Beyond Evangelicalism

The Theological Methodology of Stanley J. Grenz

Steven Knowles

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781351955669
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Teologia e religione
• Subtopic: Religione

A prolific author and thinker, Stanley J. Grenz was a respected and influential figure, not only within evangelicalism but in the wider theological world. Amongst the many issues tackled by him it is perhaps his revisioning of evangelical theology in the light of the postmodern challenge that has caused the biggest stir in the theological world. Advocating a nonfoundationalist methodology, Grenz attempts to re-position evangelical theology in line with postmodern concerns. This work examines the main traits of postmodern thought that would seem to directly challenge how evangelical theology is traditionally done. An examination of the seminal influences on Grenz will be traced in order to understand more fully the position he takes. A rigorous critique and assessment of his theological methodology will follow with the conclusion that his work goes beyond evangelicalism. This will be the first book length treatment on Grenz's work on theological methodology and therefore will break new ground in this important area of study.

Chapter 1
Postmodernism

The term postmodernity is used to describe the differing strands, themes and ideas, not all interrelated, that have developed as a form of critique and reaction to modernity. It is a simply a description for the zeitgeist of our day. Such reaction has been stimulated, in general terms, by a loss of faith in the progressivist and speculative discourses characteristic of the Enlightenment programme. This stultifying legacy (according to most postmodern theorists),¹ that majored upon the authoritarian nature of reason, with its inflexible, fixed and totalising agenda, is giving way to ideas from the postmodern vantage point which, in contrast, include fragmentation, diversity, instability, ephemerality, otherness and discontinuity.

Little has escaped the scrutiny of postmodern theorists. Ethics, art, politics, communications, history, media, theology, literature and education have all been subjected to analysis. The purpose of this chapter is simply to identify some of the main ideas of this nebulous intellectual movement in order to be able to trace some implications for evangelical theology.

At this point, it is worth noting that, generally, postmodern ism refers to the intellectual and cultural development of that which comes under the label postmodern. A good example of the intellectual change that will be discussed in more detail later is the debate over foundationalism. Postmodern theorists such as Michel Foucault² and Jacques Derrida³ have attacked foundationalist epistemologies that understand knowledge to be built on objective grounds and have written extensively against such positions. On the other hand, the term postmodern ity refers to current socio-cultural contexts. For example, a particularly conspicuous change in today’s world is the way information is disseminated. Communication and information technologies (CITs),⁴ especially the internet and e-mail, are having a huge impact on the way data is distributed and assimilated. Indeed, CITs are affecting the social, political and economic climate to such an extent that some commentators have referred to the emergence of a ‘post-industrial’ world or a new ‘information society’.⁵ However, the point, as David Lyon rightly states, is that ‘postmodern ism cannot be understood without postmodern ity’.⁶ The social cannot be totally separated from the cultural, and vice versa. An appreciation of the close links between the two will become apparent in what follows.

To attempt with any precision a definition of postmodernism is notoriously difficult. David Harvey notes, ‘No one exactly agrees as to what is meant by the term, except, perhaps, that “postmodernism” represents some kind of reaction to, or departure from, “modernism”.’⁷ Indeed, arguably, the attempt to define it is antithetical to that which is deemed postmodern. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, it is due in part to the ambiguous nature of the term. Does it refer to a break with modernity (Foucault)? Does it show a continuous link with modernity (Lyotard)? Perhaps it refers to a stage within a degenerative modernity (Habermas), or does the prefix ‘post’ simply question the influence of modernity as we know it (Lyon)? The whole situation is made even more difficult when one considers that there is a certain amount of confusion as to what modernity itself actually refers to.⁸ Furthermore, it is important to remember that postmodernity cannot be explained as if it was one process, state or attitude. It is not. Many postmodern thinkers would reject the idea because, for them, no one thing or idea is monolithic. All is open to further fragmentation and interpretation.

Secondly, some postmodern theorists refuse to be tagged with the term ‘postmodern’. A good example of this is John Caputo’s comments with regards to Derrida. ‘Derrida steadfastly avoids the word postmodern.’⁹ Furthermore: ‘Derrida would describe himself not as a postmodern, but as a man of the Enlightenment, albeit of a new Enlightenment, one that is enlightened about the Enlightenment and resists letting the spirit of the Enlightenment freeze over dogma.’¹⁰ Moreover, many ideas and theories within what is broadly identifiable as postmodern often conflict. Zygmunt Bauman, for example, argues that, ‘incoherence is the most distinctive among the attributes of postmodernity’.¹¹ A helpful analogy describing the postmodern is that employed by Laurence Cahoone, who refers to the different ideas as members of a dysfunctional family.¹² There are differences of interpretation and method but they have similarities that identify them as belonging to the postmodern family.

Key Postmodern Traits

The literary critic Terry Eagleton attempts to describe some of the features that are broadly described under the rubric of postmodernity in the following way:

Post-modernism signals the death of such ‘meta-narratives’ whose secretly terroristic function was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a ‘universal’ human history. We are now in the process of awakening from the nightmare of modernity, with its manipulative reason and fetish of the totality, into the laid-back pluralism of the post-modern, that heterogeneous range of lifestyles and language games which has renounced the nostalgic urge to legitimate itself … Science and philosophy must jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly as just another set of narratives.¹³

This paragraph offers an insight into some of the key features of what is an amorphous and rather disjunctive collection of ideas, and points to useful motifs from which to begin unpacking some of the main points for the purpose of our discussion. Having said that, postmodern thought does not liberate to the extent that Eagleton seems to imply, nor is it as ‘laid-back’ as he suggests. As we shall see, for some the postmodern phenomenon brings only a vacuous chaos in place of the so-called certainties of modernism.

The strands that are highlighted below have been selected because they have had not only a significant influence on the current intellectual climate, but also an impact on evangelical theology, both directly and indirectly. That is to say, they have caused theologians to react both negatively and positively to such ideas. Many evangelical scholars have understood postmodern developments to be antithetical to the Christian religion.¹⁴ As we shall see, these developments do require a re-evaluation of theological methodology, and, more importantly, a closer reading of the ideas that have emerged from some postmodern theorists. Unfortunately, within evangelical academia there have been numerous misreadings and misunderstandings of important ideas that have resulted in an almost paranoid reaction to anything connected with postmodernism.¹⁵ What follows is an overview of some of these postmodern traits with pointers to some problems that may be encountered with them when approached from an evangelical theological perspective.

The Demise of the Metanarrative

Starting with the concept of ‘metanarrative’, Jean-François Lyotard famously relates it to postmodernism as follows:

Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.¹⁶

Here, from the outset, Lyotard sets the tone for his critical onslaught upon what he sees to be the biggest problem with the modernist worldview. What follows is a repudiation of what he understands a metanarrative to be. Furthermore, the metanarrative stands as possibly the most abhorrent form of universal imprisonment that has emerged out of the modern epoch according to most postmodern theorists.¹⁷ Lyotard believes a metanarrative to be a term that ‘designates any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse … making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth.’¹⁸

What Lyotard refers to, in general terms, is the Enlightenment idea that science acts as the great emancipator of humanity because of its ability to legitimise itself through the discovery of knowledge. This is extremely important to understand from the outset. Lyotard’s aversion to metanarratives is not based on their scope – how big a story – but on the nature of their claims. As Merold Westphal has remarked, if the problem was because of their size they would be referred to as ‘meganarratives’.¹⁹ Gary Browning notes that ‘Lyotard picks out science and the justification of scientific knowledge as emblematic of a legitimating absolutist modern self-image’.²⁰ The basis of this legitimisation is grounded in two mythic metanarratives: the supremacy of reason (political) and the Hegelian idea of the unity of all knowledge (philosophical).²¹ These two metanarratives (emancipation and speculation) formed the basis from which science could confidently make its claims. However, for Lyotard, this approach is no longer tenable. The project of legitimating knowledge by means of a set of extra-contextual criteria is something that must now be abandoned. Indeed, the focus on the end of metanarratives is at the heart of Lyotard’s account of modernity and postmodernity. The proliferation of scientific disciplines within ‘science’ itself means unity can no longer be assumed within this broad spectrum and consequently no overall authority is possible. Scientists are therefore forced within their own respective communities to assert their own disciplinary boundaries. This has the knock-on effect of demolishing appeals to a central legitimating authority. Furthermore, science no longer has the ability to lead humanity into liberation by means of absolute knowledge. ‘The grand narrative has lost its credibility, regardless of what mode of unification it uses, regardless of whether i...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Postmodernism
• 2 Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Linguistic Turn in Philosophy
• 3 George Lindbeck’s Cultural-Linguistic Approach to Theology
• 4 The Theological Methodology of Stanley J. Grenz
• 5 Toward an Evangelical Theological Methodology for Postmodern Times.
• Bibliography
• Index