Must Christians Reject Modernism and Postmodernism?

Modernism presented Christian theology with both opportunities and challenges.  At its best, Modernism consisted of the wreckage left over from the Christian Grand Narrative after much of it had been detonated by Enlightenment thinkers themselves.  Because of this, in many instances Modernism helped Christians become more consistent with the basic principles of their religion.  The secular concept of human rights is rooted in the inherent dignity of humanity based on the imago Dei (Gen. 9:6).  Politically, the idea of human rights curbed abuses of authority by the church and crown. It did away with practices like torture and slavery that even Christian societies had normalized for centuries.  Likewise, modern science grew out of Christian belief in a rational creator who had made a rational created order. Rational creatures made in God’s image could understand this order.  On the other hand, the creation of the concept of the secular also significantly distorted Christian theology by mutilating its ability to articulate its claims in the public sphere, thereby forcing Christian theology into the straitjacket of either Liberalism or Fundamentalism. 

            Postmodernism, like Modernism, is full of opportunities and dangers for Christian theology.  On the positive side, if appropriately understood, Postmodernism possesses the advantage of exposing secularity’s neutrality and right to arbitrate between what is real and unreal.  In other words, Modernism and secularity are simply culturally constructed frameworks that served the very specific purpose of solving the problems created by the European wars of religion.  Contrary to what is often believed, one does not simply strip away the religious window dressing of reality to find secular modernity lying underneath.  Hence, Christians do not have to abide by the rules of secular modernity in asserting truth claims.  They do not have to remove articles of the faith or assume a posture of methodological atheism/naturalism when dealing with the biblical texts as theological Liberals have done.  They do not have to validate their belief in the articles of the faith on the basis of modernist standards of truth or rationality the way that many Fundamentalists have done.  Neither do they have to invest secular politics with transcendent meaning and treat them as redemptive as both Liberals and Fundamentalists have done.

            On the other hand, Postmodernism also represents a challenge and a problem for Christian theology.  Postmodernism is not pure nihilism or subjectivism per se, as is often charged.  Rather, it is a form of what we might call “provisionalism.”  According to a provisionalist, there are no universal and eternal truths, only little and provisional truths.  Truth is therefore always socially embedded, impermanent, and revisable.  All Grand Narratives are suspect.  Reality is only knowable in a fragmentary, linguistically pragmatic, and at times anti-realistic, fashion.  As I will argue, this problematic for Christian theology because Christians insist on the eschatological finality of their message. Moreover, Christians must confess the truthfulness of Christianity’s Grand Narrative and insist on linguistic critical-realism. 

            In light of the aforementioned challenges and insights of the Postmodern project, the next chapter explores various proposals for Postmodern Christian theology in greater detail.  In doing this, I will develop a critically realistic view of doctrine.  The key to this approach is the Lutheran belief that the “finite is capable of the infinite” (finitum capax infiniti). If this is accurate – and Lutherans must confess that it is – then the seemingly embedded, historical, and provisional can serve as a medium for infinite, eternal, and universal truth. 

The Finite Contains the Infinite

From the draft manuscript for Lutheran Dogmatics: The Evangelical-Catholic Faith for an Age of Contested Truth (Lexham Press).

Doing Theology: Part II

Read Part I Here

We should keep a number of relevant points in mind when examining how Luther construes the theological task.  First, the cycle of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio recapitulations the Incarnation and work of Christ.  Much as the Word was incarnate through the coming of the Spirit, so too divine truth becomes incarnate in the mind and proclamation of the theologian through the coming of the Word and the Spirit through oratio and meditatio

In Christ’s incarnation, the Holy Spirit enhypostically incorporated a human nature derived from Mary into the pre-existent Word, so that He might operate in the created world. So too (at least in Johann Gerhard’s account) the Spirit incorporates the pre-existent knowledge of the theologian in the theological task.  Finally, Christ’s communication of the Word was tested by his suffering and death, and validated by his resurrection. So too, the interpreter must undergo the testing of his interpretation and application of Scripture within the arena of the kingdom of the world.

The incarnational nature of the theological method of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio also shows how theology can be historically contextual and culturally responsive, while at the same time be faithfully ground in the unchanging Word of God.  The theologian’s act of faithfully translating the Word of God into the contemporary idiom is brought about only by the work of the Spirit. The Spirit himself incorporates the knowledge and thought-forms available to the interpreter in his context.  Since the Word of God as revelation is embedded in history and the created order, the theologian may seek to clarify the Word by drawing on multiple contextualized disciplines and sources of knowledge that will clarify its meaning. 

Continue reading “Doing Theology: Part II”