A Case for a Christian Theology in a Postmodern World

In his Introduction – The End of Modern World: A New Openness for Faith, Diogenes Allen introduces his book under five headings. However, due to the shortness of the material in parts four and five, I just want to reconstruct Allen’s divisions into just three: the breakdown of modernism in four areas, the dilemma of Christian theology between pre-modern and modern, and the writer’s target audience and method.

Introduction

Before explaining in detail the four areas where we are now witnessing the collapse of modernism, Allen presents first the current situation that Christian intellectuals have to face. He acknowledges the difficulty of maintaining confidence in Christianity in the midst of absence of authority principle due to widespread influence of pluralism and relativism. However, though he describes the current status of Christianity as one of defensiveness, Allen is confident about the success of his intellectual project, the development of a Christian theology of world religions in the midst of a postmodern generation.

Explaining the difficulty that he observes, Allen states, that to confidently say that “Christianity is true,” is perceived today as “foolhardy when we live in a pluralistic world with any number of different views of reality and apparently no rational means of telling which view is most likely to be true, and when it is said that all views are historically relative and mere reflections of social structures” (p. 1). He adds, “Even scientific laws and theories are to be held tentatively. How can any educated person who is not simply dogmatic claim that a religion is true?” (ibid.).

From this opening paragraph, the writer assumes two things: that the rational basis to distinguish the false from the true views of reality is apparently missing and that a religious dogmatic is considered uneducated. If these assumptions are the very basis of the writer’s thinking, then thinkers who follow the path of historic Protestantism are considered uneducated. We are reminded here of the likes of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Benjamin Warfield, Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til and the followers of transcendental presuppositional apologetics. This is the reason why Allen decided to follow a different path. He does not want to be counted among the uneducated and the dogmatic by sticking to the old confidence. His proposal is different from that of historic Protestantism for the latter belongs to the modern age.

Allen recognizes the numerous accomplishments of Christianity during the modern age. However, in spite of these accomplishments, he claims that “Christianity has been on the defensive intellectually” (p. 2). He came up with this conclusion based on the findings coming from numerous academic disciplines such as “physics, biology, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology” (ibid.). Based on these findings, people have claimed repeatedly that Christianity’s day is over.

Nevertheless, the writer refuses to join such a negative assessment of Christianity. Instead, he discerns an opportunity to present Christianity in a new way. He describes this situation as “far better than it has been in modern times because our intellectual culture is at a major turning point” (ibid.). He perceives that “a massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is perhaps as great as that which marked of the modern world from the Middle Ages” (ibid.). He further describes this major historical shift:

“The foundations of the modern world are collapsing, and we are entering a postmodern world. The principles forged during the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1780), which formed the foundations of the modern mentality, are crumbling” (ibid).

Due to this situation, Allen is no longer satisfied to see Christianity to remain in its defensive status. “No longer can Christianity be put on the defensive,” he said, “as it has been for the last three hundred years or so” (ibid.) He finds fault with “the narrow view of reason”[1] and the reliance on “classical science,”[2] which he describes as the two dominant qualities of modern mentality (ibid.). Nonetheless, Allen is confident in his intellectual project:

". . . in the reevaluation of the intellectual viability of Christianity which is undertaken in this book, we shall see that not only are the barriers to Christian belief erected by the modern mentality collapsing, but that philosophy and science, once used to undermine belief in God, are now seen in some respects as actually pointing toward God” (ibid.).

Breakdown of Modernism

The current collapse of modern worldview is now evident in four areas: in its response to the basic questions of life, in its failure to provide the foundation for morality and society, in its view of inevitable progress, and in its idea of the inherent goodness of knowledge.

The response of modern rationalism derived from science and philosophy towards basic questions of life such as the existence of God, order and existence of the world, and man and the meaning of life is now considered unacceptable. Allen explains, “It can no longer be claimed that philosophy and science have established that we live in a self-contained universe. Hume’s and Kant’s philosophical arguments that it is pointless to ask whether the universe has an external cause have recently been seriously revised in secular philosophical circles, . . .” (p. 3).

Furthermore, the modernist’s basis for morality and society is now considered a failure. Allen briefly describes this basis as bankrupt: “. . . it has been argued recently that all attempts to give morality and society a secular basis are bankrupt” (ibid.). And then he adds, “But today traditional morality is being discarded, and we find ourselves unable to reach a consensus for action or even a basis for rational discussion on such matters as war, armaments, the distribution of wealth, medical ethics, and criminal justice. We find ourselves increasingly in the time of the Judges, in which each does what is right in his or her own eyes” (p. 4).

Thirdly, the modernist’s concept of inevitable progress through scientific discovery and education is now rejected. “We are now faced with our failure to eradicate such serious social and economic problems as crime, pollution, poverty, racism, and war. . . There is an increasing recognition that evil is real and that it cannot be removed merely by educational and social reform” (p. 5).

Finally, the idea of the inherent goodness of knowledge is now abandoned in postmodern age. Allen clarifies this:

“Today we are becoming increasingly aware that there is no inherent connection between knowledge and its beneficial use, with genetic engineering just beginning to open new possibilities of abuse, and with the power of bombs and other destructive forces at hand. Scientists do not control the uses to which their knowledge is put, and many even resist taking any responsibility for its uses. Within a moral order which is basically Christian, there is some prospect for controlling the use of scientific knowledge, or at least restraining its destructive uses. . . However, the Christian order has been widely discredited by the Enlightenment. This has deprived us of one of the great resources for controlling the use of scientific knowledge” (ibid.).

Allen concluded the first part of his Introduction by confidently stating the relevance of Christianity in the postmodern era: 

“In a postmodern world Christianity is intellectually relevant. It is relevant to the fundamental questions, Why does the world exist? And Why does it have its present order, rather than another? It is relevant to the discussion of the foundations of morality and society, especially on the significance of human beings. The recognition that Christianity is relevant to our entire society and relevant not only to the heart but to the mind as well, is a major change in our cultural situation” (pp. 5-6).

Before proceeding to the second part, to avoid confusion in terms, Allen made necessary distinctions between cultural postmodernism and theological and scientific postmodernism:

“‘Postmodern,’ as I have characterized it, should not be confused with the way the term is used in theology today. Theology before Hume and Kant is ‘premodern,’ and the nineteenth-century theological attempts to come to terms with Hume, Kant, and their successors is ‘modern.’ ‘Postmodern’ refers to four broad streams in theology, each of which criticizes modern, or as its sometimes called, liberal theology. First is confessional theology, whose primary debt is to Karl Barth’s attacks after the First World War on the liberal theology of the nineteenth century. Second is the existentialist-hermeneutical stream, which is primarily indebted to Heidegger, but whose roots go back to Schleiermacher’s reflections on hermeneutics. Third, there is a very recent, small, theological deconstructionist stream, which is indebted to Heidegger and to an extent to Jacques Derrida. Fourth, process theology, as derived from A. N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, has recently been characterized as postmodern” (p. 6). 

“To avoid still another possible confusion, it is necessary to bear in mind the classification of periods used in physics. The main division is between classical science and modern science. ‘Classical science’ (sometimes called ‘Newtonian science’) refers to all science prior to the twentieth century. Modern science is usually said to have begun with Max Planck’s discovery that energy is not emitted continuously but in discrete units or quanta. It is the development of modern science that has helped to undermine the modern mentality and to create the postmodern age” (ibid.). 

The Dilemma of Christian Theology

Referencing the apostle Paul, Allen’s alternative is described in Colossians 2:2, which he thinks is best captured by the phrase “the full wealth of conviction.” Theologians failed to realize this Pauline vision because Christian theology is now trapped between premodern (fideism) and modern assumptions. Allen explains the details of this dilemma:

“For those who remain premodern, Christian doctrines can be affirmed and discussed as if Hume’s and Kant’s objections simply do not exist. . . Fideism neglects the long historical development of the Bible and of Christian doctrines. . . Fideism, often without realizing it, treats some specific interpretation of Scripture or a particular doctrinal formulation as though it sprang directly from the mind of God into human minds, rather than also acquiring the best estimates of knowledge that existed in various historical eras. Unless various views of scriptural inspiration, human nature, and conceptions of God in christian theology are open to critical examination – an examination which includes our best estimates of what we believe to be true in other domains of inquiry – we are unable to determine which among the various views of theologians and churches are the most adequate and best able to guide us today in our lives and our understanding of God” (p. 7).

I think a few comments is proper at this point. If my reading of Allen is correct, he commits the mistake of equivocation using the term “postmodern” in two different ways (theological and cultural) but claims to use it only in its cultural sense. By identifying the four theological streams as postmodern, the only place implied for reformed theologians is either premodern or modern, which the writer aims to reform. Second, though the historical approach in the study of theology is commendable, I am curious about the real intention of the writer in emphasizing its need. Third, concerning “other domains of inquiry,” I suspect that the writer refers to world religions. Finally, as to his emphasis about “best estimates,” I am also curious that this phrase might refer to what we call today as the formation of a “hermeneutical community of experts and specialists.” I suspect that the author undermines the doctrine of biblical perspicuity.

The Writer’s Target Audience and Method.

Allen thinks that due to plurality of worldviews and relativism, an intellectual culture has been formed that is inattentive to see the intellectual strength of Christianity. Despite the inattentiveness, he thinks that his current project is necessary to address the needs of two groups of people, those who are still troubled by modernism and those who rejected it but find themselves without direction in entering the postmodern age. Allen clarifies his goal, “My case is directed then both to those still troubled in various degrees by the assumptions of the Enlightenment and to those who are disillusioned with them, but who feel defenseless before the plurality of worldviews and religions and thus do not know how to avoid relativism” (p. 10). To achieve this, Allen describes his method, “My approach is to develop a theology in which the reality of other religions is taken into account, a Christian theology of other faiths” (p. 17). He further elaborates this approach as depending on the findings from four domains of knowledge: “specialized studies,” “actual people and things,” value or ethics, and religion (p. 12).

I want to add a brief comment concerning the four domains of knowledge. In specialized studies, Allen mentioned that this domain has to do with something measurable. As to the domain concerning the actual people and things, I understand Allen’s language referring to empirical studies. I think the same thing applies to the remaining two domains. All in all, I am suspicious about Allen’s basic assumptions whether he is really succesful in his postmodernist project. The way I see it, his project can still be described as positivist and empirical, which remains a modernist approach. The writer decries modernism, but still clings to it. His third domain, ethics, reminds me of a recent paper presented in a theological consultation about the interdisciplinary bases of ethics as apologetics. In the domain of religion, is the writer’s project heading towards the study of comparative religion? If this is the case, isn’t this still a modernist project?

Another question that comes to mind is about the nature of Allen’s project. Is his project still theological? Or is it missiological? This reminds me of contextualization, a controversial issue between Euro-American and Asian theologians.

Third, I find Allen’s view of faith has fallen short of the Reformed standard: “The nature of faith has been greatly misrepresented both by Christian theologians, especially since the Reformation, and by nonbelievers. It has been frequently been put into opposition with reason, or below reason, instead of above reason” (p. 18).

Fourth, Allen both wrote that modernism has deeply penetrated Christianity and at the same time modernism has pushed Christianity outside of main intellectual stream. Which one is true?

Finally, the basis of Allen’s theological alternative with his idea of having the possibility of God’s existence from scientific and philosophical insights is unclear . We have something better and solid than this proposal.

To end this reflection, Allen’s project reminds me of current trend among theological institutions in Asia, which is the development of an “international heremeneutical community.” The ideal goal is to go beyond and give up the distinct hermeneutical community of a particular theologian and to embrace the international one. Personally, I would rather maintain the distinct voice of my hermeneutical community as a prerequisite to my contribution to the conversation.

Reference: Allen, Diogenes. 1989. Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: The Full Wealth of Conviction. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, pp. 1-19.

Intended Learning Outcome: To attain basic understanding of the challenges posed by postmodernism. 

Guide Questions:

1.      According to Allen, why is it difficult to maintain certainty of conviction in Christianity in a postmodern age?

2.      Analyze this paragraph:

Explaining the difficulty that he observes, Allen states, that to confidently say that “Christianity is true,” is perceived today as “foolhardy when we live in a pluralistic world with any number of different views of reality and apparently no rational means of telling which view is most likely to be true, and when it is said that all views are historically relative and mere reflections of social structures” (p. 1). He adds, “Even scientific laws and theories are to be held tentatively. How can any educated person who is not simply dogmatic claim that a religion is true?” (ibid.).

3.      Identify the four areas where modernism is breaking down. Briefly explain each.

4.      Briefly describe Allen’s perceived dilemma that Christianity is facing in the postmodern age.

5.      Identify the four theological streams classified as postmodern.

6.      Who is Allen’s target audience?

7.      What is his approach? Briefly describe Allen’s approach.

8.      Is Allen successful in his postmodern theological project?

9.      Did you see any gaps in Allen’s intellectual project? Identify at least one.

---

[1] “Narrow view of reason,” how does the writer understand this phrase?

[2] “Classical view of science,” another phrase that requires more elaboration.