The Pendulum Keeps Swinging
I have a bittersweet relationship with philosophy. I think it is incredibly useful to not only examine knowledge, but it exposes the invisible assumptions we have when making claims about truth and points out the tinted glasses sitting on our noses when interpreting data and our experiences. Nancey Murphy, a philosopher from Fuller Theological Seminary explains this well in her book, Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism.[i] My personal philosophy on…. well… philosophy is “A little dab’ll do ya”. Something my Southern-raised grandfather would say from time to time about the amount of butter he wanted on his cornbread.
Like others I’ve spoken with over the years, I can find myself in the weeds with philosophical arguments and concepts about epistemology, phenomenology, teleology, ontology, and all the other “ologies”. To be very clear, I also see incredible benefit in thinking deeper about life and critically examining the ground we stand on when making truth claims which is what I think is at stake in Stephen R.C. Hicks’s book, Explaining Postmodernism.[ii] I will not pretend to fully understand everything within this book, but it does not seem to be Hicks purely explaining Postmodernism but rather sounding an alarm of caution and critique of it. At moments I picked up the same type of underlying tone of superiority, especially during his segment on “Nietzschean ressentiment”,[iii] that I did in Matthew Petrusek’s book, Evangelization and Ideology.[iv] The sense I get from Stephen’s overview of postmodernism is that it puts something that he sees as precious, like human reason and objective truth developed during the Enlightenment period, at serious risk. He is not a fan.
However, with most major movements, including the Enlightenment, the pendulum usually swings too far for some and what would be healthy in moderation becomes poison in excess. Extremism, or far Left thinking, is what Hicks and many others throughout our readings this semester are resisting, which is what many, especially religious groups, resisted during the modern period. Their world was fundamentally shifting under their feet and it was scary. The Enlightenment, with the rise of higher criticism and the scientific method, allowed the Western world, many of which were Judeo-Christian, to better understand its tradition/Scripture along with the universe and human nature at large producing:
Newtonian Physics
Advances in medicine and technology
Darwinism and The Theory of Evolution
Liberal Democracy
Biblical Higher Criticism[v]
As Hicks points out, the Enlightenment period caused a shift away from superstition and supernaturalism found in religious and traditional worldviews to “objective” reason and naturalism grounded in the scientific method and logic. It seemed that the West was figuring out the universe, society, and humanity so there was no need for mythological or supernatural explanations for creation and human nature. For some, this approach led to a complete rejection of the faith which is why many Christians today feel as much animosity for the Enlightenment period as Hicks feels for Postmodernism.
Some Enlightenment ideas include:
-Creation and humanity are the result of evolution and natural processes
-The Bible contains contradictions, theological developments, and inaccuracies
-Several of the books attributed to important biblical figures were likely compiled over several centuries by different sources
-Stories that were assumed as history are likely myths or legends
-The depiction we get of biblical figures or historical events is not accurate even if they happened at all.
We can see why many on one side left the faith and why religious leaders on the other side intensely opposed these unorthodox ideas. The overreaction to these concepts on both sides was either a total rejection of the emerging evidence for these proposals or a disassociation with anything considered supernatural or religious assuming it to be unreasonable and illogical. However, as fields of biblical stu
dies, archeology, philosophy, quantum physics, and perceptual studies advance many of these naturalistic assumptions, but certainly not all, are found wanting. During the modern period, some of what was discovered about religion and tradition has proven to be valid, and is now widely taught in seminaries, which touches on my NPO, and some of it has proven to be faulty and biased. I would assume the same is true for the current period of postmodernism. The pendulum keeps swinging.
I say all this to better understand and process Stephen Hicks’ reaction to postmodernism. Something precious is being lost for him (reason, objectivity, and even identity?), just as something precious was being lost for many traditional/religious thinkers during the Enlightenment period, but it does not mean there was no value or valid discoveries during this period. I have to acknowledge, as Hicks does, the issues that arise when everything becomes subjective and there is no ground to stand on when making arguments or constructing reality. Hicks does point out some hypocritical logic when he says, “On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.”[vi] There is no way around standing on some kind of assumption when we open our mouths and make an argument. With this, I agree, but we need to be painfully aware of our assumptions, which is the beauty of philosophy and critical thinking.
I believe the value of postmodernism philosophy, which is broader than Hicks makes it seem, is that it exposes more of the lenses we wear, be it gender, class, social, or race, while viewing and attempting to interpret reality, past and present. As I stated in my last post, the issue is overidentifying ourselves and others with these identity categories creating division and intolerance in the name of diversity and tolerance. However, these aspects create invisible biases distorting our sense of “objectivity”. Hans-Georg Gadamer, not necessarily a post-modern thinker, but close, in his book Truth and Method, discusses the dynamics of interpretation which I think applies to this discussion.[vii] He argues that the moment we interpret, especially things from the past but applicable to the present, we are creating something wholly new since we bring our modern biases, experiences, assumptions, and culture to the table. If Hicks can turn Nietzsche on post-moderns I am going to attempt to turn postmodernism on Hicks. This may be “meta”, and is certainly post-modern, but I’ll pose the question:
Is part, not all, of Hicks’ reaction to postmodernism the result of him feeling the loss of something precious that is specific to his class, race, gender, and social worldview?
[i] Murphy, Nancey C. Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. The Rockwell Lecture Series. Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International, 1996.
[ii] Hicks, Stephen Ronald Craig. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Expanded edition. Redland Bay, QLD: Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd, 2019.
[iii] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 192.
[iv] [iv] Petrusek, Matthew R. Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. Park Ridge, IL: published by the Word on Fire Institute, an imprint of Word on Fire, 2023.
[v] McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 4th ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2007.
[vi] Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism, 184.
[vii] Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Joel Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall. Truth and Method. First paperback edition.translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. The Bloomsbury Revelations Series. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
About the Author
Adam Harris
I am currently the Associate Pastor at a church called Godwhy in Hendersonville, TN near Nashville. We love questions and love people even more. Our faith community embraces God and education wholeheartedly. I graduated from Oral Roberts University for undergrad and Vanderbilt for my masters. I teach historical critical Biblical studies at my church to help our community through their questions and ultimately deepen their faith. I love research, writing, learning, and teaching. I oversee our staff and leadership development. Before being at Godwhy I worked as a regional sales coach and director for Anytime Fitness. I've been married for over 13 years to my best friend and we have two amazing boys that keep us busy.3 responses to “The Pendulum Keeps Swinging”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Adam, you say in your post what I was trying to say, but much better. 🙂 I do think Hicks is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and
You ask the question: “Is part, not all, of Hicks’ reaction to postmodernism the result of him feeling the loss of something precious that is specific to his class, race, gender, and social worldview?” Possibly? Probably? I don’t know if we can authoritatively answer that.
I could imagine that his sense of loss is a reason, but it’s also possible that he simply has a strong philosophical foundational argument with postmodernity, that while I think is extreme and ultimately unhelpful, might just be is particular epistemology and ontology.
Ha, thanks, I don’t know about all that, but much appreciated. A lot to wrap the mind around this week. While looking through reviews some folks said he has the tendency to oversimplify or overgeneralize postmodernism, but I really don’t have enough understanding of the subject to critique him too much. More stuff to learn as usual! Thanks for the response!
I think we are allergic to change. Perhaps we as humans are so desperate for stability that we fight anything that threatens the ground we stand on? I think this is why churches eventually die, because the older generation want to bring in the younger generation or bring them back to the church, but want it to look the same it always has? In my experience every time a new person walks into the churches door, the DNA changes. We cling to what we know?