In some of my recent posts, I’ve been looking at the ideas of various postmodern thinkers – Lyotard, Foucault and Barthes – arguing that there’s more common ground than you might at first suspect between the Christianity and postmodernism. I’m now going to consider the challenges and opportunities in general terms.

Postmodernism vs postmodernity
Of course, when it comes to the effect of postmodernism on culture, when it comes to our present condition of “postmodernity”, the subtleties of what particular postmodern philosophers, writers and critics make very little difference.

When you explain the Gospel to someone, and they object that it’s intolerant for you to claim it’s true for everyone, and it’s all a matter of interpretation, then trying to explain what Lyotard really meant by “suspicion of metanarratives” probably won’t get you very far!

The net cultural effect of postmodern philosophy is a culture deeply suspicious of any kind of truth claims, whether “legitimated by universal reason” or not. To present the Christian faith as truth to a postmodern world is a massive challenge. But understanding postmodernism in more depth can help us to find better ways of responding than simply repeating arguments for objective truth more loudly.

Let’s consider three particular areas of opportunity and challenge:

Opportunity 1: a new openness to spirituality Postmoderns tend to be much more open to the spiritual than moderns – Alister McGrath observed in Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity that “the claustrophobic and restrictive strait-jacket placed on Western Christianity by rationalism has gone”. That’s only partly true – the so-called “New Atheism” tends to be stridently modernistic. But many people are dissatisfied with modernity’s inability to satisfy their need for spiritual meaning and purpose.

Opportunity 2: a hunger for community and authenticity
I asked earlier how we should witness to our faith if not by trying to “prove” Christianity by appeal to universal reason. To reach a postmodern generation, the Church doesn’t need to have an apologetic; it needs to be an apologetic. As Jesus said, “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” This is exactly what the Church ought to be, but I think we’ve got some work to do in this area.

In A Better Hope, Stanley Hauerwas made the provocative claim that “Postmodernism is the outworking of mistakes in Christian theology correlative to the attempt to make Christianity ‘true’ apart from faithful witness.” Postmodernism has the potential to be a catalyst to spur the Church into recovering its mission of being Christ to the world.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to demonstrate that Christianity is rational – of course we need to engage with people’s questions and doubts, and make the case for our beliefs – but this will be far more effective within the context of the faithful witness of a community of faith that lives out what it means to follow and worship Christ.

Opportunity 3: more emphasis on action and experience On the positive side, this is a welcome corrective to modernism’s narrow rationalism. There’s less factionalism and dogmatism, and postmoderns are much more likely to work across boundaries of different churches and denominations. Christ called his followers to be one as he and the Father are one. Christianity is for the whole person, body, will, emotions, not just for the intellect. So if postmodernism helps us to recover a more holistic approach to our faith and be more united as his people, then so much the better.

On the negative side, postmodernism brings the danger of neglecting the rational, and this apparent unity often comes out of a doctrinal apathy, rather than us being any better at dealing with disagreements. Are we following Ephesians 4:15 by “speaking the truth in love, growing up into Christ our head,” or are we just “not speaking anything contentious in apathy”?

Truth matters and doctrine matters. We must take the Bible seriously as God speaking to us authoritatively, rather than waving away disagreements as “just a matter of interpretation”.

Other avenues
Other areas I could discuss if I had time would be Christianity and narrative, and the challenge to recover the Bible as a story. We could also look at how deconstruction seeks to hear the voices of the oppressed and marginalised, and how that ethical concern gives us a bridge to discussing God’s compassion for such people. It’s a massive subject and I’ve barely scratched the surface.

In a few days, I’ll post a concluding summary, with links to all the posts in the series.