Postmodernism and Ecclesiastical Controversies
Why postmodernism -- in any iteration -- is contrary to Christianity.
As we approach a historically contentious election and the 503rd anniversary of the Reformation, I’m reminded of two historical truisms: that there has never been a time when the Church hasn’t been embroiled in some theological controversy, and that those controversies always reflect an external, cultural, societal, or political issue.
Think about it for a moment. The early Church’s argument over the necessity of circumcision reflected Jewish questions about their place in the Roman Empire and the status of gentiles in the Kingdom of Heaven. When the Great Schism occurred, and the eastern and western churches separated, there were peripheral questions about ethnic and cultural identities. When the English and Scottish confessionalists argued over which statement of faith to recognize, there were deeper questions about religious toleration and politics. The twentieth-century arguments over liberation theology reflected broader conversations about socialism and poverty.
The controversy currently facing the Church is no different. Today, the Church argues over “Wokeness” – the cultural manifestation of the synthesis of postmodern epistemology and critical theory – and the Gospel of Social Justice, which are, at their root, nothing more than a mirroring of contemporary conversations about race, gender, and sexuality.
In the long view of history, our situation may look normal, like it’s just another stuffy disagreement between pretentious theologians – just like the ecclesiastical controversies of years past.
But it’s not. There’s something different about this one. Perhaps recency bias is affecting my judgment, or maybe contentious current events are bringing to the fore unnecessary worry. But I don’t think that’s the case. There’s something else going on in the Church – something deep, revolutionary, and entirely novel. For the first time since the birth of modernity, our ways of knowing, our reasoning processes, and our modes of communication are being challenged by an all-encompassing and totalizing philosophy: postmodernism. And, when addressing it, the Church’s mainstream leaders – its pastors, theologians, and denominational heads – are all making the same fundamental, categorical mistake.
Postmodernism, along with its step sibling, critical theory, has crept its way into every mainstream denomination – even the conservative ones. Baptists, Presbyterians, and Catholics are all beginning to feel its effects, perhaps none more so than the Southern Baptists, who have already affirmed its validity.
Last year, at its annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a statement entitled “Resolution 9,” which affirms the utility of critical race theory and intersectionality (two theoretical subsystems of postmodern thought) as helpful “analytical tools.” The resolution also affirms Scriptural authority and rejects “the misuse of insights gained from critical race theory and intersectionality.”
On its face, the resolution appears to be an altogether benign affirmation of a set of highfalutin, academic theories.
But it’s not. Why? There are several reasons.
First, critical race theory and intersectionality aren’t just “analytical tools.” They’re an integral part of a totalizing ideology; they belong to the postmodern family, which is its own isolated, all-encompassing worldview.
Explaining this can be difficult. Postmodernism has absorbed many other systems of thought. As its core, though, postmodernism asserts two things: that the external world is entirely unknowable, and that society only consists of various identity groups vying for linguistic power.
Truth is now arbitrary, selective, and fickle. Politics has been reduced to Machiavellian theatrics. Lying is now a foregone conclusion. Calling your ideological opponents any slew of pejoratives is deemed permissible. Mass gatherings that meet for the sake of “social justice” are acceptable too – coronavirus or not. Even rioting is reasonable; it’s a form of reparations. Reality can be whatever we want or need.
The second reason is that postmodernism and its various iterations demand absolute allegiance; dissent is not tolerated. We’re seeing this manifest in real time. Those who refuse to agree with critical race theory and intersectionality are labeled racists, sexists, homophobes, and bigots. All white people are accused of possessing inherent “privilege.” All members of minority groups are “oppressed.” The identity lines are drawn, and individualism is killed; you’re either an “ally” or an enemy.
The final reason is that postmodernism offers no hope for actual knowledge. In no place is this belief more explicit than in academia, and especially the humanities. For approximately the last forty years, historians, literary critics, political theorists, and sociologists have applied postmodernism and critical theory to their research.
The results? A whole bunch of nothing. So says a philology PhD:
I studied critical theory, too, and I found it to be the least demanding part of the course. To its proponents, I will say only that it is extremely easy to analyse a text when you are handed a template. For example, if you set your mind to finding instances of male oppression in the collected works of William Shakespeare, Romeo quickly becomes a reckless example of machismo, and Juliet a victim of sexual objectification. However, it is much harder to analyse a text without an ideological compass, relying solely on the merits of language and imagery.
Now, we have arrived at the core issue of critical theory and postmodernism, and why they carry no utility at any level of analysis: because their conclusions are predetermined. They commit the fallacy of confirmation bias; if you look hard enough for oppression, you will find it.
If this is the mindset and these are the results of your “analytical tools,” it’s hard to justify their usage, let alone their affirmation – especially by Christians, whose primary goal should be unity and the proper worship of God, not the employment of divisive theories whose conclusion is decided before it even begins.
It’s not that Christians shouldn’t seek to understand the complexities of past historical injustices or inequalities, either. Of course, they should. The gospels depict many of Jesus’s interactions with the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed.
It’s also not that Christians should avoid “analytical tools.” There are many helpful methodologies and theories that aid our understanding of the world and even Biblical texts. But critical race theory, intersectionality, and postmodernism more generally don’t fall under the category of “helpful.” They fall under the categories of “divisive,” “contentious,” “pre-determined,” and “totalizing.”
The Church’s current controversy – “Wokeness” and the Gospel of Social Justice – is one that is necessary to address. It’s impossible not to; the events happening in the external world demand it. But we don’t – and can’t – allow ourselves to fall under its influence, its knowledge-making, or its all-encompassing worldview.