I was reading this excellent article in Prospect magazine by Edward Doxc titled ‘Postmodernism is Dead” and wanted to share some thoughts on it. If Postmodernism is truly dead, then what comes next? and Docx defines the initial characteristics of an emerging era to be at least three ideas – specificity, values, and authenticity. All of which stand in contrast to postmodern thought.

Of course Postmodernism is not really dead, nor is modernism or pre-modernism. Aspects of each of these movements live-on and continue to be evident in our culture. However, there are definitely broad viewpoints that define historical eras, and these sweeping collective thoughts shape our society in huge ways , such as trends, ideologies, politics, etc…

Much of what I’ve read about Postmodernism seems to indicate that we are now on the brink of a new paradigm. I agree with Docx on these initial ideas, and here are some areas where I’m starting to see those ideas play out.

The post-postmodernist realizes that…

There is an authenticity about the local farmer, as opposed to the mass production of processed foods (modernism) or the superstore variety of the branded products (postmodernism)

There is an authenticity about the uniqueness of a musical artist, as opposed to the mass saturation of one particular music style (modernism) or the re-branding of the artist to fit different trends and styles – via Madonna and Lady GaGa (postmodernism)

There is an authenticity about the specifics of a particular narrative, rather then the imposing of a top-down narrative (modernism) or the flattening of all narratives to be equally valid (postmodernism).

I do believe that the youth will be (if not already) thirsty for authenticity; not something that is simply true for them or what their emotions happen to be in a given day, but something very real. The crumbling economic and political structures in the West will force them to make a stand for something, and call it ‘true.’

Even the advancement of technology in the social virtual world will be a wake-up call to see the value of something more authentic. As Edward Doxc states:

“Certainly, the internet is the most postmodern thing on the planet. The immediate consequence in the west seems to have been to breed a generation more interested in social networking than social revolution. But, if we look behind that, we find a secondary reverse effect—a universal yearning for some kind of offline authenticity. We desire to be redeemed from the grossness of our consumption, the sham of our attitudinising, the teeming insecurities on which social networking sites were founded and now feed. We want to become reacquainted with the spellbinding narrative of expertise. If the problem for the postmodernists was that the modernists had been telling them what to do, then the problem for the present generation is the opposite: nobody has been telling us what to do.”

It will be interesting to see how these new movement of ideas eventually replace the ideologies of postmodernism. Will authenticity be the main thrust of the movement? or one idea among others? How will this change our perception on how we view religion, politics, academia, etc…

The World is ready for change, and I for one would welcome the age of authenticism.

As much as I enjoyed when my kids were toddlers, I really love their age right now (ages 9 and 12). It’s beautiful to see them developing into adults and how their character and unique gifts are shining through. I love that I can talk to them like adults and teach them the little I know about life.

In traditional Christian theology, my kids have reached what is known as the ‘age of reason.’ That basically means that they are responsible for their beliefs.

What’s interesting is that up until now, throughout their stages of development, what they have been learning has been mostly behavioral. They’ve been learning about right and wrong, selfishness, virtue, discipline, etc… of course I’ve also been teaching them about God and the things of faith but those aren’t things they could fully grasp, at least not in the very early years.

What happens often in the Christian church is when a person enters ‘new birth,’ they are saturated with beliefs and doctrine, taking class after class and getting lots of knowledge – then they are told to go out and live the Christian faith. Not that this isn’t a bad thing of course, but it seems contrary to what happens naturally, and does it really work?

It seems logical to suggest that belief precedes action, but I wonder if this is really a modern precedent that we even think in terms of splitting belief and action. The knowledge of justification and the sanctification of action; the knowledge of a degree and the action of work; the knowledge of a discipline and then the doing of the discipline. However, In ancient Judaism, the act of following the Rabbi (discipleship) was not simply to gain head knowledge but to do as the Rabbi did. The ancient understanding of wisdom was the embodiment of both mind and action.

Therefore, like the natural growth of child development, perhaps the pattern of wisdom looks more like behavior first, then fortified by belief. Or perhaps it is a matter of dropping the modern notion of a belief/action split altogether, embracing a more holistic synergy.

Three men walk into a coffee shop. Behind the counter on a stove-top is a pot of boiling water. One of the men asks the question “why is the water boiling?” The first man responds “because the molecules in the water are moving fast enough to separate and begin to change properties.” The second man answered “because somebody turned the gas on below the pot.” Finally, the third man responds “it is boiling because somebody ordered tea to drink.”

Which one is the correct answer?

They are all correct.

They are all true.

This is a good illustration, because it shows that there can be different answers; different perspectives that relate to reality. The scientist and the theologian can both have an explanation for something, and both can be correct.

The first answer that was given was a good scientific explanation. However, it doesn’t make it any truer then the other answers. Unfortunately, some scientists would argue that this should be the only valid explanation of truth, and reality can and should only be explained on that level.

Case in point – when Stephen Hawking says that life can be explained physically, and without the need for a God. He concludes therefore that God does not exist. Hawking stops at the first level of explanation and does not allow the possibility of other levels of truth.

At the same time, there are theologians who try to explain life solely on that first level. So the answer looks something like this - “The water is boiling because God is making the molecules move and miraculously making the energy increase.” Here the theologian is also not allowing multiple levels of truth. He too has flattened reality.

One of the problems in the science vs religion debate in our culture is that each side tries to debunk the other with truth. Each operate on a level of faith, and each derive from different perspectives. That does not mean they function as different worldviews; on the contrary they can co-exit in the same worldview. The key is to respect each discipline as it pertains to knowledge.

——–

The following post was inspired by a lecture I heard from Dr. John Haught on ‘levels of explanation.’ The illustration of the boiling pot was paraphrased by John Polkinghorne.

When the Dark Knight movie was released in 2008, the bar for superhero comic movies was raised. Superhero movies were no longer just action movies with simple stories of good vs evil. The heroes were more complex individuals struggling with their own life problems. The Dark Knight showed that superhero movies can now compete as serious movies and win oscars.

What made The Dark Knight and Spiderman both successful movies was not necessarily the focus on their super human powers, but the focus on their humanity. What happens when a young Peter Parker discovers he’s now a crime fighter, but must still work a normal job and pay the rent? What happens in the mind of a vigilante whose drive to fight crime stems from avenging the death of his parents? what are the inherent moral struggles? Of course, every good superhero movie has great effects, drama, and action… but this adds a new dimension to the role of the superhero.

Since the Dark Knight, there have been a countless number of superhero films released regularly. Some good, many bad, None have reached the same status. Where have they fallen short?

Tony Stark’s problem with alcohol addiction was handled sloppily in Iron Man 2. It was treated with humor instead of the seriousness of addiction. Thor’s problem of anger and pride was lost behind the action and poor acting; X-men seemed like it was dealing more about a politically correct problem of acceptance; Captain America’s handling of his best friend’s death in war could have been highly relevant and yet it was a minor part of the movie; etc…

Maybe I’m being too critical of over-psychoanalyzing the superhero, when in most cases, people just want to see their heroes kick butt, and parents just want morally good role models for their kids. But Spiderman proved it can be both, and what a way to teach kids about the struggles in life, then to see their heroes overcome them. Superhero movies can be successful as straight-up action flicks, but they will never be regarded as great movies.

Here is my personal list of the top seven superhero movies:

1. The Dark Knight (2008): amazing character development; good acting/casting; lots of good philosophy and great story and action.

2. Spiderman (2002): great casting and story development

3. Batman Begins (2005): great storytelling.

4. Superman 2 (1980): The idea of a superhero laying down his powers for love was compelling; The only really good superhero movie of its time.

5. Iron Man (2008): A billionaire inventor who comes to grips that his technology is being sold to the enemy is an interesting sub-plot.

6. Spiderman 3 (2007): Lots of good personalty conflict in this movie – overcoming internal temptation and evil. A good characterization of how evil can take over.

7. Captain America (2011): This one sneaked by in my list. Fairly good movie dealing with a person who has to control his new found strength with goodness. Could have been riskier, but decent storytelling.

I was watching a show on ‘quantum physics’ the other day. It’s interesting that when you get down deep into the quantum level, there appears to be a different set of laws at work. Objects behave rather differently. So much so, that one scientist mentioned that it breaks the barrier of our language.

We don’t have the right words to describe what is going on.

This, I think is what happens when people experience a divine encounter. Did you ever hear a piece of music? see an amazing sunset? experience something that you know transcends normality? At that moment… there are no words to describe what you are experiencing.

When I read the Bible, I get to know who Jesus is. But getting to know Jesus is more then just the words on the page. Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only way by which we can know and experience God. It does mean that it is the authority by which we interpret our experiences – that is a distinction worth mentioning. Without the Spirit interceding, the Bible is just words.

Those divine glimpses we get from God’s reflection in creation are reminders that God is truly real. There are no words to prove such an experience. It doesn’t fit in our language.