2.3 Epistemology

Within scholarly circles the main issue at hand in postmodernism is epistemology.

Modernism is often pictured as pursuing truth, absolutism, linear thinking, rationalism, certainty, the cerebral as opposed to the affective… Postmodernism, by contrast, recognizes how much of what we “know” is shaped by the culture in which we live, is controlled by emotions and aesthetics and heritage, and in fact can only be intelligently held as part of a common tradition, without overbearing claims to being true or right.[1]

And even Stanley Grenz agrees with Carson on this issue.[2] Yet quite a few Emerging Church writers seem to understand postmodernism at best as something more than epistemology, at worst as something altogether different than epistemology[3]. ‘The support for this understanding of postmodernism’ (i.e. The understanding that the shift in epistemology is the main thing that defines postmodernism) ‘is so widespread and common that it is curious that some in the emerging church question it.’[4] If it comes to this aspect of postmodernism the Emerging Church is often a bit vague. Most of them don’t go as far as to be completely relativist, but they do distant themselves quite strongly from the absolutism of modernism.[5] Leonard Sweet shows appreciation for deconstruction as being ‘One of the most important philosophical/interpretive concepts of postmodernity.’ And further on: ‘Learning to understand and respect deconstruction may be the hardest challenge of all for modern Christian leaders.’ [6] Bolger and Gibbs write: ‘Emerging church leaders are under no compulsion to stand up and fight for truth.’[7] In their official response to criticism however they write: ‘we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters… we are not moral or epistemological relativists.’[8] At present the majority of the Emerging Church writers seem to be working towards, and expecting a synthesis of the absolutism of modernism and the relativism of postmodernism.

While this synthesis will come, one day, it doesn't seem to [b]e helpful to critique [a] group of pastors for not having delivered it yet. The chief virtue of Carson's book is its clear and repeated insistence that we shun this false antithesis. The chief shortcoming of Carson's book is its own failure to move beyond this antithesis.[9]

And Ken Archer is right. When Carson writes a chapter with his personal reflections on postmodernism’s contributions and challenges, he names three models ‘to help us think’ (respectively a fusion of horizons, hermeneutical spirals and the asymptotic approach)

without actually proving, objectively, any of them.[10] (…) Carson's third way beyond the false antithesis of absolute realism and subjectivism - what he calls soft postmodernism - is no third way at all, as it avoids answering the tough questions of either realism or subjectivism.[11]

And so the pot calls the kettle black. Because not only this ‘group of pastors’ can not find this third way (The solutions I have found so far are merely a gently described version of relativism or absolutism rather than an actual synthesis[12]), even someone like Grenz, a very influential theologian and scholar within the Emerging Church, doesn’t resolve this tension[13] and firmly rejects the postmodern epistemology.[14]
Anderson goes back on a very Barthian theology when dealing with epistemology. As Karl Barth he sees revelation as something senkrecht von oben. He introduces a phrase ‘naïve realism’, truth revealed and confessed. We find this naïve realism with the man whom Jesus healed, who was blind from birth who said: ‘One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see’(John 9:25). We also find it with Peter when confessing: ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’(Mat.16:13-17). This of course doesn’t give any answers regarding the truth of those faith statements.
Another issue in Carson’s critique that many disagree with is his focus on the Emerging Churches’ epistemology:

The debate cannot be reduced to epistemology (…) I do not dispute that epistemology is crucial; I am only saying it is not the whole thing. What about the “holism”? and the “communal” nature of the movement? and especially its “missional” focus? What about how so many see the “work of God” in huge and embracing terms?[15]

One can wonder whether these things mentioned (holism, communal nature, missional focus) are actually part of this debate. We discuss epistemology because the Emerging Church wants to be relevant to postmodern culture, and epistemology is a foundational building block of that culture. When talking about holism, communal nature and missional focus we don’t necessarily talk about postmodern culture, rather these are elements of the Christian community that have always made them attractive to any culture, often though these elements confront that culture, rather than conform to it.

But if we want to value the movement for what they claim to be, we need to take a look at some other aspects of postmodernism that the Emerging Church understands to be important. Andrew Jones refers to the difference between postmodernism and postmodernity, a common separation in the literature (SEE FOOTNOTE 1 PAGE 2)
(…) postmodernism is not the same as postmodernity. And the cultural impact of the postmodern age (world after modernity) has significantly affected American life in the areas of architecture, cuisine, art, media, social conditions, aesthetics, economics, etc.[16]

Sweet and McLaren also state that postmodernism is more than philosophy. After having mentioned four variants of postmodernism as a philosophy (specifically Post-structuralism, the new Marxism, Neo pragmatism and Feminism) they argue:

The more interesting forms of postmodernism are the ones featured in this primer: as intellectual discourse, as style and posture-embodiment, and as culture. In fact, we can observe postmodernity developing as an emerging culture even before postmodernism as a worldview or philosophy is fully formed.[17]

[1] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church p.27
[2] S. Grenz, Renewing the centre: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2000) p.185, S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p.5-8
[3] David Mills, The Emergent Church, – Another Perspective. A Critical Response to D. A. Carson’s Staley Lectures pp.5,6 (http://people.cedarville.edu/Employee/millsd/mills_staley_response.pdf)
[4] J.S. Hammett, An Ecclesiological Assessment of the Emerging Church Movement http://ateam.blogware.com/AnEcclesiologicalAssessment.Hammett.pdf
[5] Mark Driscoll, very involved in the Emerging Church in its early days, divides the group into three distinct types of Christians: ‘Relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures. (…)Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e. g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). (…)[T]hey propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches. (…) Revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world.’ (This last group would be strong relativist in their approach to truth) M. Driscoll, A Pastoral Perspective on the Emerging Church (http://criswell.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurch)
[6] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive pp.87-90
[7] Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, p.124
[8] http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1151
[9] http://kenarcher.typepad.com/theological_thought/2005/06/review_of_da_ca.html
[10] Interesting to see that Ken Archer, who is expecting a synthesis between absolutism and relativism uses phrases like ‘proving objectively’, by doing so showing that his epistemology is perhaps more modern than he thought it to be.
[11] http://kenarcher.typepad.com/theological_thought/2005/06/review_of_da_ca.html
[12] Andrew Jones for example writes: ‘It seems to me that a more or less postmodern church does not need to claim that the story we tell is absolutely true in the sense that it ought in principle to be accepted by all people as true. All we need to assert is that it is for us, as a community among other communities, in effect ‘absolutely’ true - not in any rationalist-foundational sense but - existentially - because we have accepted its claim on our lives. We have been called to give currency and credibility to a particular narrative about God, and to do so we must speak and act as though the story about God were absolutely true - or at least true enough to give our lives for. I wonder if perhaps this sort of understanding does not allow us to retain both the force of the truth claim and the particularity of the community that makes the claim. The postmodern unbeliever, who, as we know, is incredulous towards metanarratives, is not going to be asking whether this account of reality is absolutely true. His or her interest will be in whether it is a lived narrative worth engaging with.’ (http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/682)
[13] In his discourse on the value of hermeneutics he even utilizes the language of the asymptotic method. When writing about Dilthey’s inductive exegetical process he says: ‘…it will only bring us close to the truth.’ S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p.103
[14] S. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, p.165-167
[15] S. McKnight, http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=14
[16] http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/12/emerging_church_1.html
[17] Leonard Sweet, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer, A Is for Abductive,p.241