Speaking in sweeping generalizations, the essentially modern/enlightenment way of knowing is sub-Christian because it assumes that our “reason” is objective and not result of a contextualized and subjective tradition itself. It then heightens things that can be known “objectively” (sciences, etc.) as public truth and relativizes/privatizes things that have to do with “belief”. This is, I think, a sub-Christian way of knowing. Christianity says that all things are known in the same way.

Postmodernism recognizes and loves pointing out modernism’s foolish mistake. However, it also is sub-Christian: Postmodern thought says every event, thought, text, and experience is only knowable to me through my particular and unique context, worldview, narrative, whateveryouwanttocallit, so there’s no way of ultimately determining what anything means in the final sense because there is no meta narrative that can be definitive for all people. This is also a sub-Christian way of knowing, because scripture assumes a deep ability for meaning/truth to be communicated through language and experience, and that the story of God’s interaction with humanity (esp. through the incarnation) is a meta-narrative that reorients all of history for everybody.

Maybe that’s not helpful for you. But in all of the above I attempt (perhaps poorly) to incorporate N.T. Wright and Leslie Newbigin’s assessment of relativist and modern thought vs. Christian ways of knowing. I think the radical orthodoxy movement has many good things to add as well.

Matt,
Thank you for your comments.
It should be counter to culture in general. If we claim Christ as our axis should not it be allusive and mysterious in action. One may encounter Christ and have tangible evidence such as emotions, memories, and perhaps transformation. So to answer your question…All that are engaged in theology should be disturb by what they are studying. Postmodern theology is perhaps only the flavor of the moment. I will be replaced by another and folks shall be debating if we did right or not. That is up to those that follow us. We are called to plug away, so to speak.
I am very critical of postmodernism and its delicious little trappings. I agree with you that total acceptance is dangerous.

I ask you, what is a sub-Christian way of knowing? I wrestle with this.

BR-C,
Thank you for your comments as well.
We are ALL (no part of creation is left out) flowing in and from each other. There is no practical division of post and “now”. Mitch Hedberg does this comedy bit about pictures. It goes a little like this. Hey man here is a picture of me when I was younger! Man isn’t all pictures of you when you were younger? Yeah! If you had a picture of you when you were older then that would be…weird.

We are not reinventing the wheel with the postmodern, emerging movement. We are simply discovering the traditions of the past that speak to us in a different light today. It is a blessing.

I am thankful to have y’all out there. It has been a tremendous help for the final year of seminary. Blessings and peace to everyone. I will share more of the project as it is finished.a
p.s. sorry for the late response.

Kind of an interesting take. I have some questions, though. You say postmodern theology “should be counter-cultural in nature. It seeks to disturb and transform those engaged in the practice of theology.”
I wonder which culture it should be counter to?
I wonder if it should disturb those engaged in all forms of theology, or just those engaged in something other than postmodern theology?

My wonderings point to this: you seem to have accepted postmodernism into your theology in a rather uncritical way. I believe such acceptance is bound to embrace the anti-christ of today’s world, just as uncritical modern theology embraced the anti-christ of the modern world (see the historical Jesus quests), and so on. My feeling is that postmodernism has revealed some of our arrogance about what and how we know. But it’s not the last answer, and when taken uncritically it leads us to a sub-christian way of knowing.

That’s my rant on your project.

It is the activity of deconstructing assumed understandings and relationships of God and the world in order to reconstruct those understandings in discursive praxis with the world in which we live. It is a way to theorize praxis and to make theorizing pragmatic.

As James Loder taught me, “Any good theory is practical.”

The first element to this method is understanding where those assumed understandings are in your own thinking and then to see how they shape not only your lifeworld view, but the lifeworld view of those with whom you associate yourself. Many rarely are willing to take this first step I have found.