John Piper on post-modernism
Posted on September 5, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions
(Hat Tip to Rick)
John Piper (who would certainly qualify as a non-amateur theologian) describes what he sees as the danger of embracing a post-modern mindset. I agree with a fair chunk of what Piper is saying here: the dangers of throwing out the good that has been built up by the institutional church and settling for a vague spirituality/mysticism that has no beliefs. But equally dangerous is a reliance on the things Piper describes as “religion”: propositions, doctrines, books, traditions, commitments and disciplines, where they are separated from a genuine interaction with God. Because just as the post-modern mindset has this danger of becoming individualistic and consumeristic religion where self is the idol, the danger of relying wholly on our doctrines becomes the sort of “belief in the belief of God” that Alan Hirsch has talked about recently over in a (pretty controversial) post over at Forgotten Ways.
The comparison with my Evangelical brethren is that I think they can be described as beliving in belief in God. A whole set of ideas, dogma, and doctrine provides an screen of objectivity between the believer and God. Perhaps this is a way of mediating the ‘danger’ of the God experience. But while theological understanding is gained, immediacy is lost through the objectification of God and the God experience. The loss is great.
It seems to me that Piper wants to create an “objective concrete, clear Jesus Christ” that flies in the face of the way Jesus taught, and the things we know about Jesus. We see only in part, and can only speak out of that which we know. Pretending that we’re the only people who know the truth is a furphy and can come across as intellectually dishonest.
But having said that: I know that John Piper knows a lot more than I do. Fortunately, so do you. So tell me where I’m wrong. 
About Geoff Matheson
Geoff is a 23 year old database administrator who has birthed amateurtheology.org from some crazy thoughts he had early one Monday morning. Geoff does his best to sound lots smarter than he actually is. He also runs some youth stuff at Yarra Valley Vineyard, and he is married to the very lovely Rebecca.
Geoff's site: http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/
Comments
9 Responses to “John Piper on post-modernism”
Leave a Reply
This is a tough one. I think we need to be very careful with the words we use. I think we will never know (this side of sanctification) the depth and breadth of God, the Gospel, etc.. At the same time, we must not communicate that the fundamental truths about these things are not absolute, that they cannot be known, etc..
So while Jesus spoke in parable, as the Holy Spirit revealed truth, it was known - it didn’t remain unknown. It was there just not always seen.
So “knowing truth” is a paradox, we must be careful not to err to one side or the other.
PS - thanks for the “HT”.
Initial thoughts:
And a good part of the critique that post-modernism brings says that we all need to recognise that our objectivity is “in part” and based on a worldview. That to me translates to more humility and as Rick points to - choosing our words and our stance a lot more carefully.
Where Piper says that this “spirituality” is not a religion - he is correct, but that is the positive point that post-modernity is making. People in a modern, rational mindset read their Bible stories and started making hard-edged doctrines and “3 steps to blah” from it. Post-modernity comes along and says “hey there are a couple of ways/perspectives of reading this” (although there aren’t an infinite number of perspectives) and they shed light on some of these things…
So, I understand Piper’s point, he just is only critical of post-modernism - which can be unhelpful.
Forgot to add - for an overview of the historical development of both modernism and post-modernism see these audio downloads of Don Carson: http://www.euroleadershipresources.org/resource.php?ID=121&Tab=AudioDownload
Why does everyone use the term post-modern like it implies an impending horde of satan’s demons lurking in the wings ready to descend on the unsuspecting innocent children of modern-thinking baby boomer parents?
Welcome to the post-modern world. Like it or hate it, here we are. I guess its unrealistic to imagine we could stop griping about it, or living in the past… but what a pleasant idea!
It amuses me no end that some people seem to think that ‘postmodernism’ is what evil people did to ‘our’ safe and comfortable truths.
They still haven’t realised that the postmodern philosophies emerged as a reaction to the abuses of naive realism and institutionalised over-simplification during the modern era. (And for years before it).
As long as people continue to naively assosciate words like progressive, and liberal, with evil and ill intent, there will be a rift in religious and spiritual thinking… I guess that means, forever.
Piper lost me when he started to talk about postmodernism and modernism like they were bad things that happened to an otherwise ordered world. Who’s ordered world? Maybe things were better under the inquisition?
There was no ideal past. Life moves on. Deal with it.
Most christians talk about post-modernists like they’re a species we encounter but are not amongst. I am one. And not one. Maybe I’m a structuralist, or even a post-structuralist as well… but then again… maybe I’m not.
While we’re all busy coming to terms with what the post-modernists have done to our perfectly ordered world…
(”nobody’s ever told me they had a problem with our church. What’s that frank? you have a problem with it? Oh no frank, that’s a problem with you, Jesus can help you with that Frank, haleluliahglorytogod”)
the rest of the world is living in the now, and thinking of new ways to encounter and engage with the reality of life.
Seems everything the church has to say about culture is a post-mortem. Wake up church. Stop nit-picking, stop griping, live in the now, and bring some light to it. Anyone can define themselves by being ‘not like those other people’. For Christs sake decide to be like something!
Tim - be careful, those ‘most christians’ often toss around words like ‘most christians’, ’seems everything’, … i.e., it’s often these kinds of words/phrases that get them into pointless debate. But that aside, your point is taken.
I think C. Michael Patton has written a great piece defining and then critiquing soft versus hard postmodernism. Justin Taylor builds on that.
I just add an amen to that.
Thanks Rick, yeah I did let myself indulge in some faily coarse generalisations there… I could probably do to be a bit more disciplined in that regard. Hopefully the message still carries somewhere tho. I have to admit, I had way too much fun getting fired up writing that.
True, but humanism tells us that it is getting better. Post-modernism reflects upon this and suggests that this is not necessarily so.
However the implication of your post is that newer is better and po-mo is better - both of which aren’t necessarily so.
Hmm I’m not quite sure that I think newer is better… I don’t actually believe these are new ideas. What I do think is better, is staying in step with contemporary thinking. If I came across as saying newer is better I probably misrepresented myself.
I think its fair to say that any one point in time we are living by a certain set of values and beliefs that relate to our environment and our personal persuasion. I believe that in any given moment it is valueable to choose the kind of thinking that allows us to reflect critically on those values. On the basis that I believe post-mordernism is the critical reflection of modernity, yes, I believe post-modern thinking is better than modern thinking… if only because modern-thinking is mostly left now to be modern-assuming. Thinking has moved on. In time, something else will be better than post-modernism (and I suspect many things allready are). The thing that I think is better in fact, is living reflectively.
None of the revolutionary leaders I really respect have had any exceptionally new ideas… all the same, to take an example for 20th Century thinking; Paolo Freiere put into words a kind of critical reflection that made a contemporary aplication of some ancient truths.
And in that vein, the important thing seems to be keeping the dialogue going between the things we believe, and the way we live… lest the two lose touch with eachother. In fifty years time there won’t be questions about whether or not we should embrace a post-modern era. It will be over, and conservative parents will be pondering how to protect their children from the next wave of reflective thinking.
If mainstream christianity ever happened to become pro-active, and be a voice in favour of progresiveness, it would gain a great deal more influence (influence I personally am glad it doesn’t have). Its hard to stand on and stear a surfboard once the wave has already passed. All you can do is sit back and point at the other surfers and talk about what they should do differently, or how glad you are that you chose to let that wave go past you because it was the wrong wave anyway.
For better or worse, the old will pass, the new will come.
Tim, I think your point about reflection is key. It is important - vitally so.
And I think this is where the issue lies - if you have “the truth” why would you reflect critically on it?