perhaps no title could be more fitting for such an epoch as one that is as open to varied and diverse understanding as is “postmodernism.”

Linguistics, however, provide a suitable place for us to begin exploring the realm of postmodern thought. The predecessor to postmodernism, referred to as “modernism” or the “Enlightenment project,” had a very one-dimensional view of linguistic theory. One is reminded of Plato’s well-known “war between poetry and philosophy.” Plato’s argument, simply put, is between two differing uses of language: (1) the poetic, or emotional, sensuous, metaphoric and (2) the philosophical, or the rational, logical language, such as that used in geometric proofs. It is the difference between Homer and Euclid, between a Shakespearean sonnet and Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government.

The modern era may be characterized, then, (albeit oversimplistically) as an age in which the logical use of language—philosophic, to Plato—dominated. Think of the emphasis on science as a means to rationally explain reality. In fact, the term “Enlightenment project” itself refers to the idea that science and scientific advances were part of an ongoing process that eventually would be able to logically and adequately describe everything. The dominant worldview was that technology and science would lead the way to a better world, a world in which nothing was impossible for human beings. Does that not sound as though the modern worldview was attempting to erect another “tower of Babel?”

If this assessment is correct, then I like to consider the successful bid to land a man on the moon as the culmination of the Enlightenment’s Babel. Here was the high point, the farthest and most spectacular deed that science could deliver and man could achieve. And, in hindsight, it now seems as if immediately after this the modern worldview began to crumble. Cracks in the foundation of modernism’s Babel soon turned into gaping holes and eventually led to a massive collapse. It was out of these ruins—out of the tumultuous sixties and seventies—that postmodernism emerged.

We have defined the modern worldview as one in which Plato’s philosophical use of language dominated. Postmodernism looked at the utter failure of science and technology to solve many of man’s most basic problems and discarded a logical, scientific worldview. Is postmodernism, then, a knee-jerk reaction? Does it espouse Plato’s poetic language? The answer, surprisingly, is no. A postmodern assessment of linguistics relegates the scientific or philosophical use of language to just another metaphorical use of language. In fact, it claims that Plato’s entire “war” is merely a fabrication, that all language, philosophical included, is a metaphor and that none has privileged access to reality. The “truth” that science has provided us, therefore, has no more value than the “truth” that an ancient Norse myth might teach.

If the Enlightenment project looked to science to improve the world, what does the postmodern seek to do? In many regards, the answer must be given that postmodernism has a very limited “positive” aspect. Most of the energy in postmodern thought has been expended on exposing the “myths” and “power plays” of earlier times (this is called “deconstruction”) and precious little has been spent on looking to the future. The postmodern answer to Enlightenment science, however, is found in one of the most important of postmodern terms: interpretation. If truth is not found in logical dialogue, and if all language is merely metaphor, then “truth” must lie in interpretation, in our individual understanding of the metaphor. Interpretation, then, is truth to a postmodernist. This is where the common understanding of postmodernism as relativism corresponds. You and I may look at the exact same “metaphor,” and yet our impression of reality—of truth, really—may be quite different.

So, how is a confessional Lutheran to react? We might, of course, join with the postmoderns in lauding the death of science as god. Postmodernism, after all, has made room for a Biblical explanation of reality to be given an equal hearing next to a scientific one. This is very good! The modern condemnation of the Bible as a book of myths and unsubstantiated legends has perished! However, we who hold to the “Word made flesh” shudder at the postmodern denial of the ability of language to describe reality. Dr. Siegbert Becker is said to have made the prediction that the Baby Boomer generation (that would be most of our parents) would have to fight for the Bible, and that the following generation (that would be you and me) would have to battle for the deity of Christ. When we consider the different world in which we now live, it appears as though Becker’s prediction is coming true. The voices condemning Biblical inerrancy are no longer so loud or strong, but a pluralistic society that refuses to allow clear definitions of the incarnation or the resurrection or any doctrine in particular is hardly much better! An over-reliance on emotions (what you “feel” about Christ) has created an entirely new headache for the church, not to mention the pluralist who believes that he can hold both to the doctrine of justification and to a belief in the reincarnation without any problem!

A Christian in a postmodern world, then, will have to stand firm on God’s linguistic ability to describe reality as is found in his Word. What is that reality? That reality is that God has set us free from our sins through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of his Son in our place. In this way salvation has been delivered, and there is no other way to heaven! This, admittedly, is a hard pill for a postmodern to swallow, but the Holy Spirit will most certainly continue to work through his means of grace to create faith in the hearts of all those whom God has called—even in the confused and muddled mind of the postmodern.

Home Page     This Issue's Contents