Customer Reviews

Next Reformation, The: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I too, like many other reviewers, am an avid reader of postmodern literature. I was looking forward to this book finally being the academic work to convince Evangelicals to Embrace Postmodernism, as subtitle says. Furthermore I was fascinating to see how this member of the academy would substantiate some of the claims and practices of the Emerging Church movement.

Raschke's explanation of the philosophical foundations of western thought and therefore Evangelicalism was insightful. His references to some key philosophers in Europe and America and the relation of their thought to eachother was superb. However, in the end of the day, His argument did not convince that Evangelicals should embrace postmodernism for two primary reasons. First, His reductionsitic outlook of Evangelical Christianity in western culture is an inaccurate portrait of the Evangelical Church. He tends to lump all evenagelicals in the same right wing, condemning, propositional focussd camp. But this is not the case in reality. Second, his attempt to use Luther and the other major Reformers of the Prostestant Reformation does not do justice to the context those reformers were in. As one who has studied Luther extensively, I simply do not see all his points about the Refomers view of Scripture and therefore the conclusions he draws seem to be a stretch. He fails to use the reformers to substantiate his case.

This book is interesting but I encourage you to read it critically, just as Raschke has read modern culture and Evangelicalism.

Carl Raschke's book attempts to accomplish three main purposes. First, he seeks to set the record straight for evangelicals by offering an accurate portrayal of postmodern thinking and countering the misrepresentations of postmodernism he finds in the writings of those critical of the new philosophy.

Raschke argues that postmodernism does not necessarily entail a denial of absolute and objective truth. Rather, postmodern philosophers merely question human ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

What postmodernism denies is the correspondence theory of truth - a view that perceives truth as something "out there." Instead, postmodern thinkers call attention to the "finite boundaries of human knowledge and meaning," a move which sets God free to communicate truth to us in his own way.

At its very core, postmodernism is a theology of language. God's word to us is not logical or propositional. It is vocative. It is the language of relationship. "We are not reading a thing, but a Person."

In focusing upon the revelation of God to human beings in finite language, postmodernism endeavors to "go beyond the identification of God with Being; it has positioned itself to transcend the metaphysical, or rationalist conception of God."

Turning the Tables

Raschke's second purpose in writing The Next Reformation is to turn the tables on the critics who believe postmodern theology is misguided. He seeks to accomplish this task by exposing an "unholy alliance" between evangelical Christianity and Enlightenment thinking that has existed since the seventeenth century.

According to Raschke, evangelicals mistakenly embraced Cartesian rationalism and moved away from the insights of the Reformers, especially sola fide and sola scriptura, and therefore went back toward the kind of rationalism that the Reformers had rightly sought to expunge from Catholic doctrine just one hundred years earlier.

Raschke believes that today's evangelicalism is steeped in modernism, an idolatrous system of thought that puts a premium on the ability of the individual to use reason to discover truth. Therefore, fundamentalism and liberalism wind up being two sides of the same coin. Both movements seek to ground faith in reason, a disastrous idea that "empties faith of its content" and transforms it into moral imperatives and propositions.

Raschke believes the mystery of God cannot be explained in propositional argument and empirical confirmation. "Language from the Creator's vantage point is not propositional at all. It is intersubjective. It is relational!"

Arguing for a personal God, Raschke challenges the "unholy alliance" made with Enlightenment philosophy. "The God of the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational."

One may ask how evangelicalism has been so successful if it has been improperly aligned with modernism. Raschke argues that conservative Christianity has succeeded in America because of its emphasis on preaching and conversion, not on its reasoning from absolute, biblical principles.

Returning to the spirit of the Reformation will lead to an embrace of postmodernism. A new reformation will bring about radical humility in our thought, not just in our lives, which means that metaphysical disputation must give way to the cross, gospel, and grace.

Postmodernism as Opportunity

Raschke's third purpose is to call evangelicals to see the postmodern turn in Western thought as an opportunity for true Christianity to flourish once again.

Embracing postmodernism means we must reject the correspondence theory of truth because "it cannot under any circumstances count on the temporal exactitude of correspondence between an assertion and its verification."

Our attempts to find a firm foundation other than faith are futile. "Theology ends where faith begins." Only faith is prior to presuppositions. To look for ultimate security in anything other than our faith in the Lord (including ontological or scientific foundations) is to pursue an idol.

Raschke calls evangelicals to abandon the idea of Christianity as a philosophy and to embrace its identity as a "relationship" - one that connects us to the everlasting God whose limitlessness exposes more and more our own limitations.

If you are a Christian interested in philosophy (as this reviewer is), and if you have become convinced (as this reviewer has) that 21st century evangelical Christianity is thoroughly Hellenized, then you should find this book interesting.

This is a mostly "academic" work (i.e., it is not "light" reading), but even if you have not read much philosophy you can wade through it if you keep a philosophical dictionary close by.

Strengths:

(1) Raschke has a Ph.D. from Harvard University, and his analysis of the history of Western Philosophy (and its impact upon Christian thought) is very well-argued. This reviewer has been disillusioned with many recent Christian writers who seek to criticize "Postmodernism" without really understanding it (i.e., they have read none of the primary texts - and react with a fundamentalist zeal - full of fire, but without knowledge). This is easily understandable - since reading Jacques Derrida is almost as relaxing as a root canal. But the "Christian bookstore" definition that "postmodernism = relativism," is simply un-scholarly. Raschke has read Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, et. al. (where was Lyotard?), and does not fall into to the "simplification" error of many recent popular Christian writers.

(2) Raschke recognizes that the modernistic quest for "certainty," is a Western idea with philosophical roots in the foundationalist thought of Descarte. For an easier to read analysis of this issue read Lesslie Newbigin's, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship, (this is a great little book, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802808565/sr=1-1/qid=1145588003/ref=sr_1_1/002-4823991-7848833?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books). Raschke pummels this idea relentlessly using Derrida as the hammer (and Derrida is a great hammer!). Christianity is not about "certainty," (the perpetual quest of Western Philosophy), it is much more existential - it's about faith.

Weaknesses:

(1) Raschke disparages "propositional truth." He analyses and quotes the theologian Cornelius Van Til extensively, while neglecting the greater 20th century Philosopher Gordon H. Clark. Raschke scathingly critiques Francis Schaeffer, while embracing the irrationalism of Kierkegaard (Kierkegaard is an interesting writer, but he wasn't a Philosopher - and he never claimed to be - he repeatedly said "I'm a writer"). In this reviewer's opinion, to criticize "propositional truth," is to beat one's head against a stone wall (i.e., it is an unrewarding and painful activity which makes the "criticizer" look foolish). Contrary to some recent hyperbole, propositional truth is not at risk at all - and "propositional truth" is not "hard to understand." Propositional truth will be standing long after its critics have returned to dust and ashes. Not only are propositions NOT hard to understand, the Holy Bible (the Word of God) is written in propositions; predications. When Raschke embraces irrationalism, he slips, he slides - he looses ground (grounding, credibility). Raschke is a very intelligent man, so the reader must understand that this is not accidental - his sustained attack on foundationalism (and his method of attack) traps him in irrationalism.

(2) Raschke embraces Charismatic foolishness. This is the hardest to swallow. In the next to last chapter of the book, this Harvard Ph.D. documents how (emotionally weakened by a failed marriage) he experienced some charismatic phenomena in a Dallas, Texas meeting, and is forevermore changed into what Brian Maclaren calls "a new kind of Christian." For the orthodox thinking Christian who has experienced Christ as the "wisdom of God" - this leap into irrationality/foolishness is astounding. Wake up man - you are better than this!

Conclusion:

This is a very interesting book. It is generally well written, and if I could delete about 20 pages (out of 215) I would give it 5 stars. As it is, I will give it only 3. I can only recommend it for thinking Christians who are attracted to Postmodernism (as this reviwer is). It is educational and well written, and may serve as a warning of the foolishness that can follow when one embraces irrationalism and calls it "Christian."

In this important book Carl Raschke aims to do the following: 1) demonstrate that many of the authors who have been captured under the broad umbrella of postmodernism have all too often been dismissed unfairly and that the church would do well to give them a fair hearing. The most substantive argument in this regard is probably the debate over the correspondence theory of truth; 2) disabuse the church of the merits of the Enlightenment project and of modernism. One of the most important moves here is Raschke's argument that "The God of the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational;" And, 3) to call the church to adopt a primarily relational rather than a logical view of faith, which, If I am understanding Raschke correctly, does not mean "anything goes," but that we must develop a greater appreciation for the limits of rationality and the merits of faith.

On balance, these strike me as credible and important arguments. One reason I say this is because, by demonstrating how Christianity flourished in the US, not because of its pristine logic, but because of an emphasis on affective conversions, i.e., conversion to a relationship rather than to a set of doctrines, Raschke allows us to provide a more coherent view of the recent history of the church.

When we look at some of the more hostile reviews of this book we can get a sense of what Raschke is up against: a group of intelligent, well-meaning people who, nonetheless, seem intent on dismissing anything they perceive as postmodern in a single, potted gesture. The typical move goes something like this: "Postmodernists" like Derrida, Barthes, Lyotard, Kristeva, and _____(fill in the blank because anyone remotely associated with critical theory will usually do) believe authorial intent is a blind alley and that all we have is the text. So there; "postmodernists" must be wrong, and we do not have to engage anything they say at a serious level. It seems to me the problem with such critiques, apart from being alarmingly misinformed, is that by failing to engage serious arguments at a substantive level they run the risk of making Christians look incurious, provincial, and unnecessarily doctrinaire.

The great 20th century rhetorician Kenneth Burke once commented on the striking similarity between Jesus' statements about refraining from judgment and the need for objective distance in academic work. Paul Ricoeur makes a similar point when he stresses that the starting point for any valid critique will nearly always be a disciplined attempt to appraise a text as kerygma (sincere testimony). Put more simply, this means we are obligated to do our best to listen fairly and reflectively before engaging in critique. This does not mean we have to swallow any hoo-ha that comes along. Only that we have an obligation to do our homework and check our own hearts to see how our own sinful impulses and biases may have intervened before we take an ad hominem sledgehammer to the thoughtful work of any scholar, but especially a Christian one. Some will no doubt claim that neither I nor Dr. Raschke have heeded this advice. In my estimation that would be an unfair assessment of Raschke's work, especially when such an argument represents an exclusive line of attack. That being said, at some later date when I have more time, I hope to expand this review since I do have some specific criticisms of his handling of a few specific issues, especially his critique of Francis Schaeffer whose importance, I believe, he underestimates.

Beyond that, I will say only this in my own defense. In recent years it has been my privilege to spend many hours struggling through the works of authors like Derrida, Barthes, Nietzsche, and Foucault... and to spend considerable time as well in discussions about many of the ideas Raschke touches upon in this and others of his works (the nature of rationality, the status of the Enlightenment project, the mediation of language, the impact of globalism, etc.). Quite often these discussions have included friends - Christian and otherwise - who have contrary views. I have found that when people play by the rules and give ideas a fair hearing we often discover common ground in unexpected places... even when we continue to disagree strongly. But when a Christian Pharisee steps in and writes off either the postmodern or the rationalist Samaritans as a hopeless lot, discussions fly apart and people begin to nurse corrosive resentments. I have been the Pharisee more times than I care to admit - once upon a time as a rationalist, and now - on occasion - as someone who has found some Christian solace even in the writings of post-structuralist authors I once condemned. The closest parallel I can think of right now to the sort of appropriation I have in mind here would be Bruce Benson's marvelous book Pious Nietzsche where he uncovers an extraordinary link between Nietzsche and Paul. And before anyone dismisses any such research as a priori heretical, consider that the church has a long history of citing Socrates (a pre-Christian, homosexual philosopher who claimed to receive instruction from a "daemon"-spirit) and Aristotle (another pre-Christian who believed women are biologically inferior.) Finally, if in any of this I sound hypocritical, I must beg early forgiveness while at the same time asking critics to attend faithfully to what authors they deem "postmodern" have to say before tossing them onto the scrap heap and encouraging others to do the same. We do not have to agree with one another, but it seems to me we have an obligation to be fair. If we do not read these authors, our children likely will, and we had best know what we are talking about.

There are really three parts to Raschke's new book. The first is a history of philosophical and religious postmodernism, the second part is a critique of the politicization and legalization of Evangelical Christianity, and the third part is what a Christian faith stripped of our politics and self comforting legalisms (idolatries) might look like. You can read any of the three parts as a self standing work. Anyone curious about what postmodernism is apart from the usual cliches will find the first part very informative. Those who like me, enjoy a little bomb throwing, will enjoy the second part. And those who are actually interested in the nuts and bolts of a postmodern ministry will appreciate the third part. Underlying all of this though, is a truly threatening proposition for the vast majority of Evangelicals who seek salvation through Big Box cathedrals, who feel comfort in the herd mentality of the new political/moral laws, and who prefer to seek salvation through crazy rationalistic formulations of literary theories. Knowledge collapsed into salvation will always be Gnosticsim, as Rashcke says, one of the greatest heresies of all time and one that has overtaken American Evangelicalism. Basically Raschke beckons us to worship God by way the Spirit and not the letter (or knowledge) of the law, for as Paul said, the Spirit gives life but the written code (of reason) kills. But faith alone as Martin Luther said, and Raschke is fond of repeating, makes us uneasy. We need our hard and fast idols. And America (conservative as well as liberal) is all about the idolatry of the written codes, the idols of reason, and salvation through obedience to (many) laws. Evangelicalism is not about the freedom of the New Tesatment writers because Evangeliscals are afraid that freedom leads directly to gay marriages, gun laws and teenage abortions. So once again we have "a fence built around the law" -- the ancient call to protect God from Man by legalisms. "On both the left and right, Protestantism - with its denominational, ministerial, and ecumenical councils, its political action committees, its preoccupation with palaces proffered as church buildings, its elaborate financial schemes and fund-raising...It has buttressed these worldly ambitions with regal rationalism that aggrandizes the institution of the church and its claims at the expense of broken souls crying out for grace and forgiveness." Raschke is pointing us back to the God who cares not about the widow's penny (much less the golden calf of materialism), but about a broken and contrite heart. God cares about our relationship to him above all else. "Proofs, "reasons," and "the rule of law" are not the basis for a relationship. They do not make for "Good News." Jesus broke rules, he didn't make up more rules. And look what happened to him. In one of the greates insights of the book, Raschke points out that Hitler had a lot more in common with Hegel than Nietzsche.
As a friend of mine emailed me after reading this book, echoing my own sentiments, "I no longer feel like I have to write this book, Raschke did it for me."

Finally, an exposition of postmodernity and emergence that connects the present cultural revolution of the West to its historical roots. With a style and level of scholarship not unlike Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue," Raschke presents postmodernity in Western secular and Christian cultures with poise, grace, and thoughtfulness. The work is accompanied by a host of practical conclusions (both direct and implied) for those seeking to understand themselves and world today and respond in an informed manner. For all who have found McLaren difficult to take seriously, Raschke will be a refreshing, deep, and profoundly complex read that simultaneously manages to maintain a humble yet direct tone throughout every chapter.

Reflecting on how things were done in past can be a useful exercise, but as the trite saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Does gaining a more enlightened perspective based on hindsight mean that what was done in the past was all wrong, and somehow we will get it right this time, because we now we know better? Raschke's thesis on the un-holy alliance of Evangelical theology with Cartesian rationalism and British evidentialism seems to suggest that. His arguments defending that assertion provides interesting read, but the subtitle (Why Evangelicals must embrace Postmodernity) is what caught my eye. What I had hoped to gain was a clearly stated, cogent argument, to support that statement. Instead, what the reader gets is Raschke's personal and fascinating journey of a theologian and philosopher who discovers the power of the Holy Spirit as expressed through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Interwoven in this personnel narrative are provocative statements about oppressive Evangelical church counsels imposing things such as inerrancy and fundamental tenants of faith on believers. I found many of Raschke's hindsight statements helpful, as they do provide some explanation for why Evangelicals are the way they are. But the philosopher him in is still tugging at him as evidenced by his attempts to frame Postmodernity as a harmless philosophy, even suggesting that Derrida's theory of language is not so harmful when it comes to Biblical Hermeneutics. His definition of Postmodernity is as vague as readers on the topic have come to expect. That is because, as he says, Postmodernity is simply popular culture. And I thoroughly agree with him that Evangelicals should mix with popular culture in their mission to be a light to the world. If you are a patient and mature reader, Raschke provides many good insights that make the book worth reading.

Raschke is undertaking a monumental task. He is attempting to critique the Evangelicals for theological errors arising from their adoption of modern, reson based theology, which reduces faith to something common. And while critique we must, we should also define who they are and what they believe. Raschke never did. So I remain puzzled as to whom and what he critiques. Does he have a problem with Evangelical greats like Charles Spurgeon or with more recent ones like Billy Graham?

Worse, Raschke falsely equats Evangelicals with Catholics when he says that Christianity for Evangelicals is more about morals than about relational love to God. How can Evangelical Christianity be about morals when Evangelicals along with all other denominations had rejected the Ten Commandments.

Evangelicals like any other denomination sure have their problems. One could accuse them of many things: unconditional support for Israel despite continued aggression; excessive involvement with politics (Roe vs. Wade), etc... I would have liked to see how Evangelical theology results in their actions: how their faith shows in their works...?

I enjoyed the book because it gave a comprehensive account of Western philosophy from Aristotle to Kierkegaard and Derrida. But in this post-modern age Mr. Raschke's, convoluted exegesis of their writings, ought to have been replaced by a more accessible idiom. C.S. Luis wrote about ethereal and spiritual notions but he used clear and accessible language.

Raschke's discussion in favor of the "infallibility" of scripture vice "inerrancy" confused me. I was hoping for an example. Perhaps Raschke could have given the example of Matthew 2:15, where Matthew states that scripture was "fulfilled" when God called Jesus out of Egypt. According to inerrancy theory Hosea had Jesus specifically in mind. According to infallibility theory Matthew simply found Hosea's words applicable to Matthew's time.

Perhaps Raschke is a great theologian but he does not know his bible. In Chapter 6, he is talking about the "Priesthood of all Worshippers". To justify his opinion he uses secondary sources instead of going straight to Ex 19:5 and I Pet 2:9. Since all believers are priests unto God, Catholic notion of priests and mediators must be rejected.

I also enjoyed the book because it brought me back to fundamental Christian faith in which God is not an object of philosophical study but a person who seeks a relationship with his creation, or better yet - God seeks a relationship with me and I must respond. Thank you Mr. Raschke!

After reading this book, I am now better prepared to show off my ecumenical erudition to my less enlightened friends... I can say to them that the difference between modernism and post-modernism is that modernism is about reason and post-modernism is about the limitation of it. The modernist would have you believe that God can be studied and understood, while the post-modernist would be more cautious as to our ability to do that.

After all, how can we study God when we failed to study monkeys, until we went in their midst? And like Woody Allan once commented (in paraphrase), "If there is an exclusive club that would accept me, I don't want to be its member". If God can be understood by reason he is not worthy of my worship. My God is bigger than anything I can imagine, for if HE can be imagined then he is a small God.

Raschke drives home the relational God we must uncover from the "... Egypt of metaphysics and Babylon of modernism..." (Pg 215). But Raschke did not elucidate specific failures of Evangelicals whom he set out to critique.

He could have mentioned false doctrines prevalent among Evangelicals, which ultimately make them unworthy to be called Christians. These doctrines are: Immortality of the Soul, Iternally burning hell, Seven years of tribulation, Jewish remnant, Rejection of the Ten Commandments and more.

These false doctrines come form rejecting the Ten Commandments and specifically the Saturday Sabbath. And no amount of Pentecostal emotionalism or post-modern adjustments to modern rationality, would suffice to acknowledge the relational God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus... For further reading I recommend The Glory of Joshua.

No doubt, over the next half century there will be no shortage of ink spilled in reconciling postmodern philosophy with modern theology and religion. Raschke's book is an excellent starting place for anyone looking to get in on this conversation.

Raschke writes assuming that the reader will have little or no experience with postmodern philosophy, or philosophy at all. While the issues and ideas might not be easily picked up by the philosophy beginner, they will at least be covered. As my undergrad philosophy professor used to say, "Clear as mud, but it covers the ground."

Those more advanced in philosophical thought will probably find this to be the book's biggest fault as well. Philosophical conversations that took thousands of pages and hundreds of years to come by are covered in a page or two.

I give this book three stars because it does not do a great job of bridging the gap that I mentioned above. The beginner will probably be too confused by Raschke's somewhat convoluted academic style of writing. The more experienced philosopher will gain some interesting ideas to think about in terms of postmodernism's value in theology. Personally, I was somewhat amused that a Derrida scholar could also be a big fan of German Reformation thought and Pentecostal emotionalism. I could probably bump this review up a star for that fact alone.

"The Next Reformation" is not armchair theology/philosophy, though it is among Dr. Carl Raschke's more accessible texts. Carl is a world-class professional postmodern philosopher who happens to love God and the church; he has done today's North American church a great service in writing.

Could it be that history will reveal Derrida and the postmodernists as providing a service not unlike the service provided by Luther and the protestant reformers? I think Raschke would answer, "Damn right!"

Carl evangelizes evangelicals with God's invitation to faith/relationship offered through the prophets of postmodernity. I was almost expecting an altar-call, inviting evangelical Christians to personally accept and live into an existential conversion to a life of faith transcending objective truth, inerrancy, and worldviews. I highly recommend this text.