The undergirding principle of postmodernism – that “[j]ust as a text will be read differently by each reader, …so reality will be ‘read’ differently by each knowing self that encounters it”9 – suggests that the postulate of community as the explanation for why postmoderns have rejected the modern worldview may in fact be true. When Richard Rorty “argues that we should simply give up the search for truth and be content with interpretation,”10 he may be suggesting that we give up our individual opinions and instead embrace community consensus. This again is a paradox of Grenz’s book. On the one hand, he says postmodernism “asserts that the world has no center, only differing viewpoints and perspectives.”11 But on the other hand, he says this:
“The postmodern worldview operates with a community-based understanding of truth. It affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent upon the community in which we participate. …there is no absolute truth; rather, truth is relative to the community in which we participate.”12
Here again we see the postulate that, rather than there being “no transcendent center to reality,” the center to reality is the community. Understanding this – understanding “how it works” – allows us then to see that the “gnawing pessimism”13 of postmodernism is not so much a lack of “confiden[ce] that humanity will be able to solve the world’s great problems14, but rather an acceptance that our problems can only be solved to the extent that we are willing to work together. Where, therefore, Grenz proposes “the ‘new ecology’ of humankind in partnership with the universe,”15 I would like to propose an alternative – the “new economy” of humankind in partnership with each other. Where an “economy of words” refers to the ability to make a point in as few words as possible, the “new economy” might refer to the ability to solve our problems not so much in a way that is efficient, i.e. economical, but in a way that is cooperative, i. e. communal. As the African proverb goes: If you want to walk fast, walk alone. If you want to walk far, walk together.
“The postmodern worldview operates with a community-based understanding of truth. It affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent upon the community in which we participate. …there is no absolute truth; rather, truth is relative to the community in which we participate.”12
Here again we see the postulate that, rather than there being “no transcendent center to reality,” the center to reality is the community. Understanding this – understanding “how it works” – allows us then to see that the “gnawing pessimism”13 of postmodernism is not so much a lack of “confiden[ce] that humanity will be able to solve the world’s great problems14, but rather an acceptance that our problems can only be solved to the extent that we are willing to work together. Where, therefore, Grenz proposes “the ‘new ecology’ of humankind in partnership with the universe,”15 I would like to propose an alternative – the “new economy” of humankind in partnership with each other. Where an “economy of words” refers to the ability to make a point in as few words as possible, the “new economy” might refer to the ability to solve our problems not so much in a way that is efficient, i.e. economical, but in a way that is cooperative, i. e. communal. As the African proverb goes: If you want to walk fast, walk alone. If you want to walk far, walk together.
Response from Emery Ailes
ReplyDeleteOh, I love this proverb. I am all for communal, and cooperative works. But, I reject Rorty’s argument to be content with “interpretation” and embrace community consensus. God is the Head of all. It is he who decides who wins or loses; and not the community consensus. Thus, everything communal and cooperative works should point back to God. Biblical principles are relevant today as it was 6000 years ago. Interpretation needs to be left with the called and educated by God. If you want to walk far, walk together in God the proverb should read. Children would grow up with values and morals only by learning to walk together with God. The post-modernist would have the words “In God We Trust” taken off of the currency we spend; taken out of the courtrooms and the halls of justice; and stricken from the pledge of allegiance. The one reason why I reject community consensus is because of something my pastor the late Reverend Dr. Clarence P. Grant said one time just before a church meeting. He said to me, as I paraphrase, that the problem with community consensus is that if you get a bunch of devils who has the greatest number in the community, then you’re going to have a world of trouble.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse from Suzanne Cox Reedstrom
ReplyDeleteThe quote that Karyn uses above concerning “a community-based understanding of truth” raises this question for me, what do we do when the truths of different communities collide? Truths collide; this has been a reality from biblical times until today. Elijah and the prophets of Baal met and fought on Mt. Carmel to answer the question of whose god/God was the greatest. Jesus was crucified over the truth that he proclaimed. Stephen was stoned. The people of Masada committed suicide rather than succumb to the power and truth espoused by the Romans. The Crusades pitted the Christian European truth against the Muslim truth. The North’s truth of ending slavery collided with the South’s truth of individual states rights to decide on the issue of slavery. Even when the different faiths try to sit down together to discuss their understanding of God, often each consider their understanding of God and how God works in the world to be the “right” way. Perhaps instead of rejecting modernity, as Grenz suggests, post-moderns are embracing the mystery of God and allowing us to meet God and other’s understanding of God in a perspective of “not-knowing .”16