Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? – James K.A. Smith

Last updated on: July 9, 2007 at 5:57 pm by Tim Suttle

Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? – James K.A. Smith 2007-07-09T17:57:00-06:00 Tim Suttle

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Here’s a quick review of a really good book called Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? by James K.A. Smith

I have long believed that some of the primary misconceptions regarding the emerging church conversation stem from a substantial lack of appreciation for the impact that French Philosophical/Linguistic thought has had on the movement as a whole. Those attempting to understand this conversation often default to caricature or reductionist views (i.e., candles, couches & culture) and one of the reasons is the lack of appreciation for the thought of Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault and the ways in which their ideas became the primary impulses behind postmodernity. James K.A. Smith helped me to see that the danger on the other side of that spectrum could be to actually pay attention to these influential thinkers, yet misread them in such a way as to consider them incompatible with the Christian faith. I’m indebted to Smith for this clear and imaginative foray into what I believe is a terribly complex and difficult subject matter.

The movie The Matrix serves as his metaphor for his attempt to bring us into the “real world” and help us to wake up to the world of postmodernity. His aim is two-fold: first, to demythologize postmodernism by correcting common misunderstandings and second, to shed light on the deep affinity which he sees between postmodern philosophical claims and Christianity.[1] This thesis might be surprising but he makes a compelling case for it.

“Without texts, Leonard literally would not be able to have an experience of the world,”[2] writes Smith about the main character of the movie Memento. He explains that Derrida’s famous claim, “There is nothing outside the text,” is really more of an assertion that “interpretation is an inescapable part of being human.”[3] For Derrida all experience is already interpretation or dependent upon context. This view has often been criticized as incompatible with the Christian faith for three reasons. First, it is said to necessitate atheism because if nothing exists outside the text, then there is no transcendent being.[4] Second, it renders the bible a work of fiction because it cannot refer to real things.[5] Third, if everything is interpretation, then the gospel is as well and thus it is not objectively true.[6] Smith notes that all of these objections tend to conflate the concepts of truth and objectivity. Those who object along these lines are generally holding onto a modern notion of truth which can be known objectively to all people at all times.[7] The pressing question for our time is: How can we help people in our churches to separate truth from objectivity without making the whole issue overly complex?

Smith says that acknowledging our presuppositions can simply become a way to begin our conversation by admitting that the lens through which we interpret the world is decidedly Christian.[8] Next this should encourage us to consider whether or not we really do interpret the world through the text of the bible. Have we become captivated by a consumer culture and not revelation?[9] This is the question Derrida helps us to ask of ourselves.

Next, Smith turns his attention to Lyotard and perhaps the most well known of the postmodern descriptors: “incredulity toward metanarratives.” Smith explains that what Lyotard meant to critique was not the scope of the narratives but the nature of the claims which they make.[10] The problem for Lyotard is that these metanarratives always tend toward making an appeal to universal reason in order to support their claims. Lyotard is actually exposing the conflict between science and narrative. This isn’t some 1960’s-ish suspicion of power and large entities, it is an insistence that even modernity is based in a particular narrative, but that it demands that all other narratives submit to its rules. Thus it becomes self-referential. “When judged by modern science, stories and narratives are little more than fables.”[11] But modernity, most characteristically science, steadfastly refuses to stipulate its own subjectivity and thus wants all other forms of truth, such as narrative or story, to submit to its criteria.

Smith says that some traditional apologetics might fall prey to Lyotard’s critique, however truth as can be embodied in narrative or myth is not suspect because “all knowledge is rooted in some narrative or myth.”[12] Smith affirms the role of narrative and storytelling to the heritage of our faith and supports its ability to characterize truth. Citing the fact that it activates imagination and considers the whole person actually makes narrative an important way to talk about truth.[13]

Next in Smith’s survey comes Foucault and the claim that “power is knowledge.” Here Smith seems to wander a bit in order to try and capture the essence of Foucault, finally concluding “Foucault is absolutely right in his analysis of the way in which mechanisms of discipline serve to form individuals, but he is wrong to cast all such discipline and formation in a negative light.”[14] This is the only section of the book which seemed to need some tightening, but he finally comes around to the place where he affirms the idea that power can be bad, but that within the Christian narrative we find the call to be subject to one another. The end of humanity is, after all, to become fully human. Thus any power games which seek to reduce us to economic, sexual, or violent creatures must be exposed as subversive uses of power.[15] He ends up espousing the positive dimension of discipline which can be employed to counteract the negative uses of power and discipline which society or culture might use to form human persons illegitimately.

Smith ends with a wonderful critique of ways in which we have allowed modernity to erode our ability to embrace our role as a “particular people.”[16] He calls the church to redeem dogma in order to embrace the role of “believing” over the myth of knowing since certainty is an “impossible dream.”[17] He calls the church to recover tradition by affirming the creeds, the lectionary, and liturgy in order to embrace the practice of remembering who we are as the called people of God.[18] Finally he urges the renewing of the body by affirming the materiality of God’s good creation. Affirming sacrament, icons, and really considering place as an aspect of worship, Smith calls for a properly incarnational and embodied mode of worship.[19]

This is a brilliantly composed defense of these French fathers of postmodern thought. The use of movies as narrative/metaphor for each discussion is incredibly helpful in terms of creating space to interact with his ideas. His structure, uniform through each of the three main sections, was really helpful in terms of the readers ability to sort of get in a rhythm with him and helped to sort of “format the disc” before we try to download data. I’m grateful for his ability to clarify what he considers to be the difference between the common misunderstandings of Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault, and what they were really trying to communicate. This book has been quite helpful in terms of becoming more fluent in the substance and influence of French linguistics and philosophy as it pertains to postmodernity and the church.

My only negative critique concerns his foray into Radical Orthodoxy. As clear as Smith was with his exposition of the thought of the three Frenchman, he seems equally unclear about what Radical Orthodoxy is and how it might relate to the philosophers and the postmodern church. It seems like this recommendation was crammed into a work which didn’t really require that label. He has written another book called Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, which I hope to read soon. My ignorance about the whole arena of Radical Orthodoxy could have been the real problem, though that remains my critique.

All in all, James K.A. Smith’s book is well worth the read and I’ve already begun to recommend him to discussion partners. This book is a welcome antidote to one of the fundamental misunderstandings of emerging churches and ministries today: most people have not even bothered to try to grasp Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault. I’m by no means an expert on any of these philosphers and linguistic theorists, but I believe that anyone who wishes to critique postmodern ministries needs to do their homework first. This book can be extremely helpful in this regard.

[1] James K.A. Smith. Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault to the Church, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. p. 22.
[2] Ibid. p. 33.
[3] Ibid. p. 38.
[4] Ibid. p. 35.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. p. 42.
[7] Ibid. p. 48.
[8] Ibid. p. 55.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. p. 64.
[11] Ibid. p. 65.
[12] Ibid. p. 69.
[13] Ibid. p. 75.
[14] Ibid. p. 99.
[15] Ibid. p. 102.
[16] Ibid. p. 116.
[17] Ibid. p. 119.
[18] Ibid. p. 127-133.
[19] Ibid. p. 136-142.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 25, 2007

Paul among the Postliberals by Douglas Harink

Next Post

August 6, 2007 "Once" the film by John Carney

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion corruption Donald Trump elections Empire Entertainment Ezra Klein ideology Justice Lacan politics race Sports Ta-Nehisi Coates Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 March 2026 September 2025 March 2025 June 2024 January 2024 December 2023 May 2023 February 2023 October 2022 April 2022 March 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 September 2020 July 2020 June 2020 March 2020 September 2019 July 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 August 2010 July 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Jesus say was the greatest commandment?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Pray always Love God Follow rules Attend temple