Miller and Postmodernism (II)

                 Last week I began to take a look at some of the postmodern thoughts of author Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz; Searching for God Knows What). I stated that there is much that he writes that I accept, and I would say the same of “postmodern” thought in general. I plan to come back to that later, but for now I want to consider those aspects of postmodernism that I find troublesome. But even before I do that, let me share this thought that a friend shared with me: Neither postmodernism nor modernism are Biblical worldviews. Both thought-paradigms are inventions of men. Postmodernism is that system that rejects absolute truth and sees everything as contingent, relative, and subjective. Modernism, on the other hand—a system of thinking that came out of the Enlightenment Age and reached its pinnacle in the 19th and early 20th centuries—sees man as capable of shaping his own environment and destiny through scientific knowledge and technology. It rejects the past (historical tradition) as a source of true and accurate knowledge, and rejects the need for supernatural revelation. Modernism asserts that everything can be explained by scientific principles. It is this kind of thinking, actually, that led to the extreme skepticism of the Biblical texts that is known today as “higher criticism.” Modernity seeks to explain everything scientifically. Thus, if postmodernity rejects “formulas” and “propositional truth” (charts, lists, bullet points – rational and systematic knowledge), modernity seeks to explain almost everything by a formula or syllogism. Both worldviews are extreme, and each has legitimate criticisms of the other.

                The problem with postmoderns such as Donald Miller is not so much their criticism of modern thought (e.g., the cold intellectualism of modernism), but their failure to offer a good alternative. According to Miller, for example, the gospel cannot be expressed in any formulas, but only in story and narrative. It is simply a love story between God and man, akin to the story of Romeo and Juliet. In fact, Miller does a masterful job of relating Shakespeare’s famous bard to the ultimate love story of the gospel of Christ. This love relationship with God through his Son Jesus Christ—a relationship that is based on each partner giving up everything for the other—is certainly far more appealing and meaningful than mere formulas and checklists. But while Miller leaves us with a beautiful love story, he offers no sure way of entering into the story ourselves. According to Miller, and postmodernists in general, each person enters into a relationship with God in his own way, through his own story. There is no universal formula, nor established means, but only personal story. But who is Miller (and who are we) to question whether or not God can offer a “formula” as part and parcel to restoring a broken relationship with him? Miller does at least affirm that we enter a relationship with God through Jesus Christ (could that in itself be viewed as a “formula”?), but I’m not sure how he can get to that conclusion. What about those whose “stories” occur in the context of Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam or whatever other religion we can name? Maybe their stories are not as appealing to Miller, but by Miller’s own view of things that should not make them any less valid.

                In spite of the failure of postmodernism to offer satisfying solutions to tough questions, its emphasis on story and narrative has much to commend itself, which we’ll muse on next week.

© 2007 Randy Hohf