Return to Themelios Issues

An International Journal for Pastors and Students of Theological and Religious Studies

Table of Contents [+] Expand

---

Book Reviews[+] Expand

---

Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church . Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. 156 pp. $17.99.

James K. A. Smith.

Tim Chester
Northern Training Institute
Sheffield, England, UK

Who's afraid postmodernism? Not James Smith, a sympathetic interpreter of the Radical Orthodoxy movement (or 'sensibility' as advocates prefer to label it). He goes back to the French philosophical roots of postmodernity, exploring three of its famous slogans: 'there is nothing outside the text' (Derrida); 'incredulity toward metanarratives' (Lyotard); and 'power is knowledge' (Foucault). Smith claims they have been routinely misinterpreted. Properly understood, they reveal an affinitywith Christian faith and resources for Christian mission.

Derrida's claim that there is 'nothing outside the text', Smith argues, is not a statement of linguistic idealism (nothing exists except text), but that what exists is always interpreted. 'Everything is interpretation' is Smith's version. And, yes, this means the gospel is an interpretation. Objectivity is usually understood to mean universally demonstrable. But not everyone can see the cross as God's saving intervention. Smith appeals to John Owen: the objective provision of revelatory light is ineffectual without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit to dispel the darkness. We need the interpretation revelation provides through faith. In the end Smith claims that Derrida has reinforced sola Scriptura: Scripture is the interpretation through which we understand the world. (He also talks of the church as the context for interpretation, but this idea is undeveloped.)

Likewise Smith believes Lyotard dismisses not metanarratives per se, but stories that appeal to universal reason rather than evoking faith. Science's critique of narrative 'fables' is itself a narrative. ('Is there a bigger story than On the Origin of Species?') Christianity can boldly proclaim its story without being accused of the bias of faith because now faith presuppositions are everywhere presupposed. As Augustine first claimed, faith precedes understanding. When it comes to 'knowledge is power', Smith questions the assumption that power is necessarily bad (on which Foucault is ambiguous), calling on Christians to exercise truth-power for good through discipleship.

Running through the book is a dismissal of evidentialist apologetics that appeal to the universals of human reason and experience. Instead Smith makes a strong case for the presuppositional apologetics of Francis Schaeffer (the books started life as L'Abri lectures). Smith calls on us to use postmodernism to reveal the presuppositions of everyone, hard-line rationalists included, to create a hearing for Christian proclamation.

This is a stimulating read. The presentation is lively and engaging, often built around films—from Memento to The Little Mermaid. I recommend it for anyone trying to rethink mission today—especially if you fear postmodernity!

Smith's constructive proposals, however, are more confusing. Both modernity and postmodernity, Smith argues, assume knowledge equals certainty; the one assuming its knowledge leads to certainty, the other assuming its rejection of certainty means a rejection of knowledge. Smith in contrast appeals to Augustine to argue for knowledge without certainty. But this mis-equates Augustine's emphasis on knowledge as gracious gift (revelation) with uncertain knowledge. One reason the book is slippery is that Smith seems (unnecessarily in my view) to equate knowing truth objectively (i.e. without mediation) with knowing objective truth. Rejecting the former, he rejects the latter.

Smith calls for a 'thick' (as opposed to 'thin') confessionality. He warns of a false humility that accepts the 'neutral' claims of psychology and sociology, and then positions theology accordingly when postmodernism has debunked this myth of neutrality. Yet he never misses the opportunity to take a shot at the certainties of evangelicalism. Smith seems to assume true and false interpretations. But also claims the axiom 'everything is interpretation' guards against imperial agendas. But imperialists could (and do) simply assert true interpretations of the world. How do you decide between conflicting interpretations? Smith emphasises the particularity (as opposed to the universality) of the incarnation, leaving the universal claims of mission in an ambiguous position.

What one is left with is the centrality and particularity of tradition. But which tradition? Reformed, Orthodox, Catholic? Or maybe even Maori since Smith uses the affirmation of Maori tradition in The Whale Rider as a model for the church. The answer, if the radically orthodox church described at the end of the book is anything to go by, is a rather arbitrary hotchpotch of favoured traditions.