That's sort of the whole point isn't it? It isn't "my definition" of post-modernism. The very idea that we each have our own definitions is very post-modern in itself.codker92 said:
If you are so knowledgeable about in Christian things then what is your definition of post modernism?
I can try to give a good account of the accepted definition, but it gets tricky across different disciplines. Post-modern in politics means something different than in art, philosophy, history, religion, etc. All are characterized as being something later and different than the "modern age". The modern age consists of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the automobile, steam and then fossil fuel power, the rise of liberal Republics, Communism, and Fascism, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and radical empiricism.
Post-modernism is defined by a lot of different things. First is the rejection of absolute truth. Truth becomes relative based on individuals, groups, or time periods. This is in contrast to radical empiricism, where truth is universal and can be demonstrated repeatedly. It is defined by a belief that one thing is not inherently better than another. Democracy is not inherently better than monarchy or communism or fascism. All have advantages and disadvantages and your position and perspective determines whether you think it is better or not. The subjective experience of individuals and groups becomes more important than any measurable facts when it comes to determining truth.
We see a lot of post-modern thought in the current racial movements. Even if defined metric show decreased arrests, improved standard of living, and improved wealth among minorities compared to 30 years ago, the subjective feeling of persecution is more important when determining the truth of racial disadvantage. I had an English friend that joked they would always vote in the Liberal party when social services were doing badly, and they would vote in the Tories when the economy was doing badly. That is a very post-modern way of thinking. Each ideology having known advantages and known disadvantages but neither being inherently superior and no one zealous for either one.
Post-modernism can also be accurately applied to the Internet Age, the environmental movement, the Cold War and really any conflict after nuclear weapons were developed. These things are all beyond the scope of modernity and distinctly different.
As far as Christians are concern, Protestants are mostly modern. But you could say some very liberal Christian groups are post-modern. Those that have female clergy, marry same sex couples and teach the Bible as a self-help book. They rely on subjective experience over any objective standard such as Scripture or church authority. Catholics are chronologically post-modern following Vatican 2, but it's really a misnomer since it doesn't include any of the emphasis on subjectivity that we see with other post-modern thought. The Eastern Orthodox aren't even modern. They are at the latest medieval in thought, though they would probably argue for having solely ancient thought. My theology has some post-modern elements, like open theism and a change for redemption for those who haven't heard the Gospel.
Sorry for the long post. This is still only scratching the surface. It's a huge topic that applies to just about every field.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
