A Primer on Postmodernism

by Stanley J. Grenz

From the academy to pop culture, our society is in the throes of change rivaling the birth of modernity out of the decay of the Middle Ages. We are now moving from the modern to the postmodern era.

But what is postmodernism? How did it arise? What characterizes the postmodern ethos? What is the postmodern mind and how does it differ from the modern mind? Who are its leading advocates? Most important of all, what challenges does this cultural shift present to the church, which must proclaim the gospel to the emerging postmodern generation?

Stanley Grenz here charts the postmodern landscape. He shows the threads that link art and architecture, philosophy and fiction, literary theory and television. He shows how the postmodern phenomenon has actually been in the making for a century and then introduces readers to the gurus of the postmodern mind-set. What he offers here is truly an indispensable guide for understanding today's culture.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Nonfiction, Religion, Christianity, History, Cultural

204 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 1996

About the author

Stanley James Grenz was born in Alpena, Michigan on January 7, 1950. He was the youngest of three children born to Richard and Clara Grenz, a brother to Lyle and Jan. His dad was a Baptist pastor for 30 years before he passed away in 1971. Growing up as a “pastor’s kid” meant that he moved several times in his life, from Michigan, to South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Colorado.

After high school Stan began his undergraduate studies in 1968 with the idea that he would become a nuclear physicist. But God had other plans for him, and in 1971, while driving home to Colorado after a visit with his parents in Oklahoma, he received a definite call into full time Christian ministry.

In 1970-1971 Stan traveled in an evangelistic youth team where he met Edna Sturhahn (from Vancouver, BC), who then became his wife in December, 1971. Both Stan and Edna completed their undergraduate degrees at the University of Colorado and Stan went on to receive his M. Div from Denver Seminary in 1976, the same year in which he was ordained into the gospel ministry. During the years of study in Colorado he served as a youth pastor and an assistant pastor. From Denver, Stan and Edna moved to Munich, Germany where Stan completed his Doctor of Theology under the mentorship of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Their son, Joel was born in Munich in 1978.

During a two-year pastorate (1979-1981) in Winnipeg, MB, where daughter Corina was born, Stan also taught courses at the University of Winnipeg and at Winnipeg Theological Seminary (now Providence Seminary). His full time teaching career began at the North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls, SD (1981-1990). Those years were followed by a twelve-year (1990-2002) position as Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics at Carey Theological College and at Regent College in Vancouver, BC. From 1996 to 1999 he carried an additional appointment as Professor of Theology and Ethics (Affiliate) at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard IL. After a one-year sojourn as Distinguished Professor of Theology at Baylor University and Truett Seminary in Waco, TX (2002-2003), he returned to Carey in August 2003. In fall 2004, he assumed an additional appointment as Professor of Theological Studies at Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle WA.

Stan has authored or co-authored twenty-five books, served as editor or co-editor for two Festschriften, contributed articles to more than two dozen other volumes, and has seen to print more than a hundred essays and an additional eighty book reviews. He had plans to write many more books. Two more of his books will appear in print within the next year.

In addition to writing and lecturing all around the world, Stan loved preaching. He admitted to “breaking into preaching” in some of his lectures. He served as interim pastor of several congregations and as guest preacher in many churches. He loved the Church, both locally and worldwide.

Stan wholeheartedly supported and encouraged his wife Edna in her pastoral ministry, her studies and in the enlargement of her ministry gifts. At First Baptist Church, he played the guitar and trumpet in the worship team and sang in the choir. He was proud of his children and their spouses, Joel and Jennifer and Corina and Chris, and delighted in his new granddaughter, Anika. Stan was a friend and mentor to many, always encouraging people to strive to new heights.

As a theologian for the Church Stan wrote from the deep, interior vision of the sure hope that we would enter into the community of God in the renewed creation. He articulated the reality of this new community as the compass for Christian theology: 'Now the dwelling of God is with human beings, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.' (Rev. 21:3

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is not a philosopher he is an academic theologian who is attempting to explain to Christian practitioners what does post modernism mean and how modern Evangelical Christians need to deal with its effects. He writes the book in 1996 and is sort of dated in some respects such as when he says MTV is fragmenting society (what's MTV? is it still even on TV now days?), or when he says that when Michel Foucault moved from France to California in the 1960s he got to have "free reign to practice his homosexual impulses". That's just offensive to me on many different levels, and things like that made we want to not like this book, but, overall I can recommend it, if you ignore weird statements like that, and also for me, when he goes into 'evangelical speak' especially the last chapter, I had no idea what he was talking about. (I don't really get it when evangelical's start talking about Jesus and God as being "God is man" and "man is God". I understand it when St. Thomas Aquinas discusses that in the Summa Theologia (third part, question 16 article 2 & 3), because he ties it together with Aristotelian thought and states his premises, and he incidentally concludes the affirmative for both assertions, but evangelicals tend to lose me when they make their assertions without logical support and not stating their premises).

There's something about having a non-expert (a theologian in this case) explaining philosophy so that a general audience can understand it. He's not an expert and obviously was learning as he was going on and thus he made the subject matter very accessible. The author defines postmodernism mostly through the thought of the the trinity of post modernist, Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty. The real strength the author brings is how he can summarize complex areas of thought by saying things such as "Foucault is a student of Nietzsche, Derrida takes Nietzsche and looks at how Heidegger has made him post modern, and Rorty is a disciple of John Dewey and his pragmatism". That's a compact statement, but the author had previously explained what all the particulars and players meant earlier in the text.

The author also steps the listener through some of the enlightenment thinkers up to Kant, tells what structuralism means, and some of the other pieces needed for understanding the trinity of post modernism and includes a section on Gadamar and his magus opus "Truth and Method" one of my favorite books. I had not realized how that book had fit into the overall scheme of things or how it related to post modernism. For post modernism literature he was a little bit sketchy, He mentioned that Sherlock Holmes would be the quintessential modern literature. The clues are there and it takes Sherlock Holmes to discover them and put them together. He then said, the spy novel has elements of post modernism since the world the spies live in appear to be like our world but things are not what they seem, and finally he said Science Fiction is usually post modern. I felt the author did a substandard job on explaining literature because he didn't get specific and just dealt with genres.

The Great Course Lecture, "The Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida", one of my all time favorite lecture series had covered the same material as this book did for the philosophers. I had not realize that lecture series had covered post modernism as well as it did. That's the problem with a lecture series, sometimes each lecture is marvelous in itself, but overall the listener doesn't connect the pieces thematically. This book connected the pieces thematically for me.

Overall, and if you hold your nose at some points, the author captured nicely and in a not overly complex manner how a theologian saw post modernism in 1996 and how a reasonable person can understand today's world just a little bit better than if they read this book.

[Osama · Rating 4 out of 5]

يتناول الكتاب مرحلتين مهمتين من تطور الأفكار الفلسفية في الغرب وهي مرحلة الحداثة وما بعد الحداثة. وقد اتسمت الأولى بالعقلانية ورفض ثنائية النفس والجسد والتركيز على الاتجاه العلمي للوصول للحقيقة وفصل الدين عن الدنيا، أما مرحلة ما بعد الحداثة فترفض الخطابات الكلية وتؤمن بعدم وجود حقيقة واحدة وإنما حقائق يفهمها الإنسان من خلال واقعه الاجتماعي والثقافي والاقتصادي. كما يفصل الكتاب في شرح أفكار العديد من الفلاسفة ولاسيما ديكارت، روتي، نيتشة، فوكو.

[Strp · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hadn't expected the Christian angle, especially not an evangelical one. Since this was a not a pervasive aspect of the book, it doesn't matter that much, and in any case, I take an interest in religion too so it's interesting still.
However, to me the conclusion doesn't make sense: "You don't know anything, but hey, God loves you".

Also, I'm not sure that using Star Trek: Next Generation as an example of postmodernism was all that meaningful. Especially with respect to religion. I might as well say at once, that I'm an Atheist/Naturalist and watched the show with those glasses.
It is true that Q poses a problem having godly qualities. But he's funny and makes you think more about the Devil than God, and he's not made up to be one you should worship. (And as with all amazing characters in Star trek, they all have simply evolved... I could forgive those who would doubt that kind of evolution.)

However, there are in particular episodes like "Justice" and "Who Watches the Watchers" that have a clear agaenda of criticizing superstition. There's also an epsiode which I fail to remember the title of, where a female con artist keeps an entire planet as hostage by scaring them with apocalyptic doom unless they fulfill her requests.
Lastly, in the 6th season there's an episode which is a bit of both, Rightful Heir about Klingon warrior/prophet Kahless. In short, he's found out, good, but the episode concludes thus: "Perhaps the words are more important than the man." Now that's probably a postmodern conclusion. That's the only episode I remember that irked me as far as religion goes. Yeah, and then there's Wesley who's running off with a mysterious Native American in the end.
It has to be said though, that a show like TNG has had a lot of different writers, putting their personal mark on episodes. I just noticed that the person who wrote the Kahless episode has only written that episode - ever.

Anyway, I'm not to argue that there's no postmodernism in TNG, because there probably is (I didn't consider that when I saw it), but there's plenty of modernism and rigorous science too. Comparing TOS and TNG, and concluding that TNG has more postmodernism is one thing. But I wouldn't uncritically use it as a postmodern beacon per se like has been done here. Despite that this is only an introduction he could have shown that TNG is at least not conclusive.

Oh, the Rorty, Derrida and Foucault stuff?? I guess it's OK. I needed this introduction for a reason. :)

[Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once you get past the bad Star Trek jokes at the beginning, and a few dated references to MTV, there are some great explanations of Enlightenment, modern, and postmodern thought here. He covers thinkers like Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Saussure, Foucault, and Derrida. The writing is somewhat dense, but worth it. This would be a great textbook to assign to students at the high school or college level. The last chapter contrasts the Christian worldview against postmodernism, pointing out how these worldviews have some things in common, in terms of their reaction to modernism, but also some ideas to reject.

This is a more academic work which would be a good companion to Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good introduction to answering questions like "What's the big deal about postmodernism?" and "What IS postmodernism?"

I highly suggest reading at least the first two or three chapters as well as the final chapter. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 are pretty dense reading: the other chapters cover the basic idea well enough, and these chapters only go more in-depth. Even the author suggests reading the book this way in the foreword, if you want to avoid the philosophical terminology and concepts that can stimulate migraines in the philosophically semi-initiated (like myself).

Much of what I have read in the past concerning postmodernism lacks balance: either postmodernism is the Savior, or it's the Devil. Since I accept neither extreme, I've generally avoided much engagement with postmodernism. However, this was on the reading list for my pre-PhD class in Theology and Culture, so I was "forced" to think about it once more. The professor could not have chosen a better book. Informative, readable by the lay person (except probably for the three chapters I mentioned in the middle of it), ideologically neutral and balanced, this book concludes with a chapter on the Gospel and postmodernism which is very helpful for tying the intellectual threads together for the Christian WITHOUT remotely suggesting that there is a single monolithic "Christian" response to postmodernism. You don't leave this book feeling like you have to agree with the author in order to be a good Christian, which is unfortunately rare among writers on this subject. He helps the reader think through the spiritual implications (both the pitfalls and opportunities for the Church in postmodern society) without going so far as to sanctify or demonize any other possibilities.

[Humza · Rating 4 out of 5]

For someone like myself who knows nothing about either philosophy or post modern thought, this was a very informative and enjoyable read. Thankfully, it wasn't as obtuse or dense as I thought it would be given the subject but it was still hard to get through at some points. The most interesting part of the book was the last chapter entitled "The Gospel and the Postmodern Context", where he explains how evangelicals should minister in the post modern age. I actually wish he would've made this chapter longer and more detailed

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent history and analysis: This was an excellent study in the philosophical foundations of the actual movement of postmodernity, contrasted with the pop images of that movement which don't represent the shift in the history of human thought.

Grenz cleverly takes us into the movement (c. 1) by contrasting images of the old Star Trek, in which Mr. Spock represented the peak of intelligence, pure logic. He is presented as an image of modernity. In the newer Star Trek(s), there is ethnic diversity, a diversity of skills and stories, and a new emphasis on emotion. This is a taste of postmodernity.

Chapter 2 gives an account of the rise of postmodernity into the public eye and the U.S. culture, but this largely reflects the art and architecture of the post-1960's cultural revolution. The real foundations of postmodernity consist of a more sophisticated critique of earlier philosophy. Chapter 3 gives a more detailed look at a shifting worldview or vantage point, away from the monolithic empiricist view of the Enlightenment. As Descartes split the subjective self from the objective world, Bacon's creation of empirical method to bridge the two, and Newton's mechanistic description of an ordered universe created the pursuit of a universal worldview, the God's eye perspective. Modernity sought that one perspective and believed that humanity could attain an objective, rational grasp on it. Unfortunately, reasonable people in power seem to find ways to rationalize their use of it. This cast doubt on reason and objectivity themselves. This culminated (c. 4) in the Kantian analysis of reason. Reason creates categories through which the world is filtered. It is thus limited by its filter (leaving room for the noumenous or the metaphysical), but it is still rational and objective.

Chapters 5 and 6 are worth their weight in gold. This is a beginner's survey of the philosophical influences leading up to the present day. Without summarizing them all here, it suffices to say that Nietzsche announced the conclusion of modernity (both descriptively and prophetically). Godamer attempted a last grab at modernity by positing "a fusion of horizons" (Robert Nozik has more recently called it "invariances"). Schleiermacher and Wittgenstien turned modern philosophy from strict epistemology to linguistics, grounding meaning (if it can be had) in shared vocabulary. Foucault then accused language itself of bearing Nietzche's will-to-power, particularly language concerning sexuality; Derrida deconstructed the correspondence theory of knowledge and suggested that meaning coheres only within the context of a given vocabulary; Rorty affirms a coherence theory as well, denying there is a fundamental essence in anything.

Grenz fails to make note of the consequent shift of philosophy towards cognitive science after the perceived failure of epistemology. The contemporaries: Searle, Putman, and Nozik, are now operating under an assumed pragmatic realism and talking about whether or not computers can create minds.

I like that Grenz leaves us with very little prescriptions in the end. He closes on a fairly mild assertion that we need neither fully reject or embrace postmodernity, but we have to deal with it. Excellent book.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to postmodernism. It reads like it was written yesterday so don't let the fact it's 20-years old put you off.

[Giovanni Generoso · Rating 4 out of 5]

What follows are my thoughts on Foucault that come from this book:

Michel Foucault was a relentless critic of the Enlightenment. The modern paradigm was rooted in the thinking subject, an autonomous individual with the ability to view the world’s objects as they are. In other words, an individual’s perceptions provide a solid foundation for knowledge in an objective sense since those perceptions give accurate representations of what is there.

This Foucault attacked in a number of ways. He did this by means of questioning the assumptions on which the modern edifice is built. He interrogated notions of universality and sameness in the world. Foucault draws on Nietzsche by highlighting the diversity and variety of reality. Nietzsche once argued that when we think of a leaf, we have already done violence to the plurality of a leaf because no matter what we envision when we imagine that object, there are still an incalculable number of leaves with different colors, sizes, textures, shapes, etc. Reason and rationality are extremely problematic, he argues, because they attempt to squeeze these intrinsically diverse concepts into an artificial homogeneity. Rational discourse elevates universality over plurality in order to make room for our conceptual schemes.

Following Nietzsche, Foucault reverses this assumption by giving priority to the specific and special rather than the general and universal. Put differently, he wants to challenge notions of the timelessness of categories by pulling them back into the historical flux. This can be seen in Foucault’s analysis of one of the central universals in the modern era: human nature. He wants to avoid timeless, abstract questions such as, “What is human nature?” and “Does human nature exist?” Instead, he frames the question in a different, historical way. He might ask “How has the concept of human nature functioned in our society?”

This question already undermines any notions of the Enlightenment self since it emphasizes the historical situatedness of our concepts. In this way, Foucault attacks the self and the modern understanding of subjectivity by highlighting the social aspects of discourse, the ways in which how people think, live, and speak are influenced by the rules within their governed societies. This he inherited from the structuralists. Foucault, however, moves us beyond structuralism, into post-structuralism. Post-structuralists are not looking, Stanley Grenz says, for an independent self, a given reality governed by lawlike regularities. They are much more interested in interpreted texts. They celebrate complexity, perhaps the infinite complexity of texts.

Foucault engages in the study of human sciences. He seeks to analyze them and shine light on what is happening underneath those concepts. As Grenz says, Foucault is concerned to determine how they arise, the concepts around which they are formed, how they are used, and the effect they have had in Western culture. Ultimately, he argues that “humanity” is little more than a modern fiction, an illusion created by the human sciences. Notions of a unified understanding of “humanity” have been destroyed by the contemporary interest in linguistics, he says, and by a growing skepticism that history can provide us with a universal understanding of the human person. The self is no longer viewed as the ultimate ground for language; much to the contrary, Foucault argued that we are now coming to see that the self is constituted in and through language, rather than being autonomous over it.

We must move beyond naïve metaphysical certitudes. The work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure argued that a theory of language leaves no room for the individual subject as the origin or locus of meaning. Structuralism argued that language is very much a socially constructed phenomenon, not an individual one. Nietzsche’s contribution was a harsh critique of all philosophies that identity truth with the question for a distinctive human self-knowledge. The death of God and the promise of the Superhuman signify the death of humanity. We must now think it the void left by the disappearance of the human self.

Furthermore, as Foucault analysis the interests behind the study of anthropology, it is history, the study of the unfolding of the self through time, that lies at the center. But rather than continue to follow thinkers such as Hegel and engage in a search for a general theory of history, Foucault view that very method as part of the problem. He thinks that history—understood as the disinterested quest for knowledge of the past—is a Western myth that must be put to rest. The discipline of history is suspect from the beginning since to present a continuous story, historians have to dissolve the discontinuity and uniqueness of singular events and have cloaked their work in the language of universality. In the words of Grenz, “They have violated the essence of their own reality by intentionally seeking to erase any elements in their work that might reveal their dependence on their own particular time and place, their own personal preferences and prejudices.”

In Foucault’s eyes, knowledge is power. This needs to be unpacked. He questions three assumptions that he thinks scholars have used to form the bedrock of the Enlightenment: 1) that an objective body of knowledge exists and is waiting to be discovered, 2) that they actually possess such knowledge and that it is neutral and value-free, and 3) that the pursuit of knowledge benefits all humankind rather than just a specific class. Foucault unequivocally rejects these assumptions. He casts aside the modern ideal of a disinterested knower. He denies that we can ever stand “behind” or “beyond” history and human society. In other words, there is no vantage point that offers certain and universal knowledge. By implication, Foucault denies the older understanding of truth as objective and theoretical and the belief that truth is a claim to knowledge that can be validated by procedures devised by the appropriate scholarly community.

Because knowledge is embedded in the world, it is involved in the power struggles and clashes that take place. It is impossible to appeal to the objective truth as the way to stand above the flux. Truth, in some sense, is an invention, a fabrication, “a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation, and operation of statements” (Foucault). Systems of truth stand in a reciprocal relationship with the systems of power that produce and sustain it. Furthermore, Foucault scoffs at the desire to know the past as a disinterested quest for knowledge and truth. He argues that it truly arises out of a desire to domesticate and control the past in order to validate the present structures. This explains why historical narratives invariably exclude certain objects while privileging (focusing on) others. It is also revealed when historians attempt to smooth out the heterogeneous elements in order to secure the appearance of homogeneity. The act of knowing, Foucault says, is always an act of violence. Thus, we must remain suspicious of truth claims.

Foucault wants to analyze how the present order came to be. He wants to give the supposed given structure a genealogy. Because modern scholarship assumes that knowledge is neutral, proponents of “true discourse” remain blind to the will to power that pervades their own scholarly endeavors. Because of this, modern scholarship masks the truth rather than reveals it. The task of Foucault’s genealogists is not to produce more truths but to unmask all forms of “true discourse” by analyzing the conditions that allow it to exist and to bring to light its political effects. Ultimately, because comprehensive views of history emphasize unifying concepts (tradition, influence, development, evolution, source, and origin), Foucault wants to focus on their opposites (discontinuity, rupture, threshold, limit, and transformation). Thus, we might call his task an “anti-theory” of history. Foucault is not interested in summarizing history; rather he wants to criticize all attempts to grasp history within a reductionistic unifying theory. In this, he is a quintessential postmodernist. He wants to unmask every claim to being natural or ontologically valid that underlies any “given” order.

In short, Foucault wants to order an attack upon the “existing order of things” and to reveal that the mechanisms of order and exclusion have dominated the West since the 1700s. In the end, he envisions a Nietzschean genealogy of things that analyzes the shifting configurations of knowledge and power. Acknowledging that knowledge proceeds from social perspectives, Foucault does not insist that he is providing objective truth. He only sets for what he calls “effective history,” which introduces discontinuity and confusion into our frame of reference, depriving us of stability in life.

[Gareth Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great introduction into postmodernism from a Christian perspective. It is a mid-level read so beginners may struggle with some of the language and terminology, but for its level it is clear and concise.

[Dan Lawler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good Primer, Faulty Application

In the book's preface, Grenz wrote that his goal was "to provide a foundational understanding of the postmodern ethos, especially its intellectual orientation." He accomplished that goal. But in the last chapter entitled The Gospel and the Postmodern Context he said, "Our task as Christ's disciples is to embody and articulate the never-changing good news of available salvation in a manner that the emerging generation can understand." (174.) To the extent Grenz attempted this task, his effort was less than successful.

Grenz tries to maintain a modernist structure for Christianity while giving it a postmodern façade; and the thing does not hold together well. To begin with, he identifies Christians as "heirs of the Enlightenment." (172.) Since Grenz sees the quest to jettison the Enlightenment project of modernity as "foundational to postmodernism" (162), its odd that he has Christians inherit what the postmoderns want to throw away. While one man's garbage can be another man's gold, its still garbage to the first guy.

Why Grenz embraces modernist principles in the first place is perplexing since he demonstrates that the Enlightenment was no friend to biblical Christianity in general and the Reformation in particular. He writes that the Enlightenment "permanently and radically disrupted the theological worldview created in the Middle Ages and honed by the Reformation" and "produced nothing more than modern skeptical rationalism." (61, 73.) Nevertheless, armed with Enlightenment principles, Grenz runs headlong at postmodernism. With "right thinking" and "correct doctrines" in one hand, and "Metanarrative" in the other, Grenz tries to deliver the old one-two punch to postmodernism. He writes that the Christian heirs of the Enlightenment "can affirm that right thinking is an important goal in the process of sanctification, for we are convinced that right beliefs and correct doctrines are vital to Christian living." (172.) And if that doesn't finish them off, this surely will: "There is a single metanarrative encompassing all peoples and all times"; Christians "claim to know what that grand narrative is" and it is "the truth of and for all humankind." (164-165.)

Having thus pummeled postmodernism, Grenz is ready to make concessions and find common ground. He writes, "We must affirm with postmodern thinkers that knowledge - including knowledge of God - is not merely objective, not simply discovered by the neutral knowing self." (168.) But what postmodern thinker affirms that knowledge of God is possible, and then also affirms that such knowledge is objective (though not "merely" objective)? Grenz's attempted synthesis of modern and postmodern Christianity is not likely to find many takers among the emerging generation.

Grenz erred by looking for a Christian heritage in the Enlightenment and accepting modernism's dismissive view of the Reformation and biblical Christianity. Reformers and pre-modernist Christians possessed and passed on the real treasure of Christianity: the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6.) In other words, they knew Jesus Christ and they knew him other than by hearsay. That is a message that people of any and all generations can hear and receive.

[M Pereira · Rating 3 out of 5]

The one thing that surprised me about this book is the Christian focus of the analysis. Not that it really matters to the perspective of what it actually addresses. The beginning acknowledges this, and the last part of the book is about how Christianity can take on postmodernism (in its critique of the Englightenment) but distance it in others (the dissolution of a universal history/narrative/text).

This book is so vast sometimes I wonder what its actual relevance is. There are big parts on the 18thC enlightenment, parts on Kant's critical philosophy, parts on the role of science in the Early Modern period. Parts on Nietzsche and then Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard's 'Postmodern Condition' and even a brief discussion of the post-industrial society by Daniel Bell.

For someone who is a joint graduate of sociology and philosophy, this book is a total nerd-gasm. It involves a historical narrative on Nietzsche (namely, how Foucault developed the 'will to power' and the Kantian narrative to his own individual effect), as well as a discussion on the enlightenment values, as well as the way that post-enlightenment discourses. This opposition is simplified unhelpfully in a dichotomy of 'modernist versus postmodernist'. Why is this unhelpful? Modernism is an early 20thC movement which came after the enlightenment (18thC). Pessimism (philosophical and cultural) is a 19thC movement which is essentially conflated with postmodernism, although there is a reasonable case for this.

Modernism and modernity is seen as optimistic and part of some optimistic narrative. This is hardly the case. If postmodernism is a philosophical and a movement in social theory, as well as a cultural notion. Modernism is a movement in art and to a lesser extent, philosophy. I won't quibble too much on this issue insofar as this kind of confusion is quite ideosyncratic for many academics and general readers.

My last comment on this book is more a general observation: postmodernism sounds a lot like hipster people. Postmodernism is a jumble of artistic and historical ideas all put in one so that it is meaningless and context-less when put all together (like those guys who dress like the Fresh Prince in 2011). Postmodernism is the refusal to accept a single narrative and it is an erosion of the old certainties of the past and in its place is a cynical ironic perspective which tries to be playful but really is a front for crass superficiality.

Welcome to the postmodern society. I think I'm more a modernist (of the 1910s kind).

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does what it sets out to do, namely, to give a basic understanding of what is important in postmodernism (as a cultural and epistemological phenomenon), how it contrasts with the modernism that preceded it, and it shows how postmodernism (as we have it today) developed through the writings of (primarily) Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty. As a bit of intellectual history, and an attempt to help the reader locate where we are now, it is very good.

I was least happy with the final chapter. Grenz is probably right to celebrate postmodernism's move away from some of the excesses of individuality and "certainty" that he attributes to modern thinking, however I think he might have overblown the importance of certainty to the philosophical and scientific enterprises and turned this into a kind of false dichotomy. I also do not share Grenz's willingness to adopt features of postmodern thinking (e.g., "post-rationalism") in defense of the gospel. If you're going to embrace postmodernist epistemology, then it makes no sense to give rational reasons why anyone ought to follow this, that, or another method, claim, or set of claims (including Christianity, even if we agree that it is MORE than merely a set of claims; of course it is). There has always been an underlying current of self-refutation in postmodern epistemology (as evidenced by the fact that postmodern thinkers, like Derrida, get quite put out if you misrepresent what they're saying - as though, on their view, you aren't entitled to make it say whatever you want it to - authorial intent means nothing; you can't have it both ways). Rather than encouraging Christians (or other thinkers who believe that we can have knowledge - even if imperfect and always subject to revision - of the world) to adopt the methods of postmodernism, I think he should rather encourage them how to critically respond to the central claims of postmodernism.

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Because I read this just after "Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction," I want to compare the two. The latter book is better written then this one. Grenz's prose is often repetitive and his opening chapters (1-3) are almost worthless because they deal in generalities. I should remark that he is targeting an audience with no assumed knowledge of post-modernism or intellectual history, whereas Butler often bombards the reader with references to artwork and philosophical jargon. Because he targets a general audience, the most useful part of this book is the narrative of intellectual history he provides. He describes the development of philosophy from Descarte to the contemporary era which gives a better context of post modernism.

These two books actually work pretty well together if you have a limited view of intellectual history, I do. Because Grenz provides a context while Butler effectively explains post modernism.

What's also interesting about Grenz's book is that the last chapter considers how Christianity must deal with post modernism and modernism. Unfortunately, many of his good points are jumbled together with his awkward use of Star Trek as his primary example of post modernism

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

PASTORAL ADVICE ON MINISTRY IN THE CURRENT CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Stanley J. Grenz (1950-2005) was a Baptist pastor, who also taught theology at Carey Theological College and at Regent College, at the North American Baptist Seminary, at the University of Winnipeg and the Winnipeg Theological Seminary, and more. (He died of a brain aneurysm.)

He wrote in the Preface to this 1996 book about how a 1993 invitation to address a ‘think tank’ on ministry to ‘baby busters’ “triggered the idea for a book, a ‘primer’ to assist students, church leaders, youth workers, and even colleagues in understanding the attitude or mind-set that is becoming increasingly prevalent in North America, especially on university campuses… My goal is to provide a foundational understanding of the postmodern ethos, especially in intellectual orientation. Postmodernism is surely open to serious critique and has been challenged on a number of fronts by a variety of scholars. Christians must not fail in the end to engage postmodernism critically where that is required. At the same time, they must also be open to what postmodernism can teach us positively as a needed corrective to modernity.”

He explains in Chapter 1, “The term ‘postmodern’ may first have been coined in the 1930s to refer to a major historical transition already under way and as the designation for certain developments in the arts. But postmodernism did not gain widespread attention until the 1970s First it denoted a new style of architecture. Then it invaded academic circles…. Eventually it surfaced as the description for a broader cultural phenomenon… postmodernism signifies the quest to move beyond modernism.. Specifically, it involves a rejection of the modern mind-set, but launched under the conditions of modernity.” (Pg. 2)

He continues, “In the postmodern world, people are no longer convinced that knowledge is inherently good. In eschewing the Enlightenment myth of inevitable progress, postmodernism replaces the optimism of the last century with a gnawing pessimism. Gone is the belief that every day, in every way, we are getting better and better. Members of the emerging generation are no longer confident that humanity will be able to solve the world’s great problems or even that their economic situation will surpass that of their parents. They view life on earth as fragile and believe that the continued existence of humankind is dependent on a new attitude of cooperation rather than conquest.” (Pg. 7)

He points out, “The advent of ‘the screen’---whether the movie, the television, or the computer screen---epitomizes the postmodern blurring of the traditional contrast between the subjective self and the objective world. The screen is not merely an external object that we look at. What happens on the screen is neither wholly ‘out there’ (merely on the screen), nor wholly in us; rather, it seems to occur in some space between the two. The screen brings us into its world just as it enters into ours. And what happens on the screen becomes an extension of ourselves, we become an extension of it. The screen becomes an embodied form of our psychic worlds.” (Pg. 35)

He suggests, “The splintering of science has altered the goal of research. Scholars no longer legitimate their work through appeals to their participation in the quest for scientific knowledge. Their goal is not ‘performativity’ rather than ‘truth.’ Financial backers fund research not in order to promote the emancipation of humanity or to extend knowledge but to augment their own power. The question is no longer ‘Is it true?’ but ‘What use it is?’ And the question of usefulness means either, ‘Is it salable?’ or, in the context of the focus on power, ‘Is it efficient?’” (Pg. 48)

He concludes in the final chapter, “Part of the Christian calling is to appraise any new ethos that shapes the culture in which God calls believers to live as his people… Today we are challenged to live out our Christian commitment in the midst of a culture and to proclaim the gospel to a generation that is increasingly postmodern in its thinking… The postmodern situation requires that we embody the gospel in a manner that is post-individualistic, post-rationalistic, post-dualistic, and post-noeticentric.” (Pg. 167)

He continues, “In the postmodern world, we can no longer follow the lead of modernity and position the individual at center stage. Instead, we must remind ourselves that our faith is highly social… Our gospel must address the human person within the context of the communities in which people are embedded.” (Pg. 168-169)

“A postmodern embodiment of the gospel ought not to become anti-intellectual and wholly abandon the gains of the Enlightenment. Yet the postmodern critique of modernity stands as a needed reminder that our humanity does not consist solely in our cognitive dimension… we must acknowledge that intellectual reflection and the scientific enterprise alone cannot put us in touch with every dimension of reality or lead us to discover every aspect of God’s truth.” (Pg. 169)

“If we would minister in the postmodern context … we must realize that the next generation is increasingly interested in the human person as a unified whole. The gospel we proclaim must speak to human beings in their entirety… [This] involves integrating the emotional-affective. As well as the bodily-sensual, with the intellectual-rational within the one human person.” (Pg. 172-172)

“Finally, a postmodern articulation of the gospel will be post-noeticentric. That is to say, our gospel must affirm that the goal of our existence encompasses more than just the accumulation of knowledge. We must declare that the purpose of correct doctrine is to serve the attainment of WISDOM.” (Pg. 172)

Although now nearly 30 years old, this book may still interest those wanting to find an approach to the contemporary world.

[Brett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtful, informed, and accessible introduction, A Primer on Postmodernism offers a Christian analysis and response to philosophical postmodernism. “The postmodern era,” Grenz observes, “has in effect replaced knowledge with interpretation,” having moved from “an objectivist to a constructionist outlook” (40). Grenz evaluates the thought of major postmodern theorists, such as Derrida, Foucault, and Rorty. Concluding that Christians must “explore the contours of the gospel in a postmodern context,” Grenz suggests a post-individualistic, post-rationalistic, post-dualistic, and post-noeticentric embodiment of the Christian message. Overall, Grenz offers a very valuable resource. A

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction for the Christian who wants to understand post-modernism and its implications. The middle chapters of the book are somewhat tedious and could be skipped unless one wants to read about the evolution of ideas that brought about postmodern philosophy. The book is somewhat problematic in that the author uses to postmodern thinking to tear down modernism's challenges to religion and specifically Christianity; but he fails to adequately address the new challenges that Christian apologists will have to confront in a postmodern context.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book. It's written by a Christian theologian so the last 15-20 pages are how he believes the church should deal with the conclusions of postmodernity, however the proceeding pages summarize the historical epoch leading up to postmodernism as well as offer a summary of 3 major postmodern thinkers: Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty. Finally, It's written in clear prose that make it eminently readable by those who haven't been steeped in western philosophy for half their lives.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was good to get a summary on this. I don't know whether I'd be called postmodern, given that I idealize knowledge a little. Otherwise, I consider myself postmodern.

I found it interesting that the book was written for evangelical Christians. Given that they believe that they know The Truth, they are clearly not postmodern. The writer was not simply antagonistic, though. He was pretty objective. He even believe that Christians need to learn things from the postmodern ideology.

[Tanmay Tathagat · Rating 2 out of 5]

A good summary of postmodernism, centered around the narrow aim of ensuring that none of its ideas affect Christian faith. More like A Guide to Keeping One's Faith in Postmodern Times. Much too evangelical for a book chronicling an intellectual movement. Misses the point of intellectual work altogether: instead of working towards an understanding of how new ideas can change the way we understand the world, it is a manifesto for maintaining the status quo.

[Paul Patterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent summary of Postmodern theory. I particularly like the summary of Rorty and his neo-pragmatism. Grentz's critique of Postmodernism has many positive aspects but his evangelical epistemology seems somewhat weak and unsubstantiated. I wish that he would have included why his views might be rejected by various postmodernists and respond to that. Nonetheless it is a good beginners read.

[Frank Peters · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good introductory or summary book about postmodernism. It was written over 20 years ago, so is starting to feel somewhat out of date (due to examples used) but is still very good. The author was a theology/philosophy professor, and this comes through. That is, some of the chapters are overly technical and harder to read. But I was pleasantly surprised by the book. I liked it.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a bit trying and lacks some of the depth that I would have enjoyed from Grenz. While it is an introduction, the discussion is better carried on in Smith's "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?", but that's my opinion.

[David Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty decent apologetic.

Basically, people with a faith based worldview can safely sit back and watch modern and postmodern perspectives duke it out for a few hotly contested shares of influence within the arts and politics.

[Dan Glover · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty fair intro to postmodernism and its leading voices though a bit too embracing for me to agree with all of Grenz's conslusions.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction to postmodern thought and philosophy...

[Chris Bevan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stanley Grenz is to be congratulated on this book which is indeed an invaluable primer to an elusive and mostly only vaguely understood topic. The idea of ploughing through such dense and nihilistic volumes appals me, and so I am grateful for Grenz in doing so on our behalf. It is short, readable, and well annotated, and there is a narrative flow to the text which makes its content accessible.
He describes how postmodernism reacts to modernism; how the failed ideologies of modernism become the failing ideologies of postmodernism.
I am left with the conclusion that post-modernism is not so much an epistemology as an anti-epistemology; a formula of dogmatic agnosticism; a statement of unknowing, and as such, nihilistic. It is an epistemology of nihil, of nothingness. Logically, one cannot assert unknowingness; one can only demonstrate lack of knowing, because unknowing is a statement of silence, and as such cannot be conclusive in itself. Silence can always be interpreted other ways.
One of the benefits of a postmodern point of view is that one becomes aware, even acutely aware, of the limitations of knowledge, and of the different kinds of knowledge available; to say that I know that I am in love, and that I know my wife loves me are two different things; as it is to say that I know that I have friends, that I know that Christ has saved my soul, and that I know that energy equals mass times the speed of light, squared (E=mc2); I know that I have a vocation, and I know that I also have a job; and I know that that Henry Fielding had a high regard for Christian marriage. Epistemology becomes more important than ever in understanding the limitations and natures of different forms of knowledge. This in itself is nothing new, but when presented with dogmas of varying kinds, such as polemical atheism (as well as young-earth creationism), one sees the fallacies circulated as facts, and ideas misappropriated, and realises how rare is this insight; and therefore postmodernism as a cultural movement may well be a reaction to such unsubstantiated arguments and damaging belligerence.
Postmodernism therefore also facilitates doublethink . Its vacuous anti-epistemology allows for this without comment. This means that nowadays one can dogmatically assert one thing, whilst completely ignoring any contradictions of any kind, and do so with a sense of complete integrity, without any conscience of falsehood; falsehood becomes simply a matter of opinion and taste; if truth does not exist, then neither does falsehood, so morality is not about truth, or inclusive of truth, but about other things. It makes debate almost wholly emotive and subjective, and plays into the experiential and the pathetic and the fashionable, with actual evidence and rationality being very limited. It amounts to a regression back to Classical times, when morality and truth and all were hobbies and personal interests, and a subject for tasteful discussion, not dogma; except when Socrates irritated just too many people, and they had him killed for his tastelessness (and to add insult to injury, he actually allowed himself to die, and did not flee!). This new dogma can be just as belligerently ruthless as any other, but for the present this ruthlessness is veiled beneath its so-called tolerance. Ironic that tolerance is the veil for an utterly intolerant dogmatism, which because of its anti-rationality and anti-epistemology will not allow for reasoned debate or challenge, or evidenced disproof; to attempt do so is to breach a taboo, and thus render oneself unclean, and beyond the pale.
The transgender issue is a good example. If a man, having married, begotten children, competed in Olympic athletics, and possessing y-chromosomes, decides he is a woman, then he is woman. Biology, law, custom and all the previous experience and understanding of male and female are all simply dismissed as irrelevant, and now all must bow before the new, so called, gender identity; law, ethics, medicine, and society must all change to suit this new perception, the only evidence of which, the only experience of which, is inside the victims head, and is thus un-demonstrable, except by the victim expressing their opinions or desires. The rest of society must now adapt. The wife of said man, now betrayed by the broken oath, the children of the said man now cast off and fatherless, must now, without any recrimination or ill feeling, or claims of injustice, or ridicule, change their own identities to suit. Even a prison must now accommodate this creature in a separate cell, the toilets must now accept this thing in the wrong one, and employers must now embrace this delusion; all in fact must embrace this delusion as real. The only person not called upon to change their view is the deluded victim. It is like Shutter Island , but where everyone has to really believe that the madman really is still a policeman, and no one is allowed ever to contradict him, or even to think otherwise.
I just don’t understand why so many buy into this fantasy, or why it is given force of law, or why medics must cooperate with it. The emperor has no clothes on. It is a delusion; much as if I suddenly decided that I was gerbil, and insisted that everyone agree with me in re-housing me, feeding me, employing me, medically altering my appearance to suit, and treating seriously the fact that I am in fact a gerbil; and the fact that no other opinion than my own could bear me out is simply irrelevant. If I feel gerbil, then I am gerbil, and no one else is allowed to contradict my gerbilism, and anyone that does is guilty of a sin, and may be sacked from work, vilified and insulted in the press, and ostracised by society; and former colleagues must now disavow their previous agreement and cooperation, and all former friends must renounce their former friendship, and all relatives disown the taboo breaker.
This world view gives dogmatic status to feelings over all else; it is supremely romantic. Facts and reality must now conform to feelings. The more sublime the feeling, the more the reality. But such a sublime can only be the product of an introverted imagination. Like the sublime, it is not the evidence but the state of mind. It is not based upon lofty ideas, or perceptions of the universe, or anything exterior to which might be appealed for evidence. Feelings can be mistaken; drugs, illness, hormones, indigestion, success, failure, dreams, nightmares, wishful thinking, fears, trauma, and so on can all profoundly change how we feel about things. The same scenario can appear completely different to us from day to day, or even moment to moment, depending upon how we feel about it. Feelings describe personal experience, but not objective fact, and post-modernism denies the reality of objective fact, thus elevating personal feelings to a new status, beyond mere proof or reproof, evidence or argument. In point of fact, the feeling becomes the objective fact.

[Eric C 1965 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Second half of the book explains the more directly postmodernist Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty. The last chapter discusses an Evangelical response; until that chapter I had no clue in the text Grenz was writing for Christians but seemed to be presenting a history of philosophical thought pertinent to postmodernism. Some thinkers I had not heard of before include Dilthey and Gadamer.
Postmodernism is the philosophy quickly replacing the Modernist mindset brought about by Enlightenment thinkers such as Descartes and Kant. Word games and community have replaced universal meta-narratives. The pragmatic and coherence theory of truth has replaced the correspondence theory.
I think I can understand the main thrust of postmodernism a little better now; postmodernist insist no meta-narratives exist while avoiding proclaiming thus in order to self-referentially undercut their position. They do this by writing in symbols and "deconstructed" language. Still, I wonder why they even bother to write, seeing how the concepts they seem to be pushing can't, in their view, mean anything of importance without articulating a meta-narrative.

[Chandler Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very challenging and at times dryly written intellectual history of the postmodern movement. It is cool to see theologian Stanley Grenz writing a philosophical work. It is always encouraging to see such cross-disciplinary works in the contemporary state of academia. I found especially helpful Grenz’s discussion on postmodern influence in literature, hermeneutics, and scientific investigation. Through a survey of key postmodern philosophers and contrasting postmodernism from modernism, Grenz shows the de-centeredness of the postmodern “worldview” and the communal-subjective nature of postmodern epistemology. I have read many describe our current period as a post-postmodern age, so I would be curious to read a work on this philosophical setting. Grenz does provide an evangelical critique of postmodernism, but he also shows the positive aspects of postmodern philosophy that stand to correct evangelical ideas and concepts entrenched in the modern worldview.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75 stars.

Finally! An explanation of post-modernism that I can (somewhat) understand! My uni lit advisor would be so proud of me. If you, like me, have struggled to understand post-modernism then this book is for you. I won't claim that I understood every little thing in here, but I do feel comfortable enough with the theory to explain it to someone else. Additionally, although Grenz is an evangelist, the book only mentions evangelicals at the conclusion of the book so this is primarily a philosophical vs. religious work.