How We Know What We Know
Nobody knew the speakers at the district leadership retreat in October 2021. The District Superintendent who invited them had since moved on. The assembled group expected equipping for evangelism from a former pro sports athlete, but at the opening session, his wife spoke. Her topic was postmodernism and its impact on the church. Her remarks were received as decidedly political by our diverse group of Oregonians. It was the fall of 2021, and many of our churches had been gutted by the divisive politics following the nation’s Covid response. Lucky me, I was elected to have a little chat with our guests about the mood in the room and ask for a new direction.
Underneath the dear lady’s diatribe was concern for how we know what we know. She elevated the Bible as God’s Word and the source of truth. Since everyone at the retreat agreed on that point, why did her talk stir up such divergent reactions? It seems to be a matter of degree. If Stephen Hicks, author of Explaining Postmodernism, had been in the room, he might have applauded the woman’s talk for denouncing postmodernism.
In the same way I found the lady slightly offensive, I detected a ‘tone’ in the author’s writing that was a bit too righteous sounding and offputting for me. Nonetheless, I appreciated leaning deeper into understanding postmodernism philosophy and its origins. How we define how we know what we know matters deeply and impacts all areas of life.
Hicks laid out the history and development of postmodernism with the thesis: “The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary.”[1] This blog will focus on the historical shift in knowledge theory referenced in the first half of the thesis and how the shift is experienced differently depending on context.
In brief, the basis of knowledge in the West transferred away from mysticism and faith of premodernism and the medieval period to reason, science, and experience. The Renaissance ushered in the age of Enlightenment and Modernism.[2] As Hicks continued to unfold new directions in epistemology leading to postmodern ways of knowing, 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant stands out at the tipping point. “Contrary to the Enlightenment account of reason, Kant held that the mind … and not reality—sets the terms for knowledge… reality conforms to reason, not vice versa. In the history of philosophy, Kant marks a fundamental shift from objectivity as the standard to subjectivity as the standard”.[3] Hicks charts this basis of knowing as social subjectivism.[4] In postmodern thinking how we know what we know has become based on social constructions formed by identity groups, usually based on race, sexuality, and/or class. By “placing of feeling at the root of all value issues,” both knowledge and values become relative to one’s standpoint.[5] Returning to the retreat speaker, from a Christian worldview that incorporates faith, reason, and experience as the foundation for knowing truth, she was rightly challenging the issue of relative truth. Again, the question: Why did I and some others feel she had gone too far?
At the time of the retreat debacle, I was midway through a Master of Divinity at our beloved Portland Seminary. I had been exposed to postmodern literary criticism of the Bible and was learning about intersectionality. My experience was positive. It was an illuminating and helpful counter to my previously conservative (old white German scholars) biblical education. The application of postmodern thought to biblical exegesis was teaching me to the question the text in ways that helped my preaching and teaching become more effective for diverse audiences. Hicks presents another side of how postmodernism is applied in education.
Hicks asserts that postmodern philosophy rejects the purpose of education as training in one’s capacity for reason to become a functioning and independent adult. Instead, education should “take an essentially indeterminate being and give it a social identity.”[6] This is undertaken by rejecting traditional literature and the values exposed within and replacing it with voices from the edge. The author suggests that deconstruction in institutions of higher learning is an intentional strategy employed by educators to remove the obstacles of student’s previous worldview. By making truth relative and dependent on one’s point of view, long-held truths can be erased.
Reflecting on my MDiv experience, I did not feel manipulated or intentionally brainwashed, but I did feel like a better pastor. Although I did not experience the author’s assertions about education, my daughters in public university were both experiencing the purging of all that was previously good and right, followed by a force-feeding of postmodern priorities, including far-left ideologies.
It feels ironic that the philosophy that has rejected absolute truth in favor of subjective relativism has grabbed hold of the public mind and created its own structure of truth, which is not subjective! The consequences of disagreeing with entrenched postmodernists, many of whom have no idea the roots from which their thoughts sprout, is cancellation: on social media, friendship, or loss of position. I have witnessed all these and more occur in the lives of people I know.
Understanding the dynamics shaping different fields of study broadly and bringing it all under the headship of Christ to become theologically relevant is helpful. Ultimately, dismissal accompanied by a strident platform pushes people further to the edge as they dig into entrenched perspectives. My simple perspective is that any philosophy or ideology carried to its extreme becomes harmful and tends to promote the very thing it stands against.[7]
[1] Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition), (Ockham’s Razor, 2014), 4.
[2] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 17.
[3] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 51.
[4] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 17.
[5] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 95.
[6] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 27.
[7] The arguments of Coleman Hughes in The End of Race Politics highlight neoracism against whites as a response to the ongoing reality of racism against people of color in the United States.
About the Author
Julie O'Hara
10 responses to “How We Know What We Know”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Rev. Julie,
Thanks for your perspective and thoughts here. I forgot that you got your MDiv through Portland as well. You mentioned that learning about postmodernism and intersectionality helped your preaching. Can you expand on this a bit more? What might be one example of how you became a better pastor?
Hi Adam,
I answered Daren in a similar way below. If I try to bring a postcolonial or immigrant or trauma-informed type of lens to the text people can see familiar passages in new ways that challenge them. Suddenly, someone might connect with the Holy Spirit and discover a new heart place to yield.
HI Julie, I like your perspective on this. Thank you. Your comment that it is ironic that the philosophy that rejects absolute truth has made its own consept an absolute. Most often, I relate to the world from the middle, I hear you saying that any extreme can cause problems. I am glad your interaction with the speaker was positive. Have you since had other situations where you see something(s) presented from just one side that would be better served if it was more balanced? And if so, were you in a position to grapple with it with the presenter?
Hi Diane, I can’t think of a good example except family dinner table stuff which I mention frequently. Recently I have noticed that gentle questioning is beginning to pay off and generating more nuanced conversation.
Hey Julie! Now you know I was replying to this post. I am so grateful for the MDIV experience and agree with your sentiments. Some of our greatest learning came as a result of deconstruction. Can you share one of your biggest takeaways on postmodernism and intersectionality, if you remember?
Hi Daren, So most of my books are packed until our house is ready and I’m traveling and only have my work computer with me…But an example would be reading Ruth and thinking of it from the perspective if I were I migrant, or how powerless Bathsheba might have felt when the king called for her, those kinds of things. It is easy to diminish the profound love of God for all people by overfocus on Boaz the savior figure or David who should have been at war. These are simple examples, but they are completely second nature now. I had only been ordained two years when we started that program. I think standpoint matters reading the Bible, not because the truth is relative, but because there is a lot of truth that can be missed from only one perspective into the text.
I posted a bit of a reflection in this vein over on Christy’s post.
I think the place for hearing the critiques from post-modernism give us an opportunity to enter dialogue with key questions that invite reflection – taking a coaching approach, and de-escalating by opening up the conversation.
Good post. Thanks.
Thank you, Julie, for your post. You mentioned that postmodernism helped your teaching and preaching, could you say something more about it? Thank you, Julie.
Hi Noel,
Thanks for your question, I refer to my answer to Daren above. Also, I feel more confident. I used to think I had to find “the” answer in the text, but now I approach it in a much more living way. Still the truth, but also it is speaking into many different situations.
Thanks for your excellent article Julie, and sharing how the speaker’s words struck you, as well as others in the audience. I’m delinquent, so you don’t have to answer, but I’m wondering what specific factors may have contributed to the different reactions among attendees.