Customer Reviews

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I am not a theologian but rather a scholar in philosophy of education. Like much of the Christian church, institutional education is deeply connected to modern epistemology. A few educational scholars have attempted to challenge the modern educational hegemony and have received some attention in the academy; nonetheless, outside of some influence on curriculum, postmodern thinking has yet to have much influence on educational practice (the systemic provision of pre-determined knowledge). In most cases, postmodern educational scholarship is simply dismissed through some version of what I call the "negative social consequences argument." That is, critics of postmodernism claim it should be resisted because the concurrent nihilism and relativism will result in social harm. James K. A. Smith's book clearly and effectively turns this argument on its head. In other words, Smith in a way that is lucid and concise, effectively argues and illustrates how modernism leads to negative social consequences. Smith builds this argument on one of the easiest to understand explanations of postmodernism I have read. Smith uses film as a medium to illustrate the meaning of postmodern thinking. More importantly, however, Smith articulates the empowering elements of postmodernism. Above all other aspects, the truly remarkable gift of postmodernism is that it is regenerative and re-creative. Freed from the chains of any false appeal to objective knowledge, human societies are liberated to become creative and more truly human. Thank you James Smith for this work--I could not put it down!

"There is nothing outside the text."
Derrida the prophet whose view of language and meaning as an endless vortex of interpretation brings hope that the Church can challenge existing interpretations which pretend to be absolutes. I confess some surprise that Derrida's thoughts here could be encapsulated in, "There is no meaning outside context" and whilst I think James KA Smith's chapter is still a must-read for Christians who think Derrida is the Devil Incarnate, I'm somewhat wary about whether Smith has done justice to Derrida's thoughts. If indeed "everything is just interpretation" is the key that unlocks Derrida then how come it wasn't used by writers like Thiselton, Grenz, Veith Jr., Megill, etc.

"Postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives."
Lyotard's grenade thrown into the heart of autonomous universal reason as some God's-Eye view, counsels us to spend less time seeking to produce apologetical evidence and maybe devote more time to simply sharing the story of Christ and showing how this story trumps the Enlightenment one (or any other). Once again, I was surprised at Smith's contention that Christianity is not a metanarrative - I always thought it was, but given its nature of suffering and self-giving (as per the replication of Calvary I believe Jesus demands of us all), I always felt that this sets the faith apart from other metanarratives.

But I calmed down after reading his/Lyotard's definition of metanarrative as any grand story that legitimizes itself by an appeal to universal reason i.e. a worldview beyond a community, beyond an internal narrative. This made me reflect on the many instances where I and others have justified/explained the faith by exploiting reason, 'natural law', always seeking the base arguments which my challengers or listeners cannot deny. I think about the numerous times I tried to legitimate the Person and work of Christ without acknowledging the community He came to create. Maybe I should be careful about bringing people into a historical community as opposed to converting a person to some abstract disembodied idea.

This doesn't, however, mean that I'm all the way with Smith in his call for a presuppositionalist-ish kind of apologetic which virtually eschews all 'common ground' between believer and non-believer, and seemingly devaluing external evidences for the faith. And whilst Smith's rejection of anything resembling a correlationalist model (whereby theology leans on a secular discipline of intellectual support, so to speak) is worth pondering over, one can't help but wonder if Smith has sufficiently deconstructed the distinction between sacred and secular, between theology and everything else.

"Power is knowledge."
Foucault's insight that society cannot run away from power and domination spurs the Christian to ask the nature of power he/she chooses to submit to. This trains fresh light on spiritual disciplines and the church's institutional power as a means of conformity to Christ, not at all a bad thing.

Foucault/Smith reminds us of the character-forming elements inherent in our media-soaked culture, the goals of the social disciplinary process and extols the recovery of spiritual disciplines and counter-formational action as a revival of serious discipleship. That Foucault - a sexually promiscuous gay atheist - can be used as a reminder that discipleship is about 'living in a certain way' and not just 'thinking a certain way' strikes me as absolutely wicked. The fact that Smith foot-noted Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline augments the value of the book, IMO (smile).

The analysis of the postmodern Unholy Trinity above is followed by a brief introduction and application of Radical Orthodoxy which I read to be more or less a (re)emphasis and (re)turn to:

- presuppositionalist apologetics and reviving theology as a metadiscourse independent of non-theological language games
- remembering and living a "healthy catholicity", reclaiming a catholic faith, understood as the Christian community affirmatively (and peculiarly) "standing out" over against secular ones
- liturgical, sacramental and aesthetically oriented worship, as an incarnational response/approach towards sanctifying time and space and body (there's a wonderful sampling of how radically orthodox worship would look like in the final three pages of the book; I think the idea of having shifting glass-digital images as a physical backdrop to worship is far-out awesome)

So Who's Afraid of PostModernism? Nobody who's read his pomo writers in-depth with a charitable and creative heart, seeking to go beyond the "bumper-sticker" view of thinkers like Derrida et al, offering options for the helpful and edifying use of pomo in church, theology and personal spirituality. Smith's book embodies this approach/attitude and even though Radical Orthodoxy raises questions (I know I have a few), I'm grateful for his work and certainly look forward to reading more.

At least that is the sense I get from Smith's tone in this book. "Settle down, it's not the end of the world, we can work with this post-modern stuff".

I am not a Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault scholar and I cannot comment on how accurately Smith represents their writings. He does footnote his quotes and he is pretty liberal with them, so I tend to trust his understanding.

Smith essentially says this: What Derrida and company actually say is not how they are usually represented. That's a phenomenon with which I am acquainted in others and so I am open to the idea. He then goes on to say that Derrida and Lyotard essentially reduce down, in a Christian form, to that which pre-suppositionalists like Van Til and Schaeffer have said for years. In other words, their critique of "modernism" is in fact just a more abstract and foundational form of these earlier theologians. I am open to that also.

Smith then turns to Foucault and finds in him a valuable ally in understanding how the Christian community can resist the power structures which pervasive modernism has "disciplined" the general population. By exposing and rejecting these structures, Smith turns Foucault on his head by saying that Christians should not reject the idea of power structures but rather the end or telos toward which modernism's structures are pointed. Christians should, with understanding, institute their own community, with its own power structures, to the end of realigning itself with the general intent of the early/post-Apostolic Christian Church.

In short, Smith advocates a Radical Orthodoxy that appropriates the post-Modern critique but does not fall into the cynical despair that is underneath much of the Emerging Church movement. It is an interesting proposition.

I give it four stars instead of five because Smith's writing skills are a bit lacking. He suffers a bit in clarity of expression and does not clearly indicate where he is headed in some of his development. As a contribution to the discussion though, this book is well worth the time and effort it takes to understand it.

Smith does a great job of incorporating the philosophies of French postmodernists into the reality of the challenges the institutional church faces in a postmodern culture. A great read, very informative.

The 600 lb gorrila to watch out for in that Mega-Chruch isn't postmodernism: it's name is modernity and has been getting away with robbing churches since Descartes in the 17th century - if we are to believe James K. A. Smith's premise, that is. And it's pretty convincing. The hidden subject in the book that one does not discern in the title is that sinister realtionship between modernism and the evangelical church.
This book is must reading for anyone interested in or connected to the Christian faith, especially Church leaders. Smtih makes a very complex subject understandable, and makes the reader feel deeply challenged.
It would be good for him to clarify his meaning of postmodernism as an "ally" of the Christian faith; and he should expand on meaning of "catholic" as contrasted with "Roman Catholic."
But in all an excellent book. Makes me want to pray for my church family, and assist in a call to repentance - a call not to the world, but to the church of which I am a part. In fact, think I will right now.

Smith's reading of Derrida in the second chapter starts this book off on a high note. Subsequent chapters on the lesser known Lyotard and the intellectually elusive Foucault, however, don't quiet live up to his early standard, and Smith's own constructive proposal for the church in the final chapter is a bit heavy-handed.

All things considered, this text is more about radical orthodoxy than postmodernity. It's postmodern critical Augustinianism--with the emphasis on Augustine.

Smith's done a good job of packaging his work as philosophy, but it's simply not. It is a refreshing take on theology, but it can't go toe-to-toe with the names with which it wrestles. If you want philosophy, read Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault. If you're just looking for a rebuttal to Aquinas' natural law theory, read Smith.

Until recently the best introduction to postmodern thought from an accessible theological perspective was the late great Stan Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism; for someone absolutely new to the humanities then this would still probably edge out other contenders. However, James K A Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? is a significant running mate and, from a theoretical perspective it is the best introduction to postmodernism as it relates to the church that I have come across.

In the opening chapter (Is the Devil from Paris?) Smith situates his project within the intellectual legacy of Francis Schaeffer. I confess that this reference to the positive legacy of Schaeffer took me a little by surprise; I have not read him in great deal (I seem to remember reading Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture about 10-15 years ago but that is about it) and the first thought I have when I hear the name Francis Schaeffer is in terms of his influence on the forthrightness of the Christian Right, not a link that particularly comes off too well on Schaeffer! Smith however makes the claim that this volume could be seen as a sequel of sorts to Schaeffer's own writing on humanism and existentialism (p. 20-21). Smith makes clear that he and Schaeffer do not agree on many issues but where he considers Schaeffer to be significant was in his strategy of engaging philosophical currents at their highest level not as an academic exercise but because in doing so one understands better the world around us or, as Smith puts it, cultural phenomena are "symptoms of philosophical shifts, not vice versa" (p. 20).

In following this idea Smith unpacks the thought of an unholy trinity of what have been called postmodern thinkers: Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault and considers what relevance their thought has on ecclesial practice. In particular Smith offers a contextualisation of "bumper-sticker" postmodernity by putting the three key phrases of the three philosophers into their literary and philosophical context. These are:

* "There is nothing outside the text" (Derrida)
* Postmodernity is "incredulity toward metanarratives" (Lyotard)
* "Power is knowledge" (Foucault)

In making this book a book for the non-philosopher and non-specialist Smith begins each chapter with a sustained discussion from cinema (such as The Matrix, Whale Rider, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Next and - this is for real - The Little Mermaid!). If all this appears really quite lame (and if someone were to tell me the same, I would think it was) it surprisingly isn't. Each chapter is in fact both an excellent introduction to the philosopher in question and in the `taking said philosopher to church' section Smith does do a good job of highlighting ways in which their philosophy could be relevant to contemporary church, especially the emergent church which features regularly.

In the final chapter Smith moves on from specific interaction with the various philosophers to sketch a "Radical Orthodox" vision of a sacramental church, tied both to tradition as a creative source of vision and similarly tied to a specific place. Without doubt there is much to be gained from this final chapter but I will admit to being unconvinced. This does not take away the fact that for a new student to postmodernism or the general interested reader Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? is an excellent introduction that I would imagine is (and, if not, should be) on many an undergraduate reading list.

In Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture) James K.A. Smith engages his reader with humor and wonderful accessibility purposing to clearly differentiate between the popular, or what he calls "bumper sticker" understanding of Postmodernism and a more whole, more accurate, scholarly understanding -- as well as purposing to narrow the gap between the two! Smith helps his reader get a handle on the gist of Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault's commentaries of Postmodernism, and provides his thoughts on both the benefits of each philosopher's criticism of Modernism as well as Smith's own criticism of what he perceives to be the errors of Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault's proposals.

If all this were not excitingly useful enough, the best part of the book comes as Smith proceeds to do exactly as he says he will do in his clever subtitle: he takes Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, a thing which many are afraid to do. Smith grabs hold of the positive criticisms each philosopher gives and applies them to the Modern Church in hopes of holding out a vision for the Church in which she might break free of the glittery trappings of Modernism and bravely step forward into a truly post-modern existence.

This book is helpful and thought-provoking while also relatively easy to read, even if you're the type who usually avoids philosophy because you don't think you can understand it. For these reasons, I recommend Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church (The Church and Postmodern Culture)

It is a nice introduction into the postmodern philosophy, I'd say "Lower Intermediate." It has lost of references to the American movies, the structure of the book is practically based on them, so you'd better have an idea of what these movies are about before trying to understand the author. I was thinking to build my lectures on it, however, it has too many American-culture-only references which are hard to explain to non-Americans. Also, the author makes a nice reverence to Catholics, especially to George Wiegel. Generally I liked it.

James K.A. Smith is a Christian philosopher who came to Christ through the ministry of the Plymouth Brethrens before having a long "sojourn in the Assemblies of God." He is now a Professor of Philosophy and Congregational/Ministry Studies at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Smith was influenced by the writings of Francis Schaeffer - to the point that he considers this book a "sequel to Shaeffer's own engagements with humanism and existentialism" (:21). It is also worth noting that the core of the book was formed out of a series of lectures given at Schaeffer's study center, L'Abri Fellowship, in Switzerland (:12). In regards to the emerging church movement, Smith has been both a critic and a friend, arguing that the emerging church is not postmodern enough. At his core, Smith is a proponent of Radical Orthodoxy, a "sensibility that seeks to articulate a robust confessional theology in postmodernity" (117).

The thesis of Smith's book is that the French postmodern philosophy promoted by Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault has a "deep affinity with central Christian claims" (:22) that can help Christians "recapture some truths about the nature of the church that have been overshadowed by modernity and especially by Christian appropriations of modernism" (:23).

Smith starts the book off with an introduction of both himself and the three French philosophers listed above (1). From there, Smith separates each of the philosophers into their own chapter (2-4), allowing him to "demythologize" (:22) their claims before showing how the claims can used to further the Kingdom of God. Chapter five wraps up the discussion with practical examples of how postmodern philosophy can bring new life to the local church body.