If You Don't Get It, Don't Write About It

Or William Lane Craig and Christianity Today Part II.

How out of touch is CT? Well, they published this sentence: "By laying aside our best apologetic weapons of logic and evidence, we ensure modernism's triumph over us." To be fair, all the views expressed in a writer's article aren't necessarily the views of CT; however, that sentence should probably have been followed by the disclaimer I just wrote if CT's editors understand what Craig is saying.

Two observations before we get into Craig on postmodernity. 1. Modernism has already triumphed over the evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Their obsession with proofs and methodology as well as their insistence on the objective truth of their grand narrative demonstrates the ascendancy of modernity within those churches. 2. The best apologetic weapons of the church are outlined in the Bible they allegedly read: love one another, for by this all men will know that you are my disciples, and you will know if the things I teach are true if you do them. So Jesus insists on two things: love as demonstration of the truth of the Gospel and a sort of Christian existentialism that "proves" the truth of his teachings. He never mentions logic or reason. Silly Jesus.

And here is Craig on postmodernity, at least obliquely: "The idea that we live in a postmodern culture is a myth. In fact, a postmodern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather, they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics. But, of course, that's not postmodernism; that's modernism! That's just old-line verificationism, which held that anything you can't prove with your five senses is a matter of personal taste. We live in a culture that remains deeply modernist."

The problem with Craig's assessment of a postmodern culture is that he makes the same mistake or oversimplification that all Campus Crusade speakers, as well as Chuck Colson and others, make. Postmodernism is not just relativism. The two terms are not synonymous. Relativism may be a common principle within postmodernity, but it's not the whole critique. Craig doesn't want a modern world, which he defines as verificationism--really a combination of empiricism and rationalism--nor does he want a postmodern world, which he defines as hypermodern (I don't necessarily disagree with that...) and relativistic. I'm forced to ask what world he would like. Pre-modern? Probably not. We have only the world as it is. We can't make it be something it's not just by insisting it is not that. Christians long ago gave up their identity as an eschatological people, an identity that really did have hope to remake the world, so it seems a little like special pleading for Craig to insist that the world really isn't postmodern. What the hell is it, then?

Postmodernity is impossible to define. If forced into a definition, I tend to say something like, we are living in an age wherein all the previous assumptions about metaphysics and ethics are being questioned, and within that age, people are choosing one of three options: pre-modernity, modernity, or trying something different. Postmodernity is relativistic because it distrusts metanarratives; the ontological equality of voices within the world is recognized. That necessarily leads to some relativism, but despite Craig's horror, relativism in matters of religion and ethics is to be preferred. It is within this acknowledged relativism that a truly love-oriented ethic will function as a powerful apologetic. Craig is horrified by the idea that Christianity will be one among a cacophony of competing narratives. Uhm...it already is. It always has been; we're just now acknowledging the degree to which that has always been true. But if Christians will live as if "they do not love their lives to the death," that is, as an eschatological people who radically love the other, theirs would be the best voice in the cacophony. Sadly, they are not going to do that, and when people rely on the referential truth of their narratives within a postmodern framework, they will find they have no advantage over any other narrative. You can't change that by poo-pooing modernity and then with the same argument insist the Church return to the modern methods of logic and reason.

People aren't relativistic about science or math because those things function within the grammar of verification. To say that they aren't postmodern because of that just demonstrates how little Craig understands the people he is trying to reach. His whole ministry is based in a language game that can't be verified, and postmoderns, apparently, understand that better than he does. One hopes CT understands, but as long as they keep printing this stuff, I'll have my doubts.

Comments

[Jason]

greg -

This is one of the best posts I've ever read about the problems facing the church in our current context. I really have nothing to add, except that you should send this as a letter to the CT editor.

[Leighton]

Postmodernity is impossible to define.

Word. It's even more impossible to compress into a coherent social movement to demonize, which doesn't stop people from trying. I won't even talk about it anymore unless there's an agreement to limit the discussion to a specific author or social context.

[Mike]

"Modernism has already triumphed over the evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Their obsession with proofs and methodology as well as their insistence on the objective truth of their grand narrative demonstrates the ascendancy of modernity within those churches."

A brilliant and concise explanation, Greg. This is the biggest obstacle for the Western church, particularly the contemporary Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical movement in the US.

For 500 years, as the post-reformation Western church continually perfected its systematic theology, Westerners continued to treat the rest of the world (and themselves) like dirt.

And we continue to present theology as the crowning achievement of the Western church, when our Biblical calling is simply to practice justice and love. We have truly lost our way.

[Kevin Powell]

Excellent post, as usual. I stopped reading CT a few years ago because of the blatant Republican bias (interviewing Bush but not Kerry in 2004, the fluff piece on Condi Rice being two glaring examples) and the lack of rigorous thinking, such as the article you critique.

Many evangelical "scholars" are not necessarily interested in engaging issues of "truth' as much as defending their privilege and power. If the bible is God's Absolute Truth and they are guardians of that Truth, then presidents and prime ministers (I'm Canadian" should answer their call on the first ring, congress should hang on their every word,people should flock to their churches.

If Truth is more fluid or, as Emil Brunner might say, incarnational or personal, then these old white men lose their power. Women. Minorities. Non-Christians (gasp) suddenly get more attention.

Then these old white men get bitchy and write poorly argued articles like this one in CT.

kgp

kgp