Postmodernity’s saturation of popular culture is too pervasive to be ignored. While in North America there may be the occasional Christian ghetto as yet untouched by the emerging postmodern ethos, such isolated communities are surely the anachronistic exception rather than the rule.

As the name implies, postmodernity must be understood against the backdrop of the modernism out of which it developed. Jim Campbell summarizes the heart of modernity:

"In the 18th century thinkers became optimistic that by using the universal values of science, reason and logic, they could get rid of all the myths and holy ideas that kept humanity from misery, religion, superstition, all irrational behavior, and unfounded belief. Humanity would thus progress to a state of freedom, happiness and progress."

What then is postmodernism?

There is no one authoritative thinker who by his or her work encompasses the entire breadth of postmodern reflection. But some summary comments can be made that move us toward a better understanding. We will focus on just three strands of postmodern thought: the inadequacy of language and paradigms, the way that paradigms serve oppression, and truth in community.

In postmodern thought, language is represented as being inadequate to the task of representing reality.

Nietzsche has been called the "patron saint of postmodernity." He highlighted the way that we use language and thought categories to conceptualize reality. However, Nietzsche viewed these mental and linguistic efforts as being entirely arbitrary and not accurately reflective of reality.

Jacque Derrida is the contemporary postmodern writer most commonly associated with similar assertions in connection with his rigorous critique of what he terms Western logocentrism. Derrida and other postmodern writers emphasize the symbolic nature of language. Language is not reality but only re-presents it. However those who use language tend to equate it with reality.

The artificial edifice set up by man’s arbitrary structuring of reality using the tools of mental concepts and language systems create a "paradigm." "Paradigm" - in the phrase "paradigm shift" - increased it currency in philosophical circles by Thomas Kuhn’s justly famous The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the concept reached popular culture more recently in Stephen Covey’s The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. So when I step up to the ticket booth with my wife to get two tickets for The Matrix, the attendant’s paradigm leads her to expect me to say, "Two adults" and not "Can I have this dance?" Her paradigm leads her to expect certain verbiage. That is her mindset.

One of the concepts associated with postmodernity is that these paradigms can be used to exercise power over others. The postmodern thinker most associated with this strand of postmodern reflection is the late Michel Foucault. An example of this paradigmatic oppression would be the Nazi’s racist narrative of Aryan superiority which they used to systematically implement their anti-Semitic policies.

A third component of postmodernity is its emphasis on the intrinsically symbiotic relationship of truth and community. One thinker associated with this strand of postmodern thought is Richard Rorty. Rorty contends that it is impossible for an individual’s portrayal of truth to transcend his connection with his community and his time. The knowledge of the individual is inextricably tied to his time and societal context. But rather than mourning the limitation, Rorty embraces this situation as a means by which we appreciate the degree to which we rely on our community for necessary guidance.

Two antithetical responses to postmodernism have prevailed among Christian leaders. Many leading thinkers have assumed an adversarial stance: postmodern thought must be demolished as a pretension that "sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Other influentials have embraced postmodernity to such a passionate extent that nothing less than a wholesale reengineering of Christianity is implied.

The traditionalists accuse such Christians enamored of postmodern thought of being addicted to novelty. Postmodernism is portrayed as nothing more than a fad of the intelligentsia. They argue that a church redesigned along postmodern lines will find itself irrelevant when postmodernity is inevitably eclipsed by the next philosophical rage.

The revisionists counter that the traditionalists are hopelessly trapped in the grip of a modern church, with an outdated and unfounded trust in the ability of man’s mind to apprehend and communicate the One who transcends man’s finite categories and inadequate linguistic symbol systems.

With such respected lights lining up on both sides of the question and in light of the cogent, persuasive and articulate argumentation marshaled by both sides, it’s not difficult for those of us following the controversy to find ourselves with prevailing sympathies in the direction of the last book or article read! What to do??

In work I’ve done over the years as a conflict resolution consultant, mediator and trainer both in and out of the church, I’ve observed that when individuals are embroiled in the heat of dispute, they have a tendency to absolutize - even demonize - the opposite party. "Absolutizing" is a term I use for arbitrarily narrowing the person with whom you’re disagreeing to their position. It involves a simplification of the other’s position - and ultimately of the other person - so that the issue is viewed as what I call "relentlessly binary." It’s black or white, on or off, 0 or 1, right or wrong.

Demonization occurs when the other’s motives are negatively construed. This narrowing of the other person results from several factors. One is the need to create a paradigm to handle controversy. In the short run, it is more simple and convenient to cast as adversary those with whom we disagree. The dispute becomes black and white and our role is well-defined and well-rehearsed. We marshal arguments supporting our thesis and our "opponent" can feel thusly cornered into doing the same.

Skillful conflict mediators aid those locked in the death-grip of thesis-antithesis by aiding each party to

1 - listen and fully focus on the other; and

2 - gain a fuller understanding not only of the reasons for the other’s position but - most importantly - of the presuppositions behind those reasons.

When this is done properly, the end of the process brings two results:

1 - the revealed complexity of concerns on both sides often shatters the myth of black and white, thesis-antithesis that had devolved the issue into mere power struggle and

2 - ironically, this very complexity provides a rich tapestry of creative alternatives as to how the "conflict" - or seeming incompatibility of positions - can be resolved.

The original precipitating conflict is sometimes shown to be hopelessly simplistic in its two-dimensionality. Resolving the conflict is now revealed to require the much harder work of addressing all the concerns represented in each disputant’s presuppositions.

In short, it can seem easier just to argue than to do the hard work of addressing everyone’s concerns one by one.

Similarly, addressing the constellation of issues raised by both the emerging postmodern culture and by postmodern thinkers themselves is much more complicated than a simple thumbs up or down to postmodernity. Our task is far more difficult.

It’s not my purpose here to stake out a position or to establish firm boundaries. It is my intention to do two things: First, I want to suggest what would be antithetically extreme responses to postmodernity - that we should neither embrace it as the final corrective to the imbalances of Christianity, nor despise it as the enemy of a Christian paradigm. Secondly, I wish to suggest to both the traditionalists and the revisionists some ways in which they can move the conversation forward in a way that benefits both. It is my hope to suggest one outline of how that dialogue might proceed. I wish to strongly encourage both the traditionalists and revisionists to do the hard work of truly listening to each other and asking questions that are not just rhetorical or accusatory.

[To be continued]