In Chapter One, Grenz says,
"Enlightenment optimism, together with the focus on reason, elevates on human freedom.…The Enlightenment project understands freedom largely on individual terms. In fact, the modern ideal champions the autonomous self, the self-determining subject who exists outside any tradition or community. "5
Here I want to point out a paradox of Grenz’s book. Grenz is suggesting that human reason – “the ability to unlock the secrets of the universe” – leads to human freedom – the ability to live without being at the mercy of the laws of the universe. If, for example, one can discover the secrets of the weather, then one can learn how to avoid its destructive power. This freedom-from-the-law leads to the autonomous individual who is “free…from our vulnerability to nature, as well as from all social bondage.”6 At the same time, however, Grenz points back to the original Star Trek series as an illustration of the modern mindset. He says,
The crew of the Enterprise included persons of various nationalities working together for the common benefit of humankind….The message was obvious: we are all human, and we must overcome our differences and join forces in order to complete our mandate, the quest for certain, objective knowledge of the entire universe of which space looms as ‘the final frontier.’7
The paradox here is that, even as human reason has led to individual freedom and autonomy, so it has also led to a sense of obligation to “the common benefit” and the development of community bonds. When human beings were at the mercy of the laws of the universe, they were bound to a community that suffered together through its problems. But once those problems could be conquered, that same human being became bound to a community that needed each other in order to find the solution to all of life’s problems. Reason, therefore led us out of a helpless community and into individual autonomy, but individual autonomy led us right back into the grip of our community bonds. It can be argued then that postmoderns rejected the modern worldview not because they discovered that “there is…no transcendent center to reality as a whole,”8 but because they discovered that the “transcendent center to reality” is the community that we share together.
About Me
- Suzy
- I am a United Methodist minister. I was diagnosed with a recurrence of ovarian cancer in March 2013. I'm writing about my thoughts of navigating all of life in the midst of this recurrence.
Response from Emery Ailes
ReplyDeleteArguably, if Grenz is correct, the modernist is treading an infinite circle moving round and around from individual freedoms that binds us “together for the common benefit of humankind” It sounds philosophy brought forth by Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher and social reformer. He lived between 1748 –1832, right in the heart of the modern age. He was a utilitarian in his own right who believed in individual and economic freedom. He was famous for the philosophy, the greatest good for the greatest number. The modernist, therefore, is governed by the parliamentary procedures majority rules in a given society. Not so with post-modernist. If I’m reading Grenz correctly, the post-modernist has taken the freedom of individual thought and reason from the modernist and combined it with a philosophy that says, use your individual thinking self to create your own reality. Therefore, the paradigm shift moves from the communal to all these little isolated individuals with no structured center. Everyone gets to make up there own rules and laws. There, then, becomes no real right or wrong, but relative. I’m not getting the “transcendent center to reality” is the community that we share together thing for post-modernity. I’m getting the post-modernist is deviant of it. If I’m correct, then, mankind is on a downward spiral disguised as progression and upward mobility. Lastly, the question comes to mind, “Where is God in all of this?” Well, if I’m reading Grenz correctly, even God is relative to whom ever the individual is. Narcotics Anonymous, an organization I am in favor of if it helps individuals get and stay off drugs, is one such organization that promotes a belief in a Higher Power “of ones understanding.” This is to say that in a post-modern world an individual believes in a chair to be their Higher Power, then the chair is.
Response from Suzanne Cox Reedstrom
ReplyDeleteKaryn makes a reasoned and logical argument. While I agree that there is a “transcendent center to reality,” I am not certain that we each see the transcendent center in the same way, as I believe this is part of the mystery of God, part of the “unknowing” or “seeing dimly” as the apostle Paul states. Just as the blind men touching the elephant could only describe the part they experienced, we, as humans, can only describe the part of the transcendent center we experience. There is always “more” in regard to our experience of God; more than we can imagine.