In Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism, James Smith states his belief that cultural phenomena tend to be shaped by philosophical underpinnings. Thus, in order to understand our current postmodern culture, Smith says that we must go back to postmodernism’s philosophical roots. Smith examines a central tenet from each of three French philosophers--Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault—whose ideas have laid the foundation for various aspects of postmodernism. By doing so, Smith seeks to “demythologize” the view that postmodernism is incompatible with Christianity by finding positive aspects within these tenets that can be used for the kingdom of God. He examines current manifestations of these philosophers’ thinking in film, ultimately arguing for an ancient, premodern understanding of the Christian faith that is based in tradition and liturgy.
The first philosophical tenet that Smith examines is Derrida’s statement that “there is nothing outside the text.” This statement is true, for all texts require interpretation. Texts must be interpreted in communities, which are both geographically and temporally located. In my church’s context, his suggestion of a lectionary to guard against the “pet preferences” of a pastor would not be well received; however, his suggestion to draw worship elements such as songs and prayers from diverse communities around the world would resonate with our younger, global members.
The second philosophical tenet that Smith examines is Lyotard’s definition of postmodernism as “incredibility towards metanarratives.” Smith uses this tenet to stress the fallacy of placing reason above faith to “prove” the Christian story. He also well points out the narrative nature of all knowledge, thereby recovering the narrative nature of Scripture. His emphasis upon narrative and story has impressed upon me the need to continue to emphasize narrative preaching. Narrative preaching is biblical, culturally resonant, and from the feedback I have received, one of my better styles of preaching. Over time, preaching through the little stories of Scripture and how they fit into the “Big Story” can help listeners see how they can fit into this story of God.
The third philosophical tenet that Smith examines is Foucault’s belief that knowledge is not neutral; instead, “knowledge is power.” Smith agrees with Foucault’s assessment of the nature of knowledge, that it wields power and has a shaping influence upon people; however, Smith rejects the idea that all such formation is negative. Smith has an implicit call for the church to not reject hierarchy on the basis that this is an inherently oppressive power arrangement.
My own church tradition is fiercely autonomous and non-hierarchical. These are characteristics we are unlikely to change, perhaps with good reason; however, there are suggestions that we can take from Smith in regards to discipleship. There was a discipleship movement in our fellowship that began in a positive way, but soon became very controlling. This discipleship movement was called the Boston Movement, and now is called the International Churches of Christ. We need to overcome this past experience and recognize that discipleship, particularly non-hierarchical discipleship, is a good thing.
