CHRISTIAN WITNESS IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD
Introduction to the Essay - by The Reverend Dr. Ian Davies 

Part of my theological studies up in Oxford entailed writing academic essays for a Paper entitled Christian Witness in the Contemporary World. This first essay attempted to understand and explain how current thinking presents the Church with enormous challenges to its thinking about its purpose in a society that no longer shares its Christian heritage

---

What is Postmodernism? What are the main challenges it raises for Christian Mission today? How might Christians reach postmodern people today? 

“Postmodernism is both a philosophy and a cultural movement. While few people understand the philosophy, all of us experience the cultural movement - the impact made when the ideological changes are put into practice.” (McCallum 1996: 58) 

“Postmodernism is a contemporary movement. It is strong and fashionable. Over and above this, it is not altogether clear what the devil it is. In fact, clarity is not conspicuous amongst its marked attributes...the notion of objective reality is suspect - all this seems to be part of the atmosphere, or mist in which postmodernism flourishes, or which postmodernism helps to spread.” (Gellner 1992: 22,23) 

Despite the central problem of the inability of even its proponents to define postmodernism, its methodology - ‘deconstruction’ (peeling away like an onion, the layers of socially constructed meanings) - challenges our most basic assumptions about the world and how we understand it[1]. As such it represents a transition in thinking and understanding that presents a significant challenge to Christians today. This essay will first examine the concept of postmodernism in order to identify what might be understood to be its essential features (a far from easy task, given its complexity and the lack of agreement surrounding its meaning). Second, the nature of its challenge to Christian thinking about mission will be considered. Third, the implications of postmodern thinking for Christian outreach will be discussed. Clearly there is an issue about balancing the different requirements of an essay on such a huge topic. The focus will be placed on establishing enough of a basic understanding of the phenomenon of postmodernism to be able to conduct some theological reflection.

“Today the heady optimism of the past has been swept away. The old certainties of the Enlightenment are no longer secure, and there is a widespread feeling that science and technology have ultimately failed to deliver the goods.” (Drane 2000: 7)

Essentially, in postmodern thinking and epistemology, the values of so-called ‘modernity’ established since the eighteenth century Enlightenment period are being questioned at both the level of cultural existence and thought. Drane (2000), and Lyon (1994) before him, differentiate between the philosophical and ideological systems of thinking represented by writers such as Derrida, Lacan, Baudrillard and Foucault (which they both term ‘postmodernism’) and the more sociological understanding of the collapse of the social, economic and political systems that characterised the modernisation of the Enlightenment (preferring the term ‘post-modern’ or ‘postmodernity’ respectively to describe its effects). This essay is more concerned with understanding the implications for Christian witness and mission of the systems of postmodern thinking than its cultural expressions - although they cannot entirely be separated.

In a stark sense postmodernism stands for the ‘death of reason’...“offering a frontal assault on methodological unity” (Power 1990 cited in Hassard and Parker eds. 1993). Its effect is the bringing down of a whole range of philosophical pillars, the most notable of which are the ‘unities’ of meaning, theory and the self, and in their stead developing the ability to deal in paradox. Postmodern theories begin with the assumption that language cannot render truths about the world in an objective way. Language, by its very nature, shapes what we think. Since language is a cultural creation, meaning is ultimately a social construction. (Veith 1994: 51). Postmodern epistemology thus suggests that the world is constituted by our shared language: that we can only ‘know the world’ through the particular forms of discourse our language creates, and   “that [because] our language-games are continually in flux...meaning is constantly slipping beyond our grasp and can thus never be lodged within one term  ” (Hassard and Parker 1993: 3).

Following on from this, it is the assumption of the existence of an underlying functional unity to social life and collective consciousness - provided by the idol of ‘reason’[2] - that postmodernism so seductively, and in many senses (at least in its less impenetrable expressions), quite persuasively questions. But what is it specifically about the effects of ‘the Enlightenment project’ and the confidence placed in rationality that is so unacceptable and unhelpful to postmodernism? The answer to this question allows us to touch on some important concepts used in postmodern thought.

Drane (1994: 12) identifies three key philosophical notions or foundational concepts upon which Western society was based, and which have somehow failed to fulfil their promise. First is rationalism, the reliance on (only) what we can know, explain and understand. According to the postmodernists, the problem with the Enlightenment is not its uncritical dependence on human reason alone, but its assumption that there is such a thing as objective truth. Moreover, it took as axiomatic that there was only one answer to any question. From this it followed that the world could be controlled and rationally ordered if we could only picture and represent it correctly. In postmodern thinking such assumptions are untenable because linguistic meaning itself is problematic. Saussure (1857-1913), founder of the structuralist school of formal linguistics in which postmodernism has its roots, distinguished between ‘signifier’ (the word used to describe something or convey its meaning) and ‘signified’ (that to which it refers). Hence it is argued that the association of the word and what the word represents[3] is the outcome of collective learning, not agreement about the truth of something. Attribution of meaning then becomes merely arbitrary, the product of a system of representation, which is itself meaningless. The second foundation stone of the Enlightenment is materialism. The notion that only what we can see and touch is of any real value has led to the criticism that we have become mechanistic in our view of humanity, and that this has given rise to the kind of individual consumerist mentality that has denied any place for the consideration of the spiritual. In other words, as a result of our materialistic preoccupations we have become spiritually impoverished. Third is reductionism, the idea of fragmenting and separating out the components of any phenomenon or situation in order to analyse it. When applied to the person this has, once again, tended towards a mechanistic view of people’s capabilities (particularly in work settings[4]), leading to a sense of alienation.

The resultant dualism and fragmentation which continue to dominate Western thinking are regarded as inadequate for understanding a world which is characterized by multiple causes and effects, and which interact in complex, nonlinear ways, each of which is historically and culturally rooted (Coleman 1991: 27).

So far some legitimate insights have been generated, particularly regarding the arrogant claims of modernism to control the external world and solve its problems. But there is an interesting dilemma for the postmodern thinker here. There is a tension between the search for what Harding (cited in Coleman) terms a “successor science, epistemologically robust and politically powerful enough to unseat the (discreditable) Enlightenment version”, and postmodernism, which “struggles against claims of totality, certainty, and methodological orthodoxy ”. One way of understanding this, which leads us onto the second part of this essay is to see it as part of an essentially human quest for ‘meaning’ which does not have to rely on an unconvincing and inadequate positivist version of existence. But if the historically specific claim to foundational knowledge and propositional truth is discarded, does it not leave an unanswered set of questions about what is able to replace the gap that it leaves? At worst is it a recipe for despair because it is so nihilistic.

Here we begin to address the challenge that postmodernism represents to the Church’s thinking about mission because, once again, we find a paradox in many post-modern formulations. Coleman (op cit) says that the post-modern argument liberates her because she discovers that her discourse (in this case a feminist analysis of women’s experiences in work) is as valid as any other. But the challenge to a pervasive and seemingly inviolable orthodoxy (i.e. rationality and associated issues of paternalism) that she seeks to discredit as inadequate, arguably requires some alternative authoritative basis - and this is perhaps the ‘Achilles heel’ of post-modern epistemology. Is it merely the process of deconstructing exercises of power and male domination in social institutions that raises the possibility of life becoming something more participatory, less exclusive, rationalised and formal? Or is this alternative ‘paradigm’, for which people are apparently searching, curiously imbued with an authoritative set of discarded values (and hopes) the source of which remains opaque? Post-modern critiques of rational control denote the search for more life-affirming, participatory and less alienating alternatives: they require a different model of personhood - but from where is this to come? Arguably this is where the mission challenge needs to be picked up, particularly because Christianity believes that it is in Christ and all he has accomplished that we can discover our true personhood.

In response to what commentators describe as a ‘massive paradigm shift’ in Western culture and thinking from the kind of certainty associated with the Enlightenment, to the alarming experience of discontinuity and contradiction, it is possible to identify at least two strategies people employ to deal with the resultant uncertainty. One is what might be termed the cult of the individual - which is characterized by a ‘selfish, hedonistic lifestyle that apparently has no place for ultimate meanings’ (Drane 2000: vii). But there is also a discernible, palpable quest for spiritual answers that purport to offer some sense of security and meaning as a basis for life. The consequence of this search has been a dazzling and bewildering array of different and competing spiritualities which vie for attention within a market place in which one is seemingly able to ‘pick and mix’ to suit one’s particular tastes and idiosyncrasies. Yet this very resurgence of interest in spiritual things presents the church with an enormous missionary challenge (or ‘threat’ to those who are committed to maintaining or presiding over the diminishing status quo of the established church) and which, to be sure, management consultants would be seeking to redefine or reframe as a (God-given) ‘opportunity’ to present the gospel in fresh ways.

The challenge to Christians throughout history has been how to live faithfully within the cultural context in which the church finds itself. If it was possible to construct a model of possible responses to prevailing cultural understandings these could be visualized as a triangle with three extreme points or options:  accommodation, criticism and withdrawal [5]. Certainly the point has been made that, from Constantine onwards, the Western church might be accused of allowing itself to be used as a channel for secular culture and thought (= accommodation), rather than critiquing prevailing assumptions with reference to its own distinctive set of biblical values and mission imperatives. There have also always been the extreme radical dissenters who have retained a critical, but nevertheless engaged, stance (the Levellers and Diggers in the seventeenth century, or the Clapham Sect in Victorian England come to mind). There are also those more pietistic or monastic groups (whether individual or communitarian) whose characteristic tendency is towards withdrawal (cf. the Oxford Movement - although this is, perhaps, a more dubious example).

The question facing the contemporary church is how can it begin to relate to the constantly changing lifestyles and relationships in which many people find themselves? At present the picture is far from encouraging. The outflow of people from churches of all denominations is well documented[6]. But this does not seem to be related to any particular hostility or secularism. ‘People are simply not finding the church speaking to their needs’. (Drane 2000: viii).

A key challenge to the church’s mission is to acknowledge and understand (Drane would even say ‘repent of’) the implications of having been so infiltrated with Enlightenment thinking. Fritjof Capra, famous for The Tao of Physics, lists elsewhere the characteristics of the Enlightenment period in terms ‘too close for comfort’ to traditional Christian attitudes: masculinity, demanding, aggressive, rational, analytic...(Capra 1983 cited in Drane 2000: 9). In other words, the Western Christian tradition is part of the problem and is not likely to be part of the solution (ibid.). The Christian message has, for too long perhaps, been ‘hide-bound’ by triumphalist images of a transcendent and all-powerful (masculine) God, which feed such reservations. At the same time, the church has been rather more reluctant to stress the mystery of the incarnation: its weakness, vulnerability, powerlessness - and God’s immanence - which (as will be seen below) might enable it to relate more easily to people’s spiritual pilgrimage.

The rather defensive reaction to declining church attendance and the challenge of postmodernism (see for example McCallum 1996: 192ff) is perhaps a fairly revealing indication of the extent to which the church has uncritically embraced the frame of reference of modernity (what Grenz 1996, refers to as ‘enlightenment epistemology’), such that it is resistant to, and in some cases frighteningly incapable of, embracing the challenge of contextualizing the gospel within contemporary society[7]. The insistence that all that is required is an even clearer rational presentation of the gospel, and that postmodern theorists are simply “wrong”, is unlikely to be a terribly effective mission strategy.

Turning, then, to the third part of the essay, the discussion so far has raised some key questions for Christians about how they might understand mission in order to reach ‘postmodern people’ and communicate the gospel effectively. Having established a basic understanding of postmodern thought and its challenges for Christian mission, this concluding section is only able to briefly mention some of the implications of postmodern thinking for Christians as they attempt to witness to their faith. The following lyrics are taken from a recent best-selling album. They seem to sum up so clearly the postmodern dilemma about identity and the need for a sense of belonging:

i just want to feel safe in my own skin

i just want to be happy again

i just want to feel deep in my own world

but i’m so lonely i don’t even want to be with myself anymore

on a different day, if i was safe in my own skin, then i wouldn’t feel lost and so frightened

but this is today and i’m lost in my own skin... 

(Dido ‘Honestly OK’ on CD ‘No Angel’ written by D. Armstrong, M. Benbrook and R. Armstrong 1999 Arista Records)[8]

If the so-called ‘grand’ or ‘meta’-narratives have been discredited as oppressive then it is beholden on Christians to provide personal stories at a local (i.e. accessible) level about their own encounters with God. This is not to deny the importance of clear expository preaching, but to simply recognize that the appeal for people to understand (rationally, cognitively) the veracity of traditional Christian apologetic argument is perhaps less important these days than enabling them to feel like they are accepted and cared for - and that their ‘plight’, their sense of alienation or disconnectedness from life - is at least understood. This would indicate that the scriptural themes of creation and incarnation - of God’s care for those in his world and his entry into history in order to re-establish friendship with lost and hurting people - is likely to be more effective than an emphasis on judgment and the just deserts of fallen humanity.

Moreover, if the postmodern ‘instinct’ is to be suspicious of authority and hierarchy, this might indicate the importance of being less preoccupied with getting church structures and lines of accountability ‘right’,[9] and more on living out the Christian message as a community. Perhaps then, people would be able to recognize the authenticity of new life in Christ. It would also seem to call for ‘process’, or ‘relational’ evangelistic approaches that start with experience and then allow space for people to develop their understanding of the implications of Christian belief[10].

Privatized forms of religion that do not seem to have an impact on the way people live, or are removed from the ‘real world’ of politics or society, are easily dismissed precisely because they remain dominated by the values of an essentially secular culture. Rediscovering community as an expression of faith in practice: ‘the arena in which people can be transformed into full humanity’ (Tomlin 2002: 113), needs to be combined with realigning theology and spirituality.

With the development of modern science came modernity and the critical application of reason as the way of apprehending any reality (including Christian faith). There was a corresponding devaluation of what were considered ‘primitive’ beliefs in the supernatural. But such beliefs are those in which postmodern people are probably more interested, because they seem to offer a release from the secular existence with which they are so familiar;  a state of affairs that is (boringly) predictable, lacking in meaning and substance and often constraining. The Church can justifiably be accused of having been embarrassed by the mystical, the numinous and the spiritual. The implications of having become so acculturated to Enlightenment thinking have not just been about the unhelpful focus on having an abstract, conceptual understanding of faith (often accompanied by a rather dry, cerebral presentation of propositional truths), but also about becoming rationalistic and materialistic. The church has become less comfortable about dimensions of spiritual life that, ironically, are holding the attention of many outside its influence.[11] So a rediscovered willingness to experience and talk with others about the supernatural, the mystical and the numinous is that which could offer contemporary Christians an unprecedented opportunity to share Christ with a generation hungry for the meaning and personal fulfillment denied them in many spheres of their life. And such characteristics will need to progressively define Christian worship.

There is a perception amongst people outside the Church that having an intellectual, cognitive understanding of theological ideas is of greater value than intuitive, artistic and creative expressions of faith (i.e. a more interactive and visual spirituality). The strength of the Church is actually in its multi-coloured expressions. Concerning the Eucharist, when Jesus said ‘do this in remembrance of me’ he was bringing the past into present reality: “so that the bread and wine might become for us the body and blood of Christ”. It is thus important to understand the various ways in which this happens - through word, symbol, the physical, the sensuous. The actions of worship allow truths into our being. Worship therefore needs to have a multi-sensory impact that is often beyond words, beyond merely cognitive understanding. It needs to connect body, mind and spirit. It needs the kind of creativity that enables space for God to move and speak. In our fragmented experiences of social life we often separate ourselves denominationally from each other, and from the created world in which God is present and active. The possibility of expressing our worship and spiritual life using a variety of senses will require different forms of communication that that question and check out what people are receiving and how they are growing. It may then be possible to connect people with God’s intimacy and friendship in ways that are not perfunctory or lacking in creativity.

According to Drane (1997: 109) churches that are unprepared to face up to the challenge of renewal in worship will easily turn evangelism into just another marketing or commodification exercise. Churches that focus exclusively on their own internal spirituality will easily become introverted and irrelevant to the needs of the world. But if renewal and spiritual development are placed together then there is ‘an extremely powerful, and faith-enhancing, combination’.

There is no avoiding the challenge that this presents. Promoting the gospel in today’s postmodern environment will require a degree of honest heart-serching amongst Christians. It is interesting that Matthew’ gospel narrative depicts a group of people whose starting point for the great evangelistic programme (target: all nations, Matthew 28:17-19) is their own weakness and doubt; inadequacy and vulnerability. But then the cost of not responding to the current opportunity is indisputable:

“...for worship to be reinstated as a radical, mystical experience of God in Christ that also points in Biblical fashion well beyond the interior experience of the individual and out to the world, indeed the whole cosmos, will require a radical transformation of much of what now passes as church. This is unlikely to be an easy or painless transformation, because most of us are out of our depth when dealing with such possibilities.” (Drane 2000: 17) 

If such an analysis is valid, then what is urgently required is to radically rethink or even jettison the church’s ‘establishment image’ in order to develop a more holistic understanding of faith that does not stress the spiritual over the material (or vice versa). The challenge of witnessing to Christ in a postmodern context is somehow to reframe ministry and mission in order to be more creative, exploratory, provisional, accepting of difference; to acknowledge the importance of being multi-cultural and multi-dimensional - in order to enable a fresh discovery of the authenticity, truth and intimacy of the gospel.

Bibliography 

---

References: