The Holy Spirit and Postmodernity

I have become increasingly frustrated by Christian brothers and sisters who speak of postmodernity as though it were the all-encompassing evil of our society. It would seem from the way that some people talk that postmodernity can simply be summed up by offering some rhetoric about the lose of absolute truth, the rise of religious pluralism, and downfall of all certainty in knowledge. These certainly are serious charges if they are true and not to be taken lightly. However, I would contest that this trite condemnation (which, at least in my experience, really does seem to be the extent of what many people have to say on the subject) is far from representative of even a basic survey of the subject. While I would acknowledge that the charges stated previously do in fact seem to have very legitimate grounds in postmodern thought, I would also claim that there is much more to be considered in a discussion of the topic. Furthermore, I would contest that the perspective from which postmodern thought addresses issues such as absolutes and plurality is one that is altogether wrong, evil, or even unneeded by the Church today. In fact, there seems to be strong sense in which a better understanding of postmodernity will give a better understanding of a particularly vital aspect of the life of the Church: the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

The term "postmodern" is one that is bantered about quite frequently, but often with seemingly little comprehension of what the term precisely means. While this may be a frustrating tendency, it also seems to speak of the truly ambiguous nature of postmodern thought. It is not something that can be easily defined and, I would argue, not something that should be fundamentally rejected and spoken of as though it were a thought system specifically designed to undermine the foundation of Christian thought. Dr. John R. Franke of Biblical Theological Seminary offers something helpful comments in his article, Reforming Theology:Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics:

"...the wholesale identification of postmodern thought as nothing other than a radical brand of relativism is simply too narrow to do justice to the actual breadth of the phenomenon and fails to account for the many postmodern thinkers who distance themselves from the more radical implications of poststructural and deconstructive thought."

Franke goes on to list many different current Christian thinkers in a variety of fields of study that employ curtain aspects of postmodern thought in their work. Included in this list are such Reformed thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga and William Alston, whose work in the area of Reformed epistemology is deeply critical of modern evidentialism and opens the door to at least some aspects of what would commonly be thought of as postmodern thought.

Upon examination of the term, it is obvious that postmodern thought would be that which follows modernity, or the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Included in modern thought is the Cartesian project to find a fundamental certain knowledge upon which to base all other knowledge. It is this project upon which our societies current glorification of empirical, scientific certainty is based. This is also where much naturalistic, evolutionary thinking finds its roots. It is difficult to see how this type of worldview is able to produce doubt about much knowledge that is fundamental to Christian belief. And even an outright rejection of any knowledge not derived from naturalistic means. This would threaten the idea of revelation or any other supernatural act of God. So, it would appear that this attempt at absolute certainty in all knowledge can make it difficult to retain many of the beliefs we would hold to be fundamentally Christian. Yet, in spite of these obstacles to faith it appears, to me at least, that his is a view taken for granted by most (or at least many) Christians.

As mentioned earlier, postmodern thought by definition follows after modern thought and makes an attempt at correcting it. Postmodernism, as presented by some of its major thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Francois Lyotard, attempts to show the impossibility of the kind of certainty sought by the Cartesian project. It emphasizes the subjectivity of experience and the relative nature of truth as opposed to the objectivity and absolutism sought for during the Enlightenment.

While this is surely an inadequate definition, there is a sense in which a fuller explanation would not be of much use. As a reaction to modernism, postmodernism doesn't lend itself to absolute definitions and inflexible tenets. However, identifying postmodernism as a movement that entirely rejects absolutes and succumbs to complete plurality of truth is not a fair charge to make. While more radical versions may fall not this trap, most serious postmodern thinkers will not reject the absolute truth (realizing that "there is no absolute truth" is clearly a self-refuting statement) but instead focus on the subjective and experiential aspects of truth.

Now, with the preceding discussions in mind there are two traps that could easily be fallen into. First, we could totally reject all forms of thought connected with modern or Enlightenment thought for fear of the naturalistic tendencies that it can manifest. Second, we could write off all postmodern thought because some of it has produced views that reject absolute truth. Either one of these would be a terrible mistake to make. I believe that both thought systems have influenced the Church in strong (though not always easily identifiable) ways. However, while the aspects objective and absolute beliefs as articulated by modernity seem to be embraced with little or no discretion, postmodern tendencies to express subjectivity and unknowability (at least when expressed in the term postmodern) are rejected categorically. Not only is this a mistake, but it is one that I believe will rob the Church of a fuller understanding of an extremely important and often neglected aspect of its life and practice; specifically, the activity of the Holy Spirit.

An objective understanding of doctrine, such as regeneration, propitiation, and above all justification, is not only necessary, it is the foundation of the Church. Without a sure and absolute understanding of man's sinful condition, God's holiness, and Christ's work of reconciliation, the Church would have nothing of substance to offer. However, we must also recognize that we will never be able to absolutize all of the character and work of God in this way. Specifically, there is a strong element of the work of the Holy Spirit that must be a subjective, unexplainable experience. In a spiritual climate where all aspects of the Christian life are often expressed in subjective, experiential terms (despite a seemingly contradictory desire to hang on to thoroughly modern mindset in many other ways) this can be a dangerous proposition. But, if we are to maintain a proper element of the unexplainable and unexpected outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it is a necessary danger. A charismatic understanding of the gifts of prophecy and tongues is not something that can be systematized. Likewise, various outpourings of the Spirit in times of revival, such as the Great Awakening, are aspects of the faith that cannot and should not be denied even if they are not easily categorized. No doubt this is one reason why discussions on the work of the Spirit are so often limited to His role as the seal of salvation and the agent of sanctification. While these are central roles, there certainly seems to be room for a more comprehensive understanding of the Spirit's work if New Testament language on the subject is to be taken seriously.

No doubt, God is absolute truth and there are many things that may be said about Him absolutely. However, given our finite understanding of such an infinite God, surely we can recognize that there will always be an element of His activity, particularly His activity in the person of the Holy Spirit, that will always remain relative to our understanding. As the Spirit manifests himself in a plurality of new and totally unexpected ways, we must remain humble in our understanding of how He will go about His work. We can be assured that He will always work within the framework of clear, Biblical absolutes, but we must also recognize that Scripture allows Him more freedom tha nwe might often wish to. As we seek to more faithfully serve God and to better comprehend His ways, we must realize that He will not be encumbered by thought systems, modern, postmodern, or otherwise. However, if our spirit is humble and we allow Him to speak to us through His Scriptures, we will find a new ability to discern the truth. We will be able to benefit from positive and truthful elements of all philosophies without falling into extremes. Christianity is not modern or postmodern. It is not even premodern. The Spirit will not be confined by these labels. And yet, as our vision is set on Christ, He will be faithful to use the thought behind these labels to give us a better understanding of the work of His Spirit.