The Master‟s College

Postmodernism and Theology

A Heterogeneous Mixture

Jonathan McCarty

Postmodernism (E4991)

Professor Jo Suzuki

12 December 2013

McCarty 1

When I was in high school, I took a chemistry class to fulfill the science requirement for

graduation. The professor was named Mr. Edick. His lecture style was unorthodox, but this is

one of the things the students enjoyed most about his course. He once filled a balloon with

hydrogen and touched it to a flame to make it explode in the classroom. Another time he set one

of the students on fire to test whether a hazmat suit was flammable. The other students put out

the fire immediately with water which was nearby just in case such a thing would take place. The

student did not get burned, but the hazmat suit was left with a charred hole where the flame made

contact. These experiences and other memorable lessons from that classroom taught the students

what chemistry was all about: discovering the fundamental properties of each element and

learning whether or not certain substances can be combined harmoniously. Substances which do

not mix—such as oil and water—are called heterogeneous mixtures. If one attempts to put these

two materials together, they will resist one another in every case. They will never fuse, and they

will never go together. If they are put in the same space, heterogeneous mixtures will maintain

their different properties. They are mutually exclusive in their coexistence. Neither one can

affect the other. The two will never blend.

In the field of academic studies, there are some disciplines which can be combined and

others that will never merge. Two popular academic studies of today are postmodernism and

theology. Theology is the systematic study of God based upon philosophical premises of human

rationality. On the other hand, postmodernism is a complicated subject which requires a more

detailed analysis. However, when accurately defined, postmodernism is not systematic or

rational. It rejects such notions as inaccurate views of reality which can lead to great evil through

government institutions. Theology and postmodernism are very different. They are so different

that they must always be separated from one another. The purpose of this term paper is to

McCarty 2

demonstrate clearly that the subjects of postmodernism and theology form a heterogeneous

mixture. There is no such thing as postmodern theology.

The first task is to define the postmodern. The word postmodern can mean almost

anything in the world today. The term itself was coined by a man named Charles Jencks (Woods

1). However, popular culture has taken this word and forced it to conform to a broad range of

topics (Woods 3). Thus, the meaning of “postmodernism” has become rather ambiguous. In

order to correctly understand the postmodern, it is important to understand its use by a variety of

people. In the following paragraphs this paper will attempt to differentiate between four main

views of the postmodern.

The first major approach to postmodernism is clearly displayed in the writings of a

Marxist named Fredric Jameson. To Jameson, postmodernism is the third stage in a long

developing movement of world history (Jameson xix). There are three stages of capitalism which

Jameson refers to as the first, second, and third machine ages. He took this idea from the author

Ernest Mandel. These three periods correspond to historical progress and development in

industry which result in a development in capitalism. The three machine ages are: market,

monopoly, and multinational (Jameson 35). These three machine ages correspond to the terms

realism, modernism, and postmodernism. Jameson does not define postmodernism as clearly as

others attempt to do since he views it as a general culture attached to the present age (Jameson

xxii). However, it is in this assumption that Jameson‟s loose definition is revealed. As seen on

the title of his book, postmodernism is “the cultural logic of late capitalism” (Jameson xv). Thus,

postmodern means a culture which is inseparable from capitalism in today‟s computerized world.

Fredric Jameson exhaustively describes in his book that the late capitalist period of today

has many attributes. It is marked by commodity fetishism—an obsession with objects based on

McCarty 3

seeing something in the object which is greater than the object itself. The object is so valued

because it reifies an unseen, abstract concept. Thus, image is the final form of commodity

reification (Jameson ix-54). As a theologian would assess this, Jameson views the postmodern

age as particularly characterized by idolatry—a deep yearning to perfectly present the

unpresentable Divine. There is a desperate goal to make the internal external—to make the

unconscious conscious. In this process the inside and the outside become the same: shallow.

Depth is lost. This can be seen today in commercials where entertainment is more important than

the message. Video games are so real that they become hyper-real. The media has shifted from

working to please the mind toward working to please the eyes (Jameson 67-96). Consequently,

the present moment is lost in the past. This creates nostalgia for the present moment (Jameson

279-296).

Ultimately, Jameson sees this late capitalist culture (“postmodernism”) as the problem in

the world today. The solution, in his mind, is Marxism: the total removal of the capitalist system

which dominates the world (Jameson 336). To summarize Jameson‟s view in one word,

postmodernism refers to a period or age in history. It is a historical movement—the very

movement of the modern world. Jameson believes this began around the 1950s or 1960s which

also mark the end of the modernist era (Jameson 1). In this way, Jameson also would propose

that the postmodern is the reaction to modern (Jameson 17). It is here that Jameson‟s view

overlaps with all the others.

The second common approach to evaluating postmodernism is found in the writings of a

philosopher named Richard Rorty. Rorty questions the human endeavor to discover objective

truth in the fields of philosophy, science, and religion. He calls such people “realists” (Rorty 21-

22). Thus, Rorty argues for antirepresentationalism. In this view, “one…does not view

McCarty 4

knowledge as a matter of getting reality right, but rather as a matter of acquiring habits of action

for coping with reality” (Rorty 1). Rorty recognizes that there is no one-to-one correspondence

between representation and reality. Representations are an approximation of reality like π is an

approximation of 3.14. This number is similar to π as an approximation, but ultimately it is only

a weak representation of the reality of an irrational number whose digits extend toward infinity.

When choosing between objectivity and solidarity, Rorty insists that one must select solidarity.

This solidarity comes through consensus or agreement from everyone in a global dialogue. Thus,

Rorty‟s philosophy is neither objective nor subjective. Rather, it is intersubjective. Subjects

come together to form the objective “reality” (Rorty 21). In this way, Rorty is similar in his

philosophy to Friedrich Nietzsche (Rorty 15). He points out that there is no biological basis for

“human rights” or equality without appealing to a nonhuman entity. Even if one appeals to this

entity, it is not apparent that humans have any rights or that they have ever been equal (Rorty

31).

Rorty sees realism as objectivity at the expense of the subjects—as history has shown.

Rorty posits that humanity should move away from this toward the intersubjectivity of

modernism. Science is not so much about objective research as it is about solidarity through

society and politics. There is a tendency in the sciences for people to favor useful approximations

more than truth. From its inception, philosophy has been more about teaching people what to

think than teaching people how to think. As a result, education in the modern world is about

learning to play the game whose rules have been established by the consensus of the previous

players. It is more about mimicking than learning (Rorty 33).

Rorty upholds the traditions of the American pragmatist John Dewey. They both

subscribe to the mantra of the Enlightenment that democracy is the world‟s only hope. Through

McCarty 5

proper dialogue, Rorty is optimistic that every human being can get along and form a universal

consensus. He sees humanity as ultimately good-natured. He does not acknowledge that some

perspectives are mutually exclusive. He denies that some ideas are truly incommensurable.

Though he recognizes that the liberal Western perspective he advocates is connected to the same

ideas behind Nazism (both forms of modernism), he does not see any threat of totalitarianism in

it. He does not seem to realize that consensus can only be reached through coercion (Rorty 214).

Ultimately, Rorty proposes that postmodernism is equivalent to relativism. There is no

objective truth, and each tradition of mankind should come together in philosophical discourse to

agree about what the “truth” should be. Truth is determined by men and cannot exist apart from

them. While Rorty recognizes that relativism is self-refuting, he insists that this “postmodern”

way of approaching discourse in the world is the only way to make progress. He suggests that

any definition of the postmodern that does not agree with his should be changed (Rorty 202).

Rorty‟s understanding of postmodernism is epistemological—a view of knowledge and truth.

Fredric Jameson and Richard Rorty defined postmodernism in the late 1980s to early

1990s. Both of them respond to earlier scholars who wrote on this subject in the late 1970s to

mid 1980s. These earlier authors include the French philosophers Jean-François Lyotard and

Jean Baudrillard. Lyotard and Baudrillard present the original, more accurate views of

postmodernism. However, as the reader may have already discovered, Jameson and Rorty

present the more popularized form which is the view eschewed in Christianity today. Thus,

postmodernism today is viewed as a historical period (the present age) and a relativistic

epistemology. This is not true postmodernism. True postmodernism is found in the writings of

Lyotard and Baudrillard—the third and fourth main perspectives on this subject.

McCarty 6

Jean-François Lyotard does state that the postmodern condition is the result of the present

age, and in this way there is a historical aspect to it (Lyotard 3). However, there is also a timeless

aspect to it. Postmodernism relates to “the condition of knowledge in the most highly developed

societies” in any time period. However, Lyotard used the situation of the second half of the

twentieth century as the setting in which to make his point about what he calls the “crisis of

narratives.” Lyotard points out science‟s conflict with narratives—the majority of which science

writes off as fables. Nevertheless, due to science‟s inability to completely discover objective

reality it is forced to legitimate the rules of its own game. This is the function of philosophy and

it is carried out through intersubjective interaction (as Rorty observed). Thus, Lyotard used the

word modern “to designate any science which legitimates itself with reference to a

metadiscourse of this kind making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative” (Lyotard xxiii).

The grand or meta-narrative is a story to explain all other stories. It is the means through which

modernist minds legitimate knowledge. These metanarratives are cause for concern because they

fall into the trap of the self-referential paradox. This is the reason there can be no “unified field

theory” (also known as a theory of everything) in science. No theory of how the universe

functions can also explain its own function (Lyotard 29).

Lyotard lists four general types of metanarratives: the dialectics of Spirit, the

hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, and the creation

of wealth (Lyotard xxiii). Such modernist metanarratives can easily allow truth and justice to be

ignored and a totalitarian tyrant to oppress the masses. As with Jameson and Rorty, Lyotard‟s

postmodernism is a reaction to modernism and/or realism. Thus, Lyotard defines the postmodern

as “an incredulity toward metanarratives” (Lyotard xxiv). It is a disposition or attitude of

skepticism toward those who insist on objective or intersubjective approaches to knowledge.

McCarty 7

Lyotard staunchly disagrees with the position of Jṻrgen Habermas that truth is discovered

(or decided upon) through intersubjectivity and consensus. The notion of what is true is

legitimated by the authorities (those with power), and people in undeveloped societies have no

hope of contributing to the metanarratives which drive the post-industrial world forward

(Lyotard 27). Modern education is more about hypnotizing the student through language games

than encouraging them to search for truth (Lyotard 47-53). The metanarrative of rationality in the

Enlightenment has failed. Notions of truth are not linear, they are circular. The idea that some

arguments are logical and others are not is the result of the Enlightenment metanarrative. Thus,

this and other metanarratives are no longer credible. This is the main feature of postmodern

culture (Lyotard 37).

Lyotard closes his book by discussing three perspectives (which correspond to Jameson‟s

three machine ages). These three are: realism, modernism, and postmodernism. Postmodernism

is the response to realism. It is not the result or end of modernism, but it is modernism in its

nascent state—a state which is constant. Modernism is the shattering of belief and the discovery

of reality‟s lack of reality which leads to the invention of other realities. Something can only be

modern if it is postmodern first. Postmodernism and modernism will always go together. Where

one goes, the other will follow (Lyotard 79). Both of these are the reaction to realism which is

the most dangerous outlook of all. Realism avoids the question of reality by claiming that reality

is self-evident. Language games which accompany realist metanarratives are terms like

“normal,” “regular,” and “obvious.” Realism is not open to questions or searching for truth

because “the truth” is already found before the search began. The totalitarian tyrants of Nazi

Germany and Communist Russia secured their terrible reigns through realism. Though realism

leads back to postmodernism (followed by modernism), modernism inevitably leads into realism

McCarty 8

(Lyotard 73-79). What distinguishes the postmodern from the modern is the lack of totality in

attaining knowledge. In postmodern thought, there are many shifting narratives which are held in

conflict—a phenomenology without metanarrative. The postmodern references the unintelligible,

but not the intelligible (which leads to metanarrative). While modernists present the

unpresentable (unknowable) as the missing contents, the postmodernists put forward the

unpresentable in presentation itself. The postmodern thinker searches for new presentations not

to enjoy them, but to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable. This view is all about radical

subjectivity. Intersubjectivity is not enough because subjects are incommensurable. One must

emphasize the many differences between each subject and resist the temptation to totalize in

order to witness the unpresentable (Lyotard 81-82).

Jean Baudrillard takes Lyotard‟s thoughts to the next level. Lyotard contended that the

real or true still exists, but it is unpresentable. However, Baudrillard insists that the unpresentable

real has been totally forgotten. Through an abundance of myths (which are metanarratives), the

human experience has become nothing but simulacra of reality. The world is no longer

experienced as it actually is, but it has become lost in simulations. It is as though someone placed

a beautiful mask over their face and left it there until the mask and the face merged into one. By

that point, if one were to remove the mask they would also remove the face to reveal the

horrifying truth that no face (reality) remains—just the mask. This “mask” or simulation is not

merely a falsehood of unpresentable reality, but it is the conviction that something else is more

real than reality. Baudrillard gives the example of someone who fakes an illness versus someone

who simulates an illness. The one who fakes it is never actually sick, but the one who simulates

it produces in his body some of the symptoms. When someone pretends, the reality is not lost.

McCarty 9

When someone simulates, the link between the real and surreal slowly vanishes until only the

hyper-real remains (Baudrillard 3).

Society today is filled with symptoms without causes. The human experience is hyper-

real, and the real has been lost. The real still exists in animals and babies (humans who have yet

to learn language and the legitimation game which comes with it). However, it is lost in adults

(Baudrillard 133). In order to return to the real one would have to forfeit their sociality entirely,

abandon language, and give up on presenting the unpresentable as real. Thus, the real is lost

while society enjoys the precession of simulacra. Like Disneyland, the world (America in

particular) has become a theme park which uses playful illusions of different concepts to hide the

fact that reality is no longer real (Baudrillard 12-13). Baudrillard takes Nietzsche‟s “death of

God” proclamation one step further by declaring the death of metaphysics and ontology

(Baudrillard 5-7). Life not only has no meaning, but it also has no real being. Unlike Lyotard,

Baudrillard is pessimistic in his view of the world today. He is a self-proclaimed nihilist

(Baudrillard 160). Unlike nihilists of the past (and Nietzsche), Baudrillard is incredulous toward

metanarratives. He does not see solidarity as savior of the world (Baudrillard 159-164).

Baudrillard does see postmodernity as attached to the present age of history like Jameson, but

unlike Jameson he is incredulous. Thus, Baudrillard‟s view of postmodernism is also

dispositional, and he adds to this a cultural aspect.

So what is postmodernism? How can it be defined with all these diverse views? Most

generally, it seems that the postmodern position is always the reaction to the modern position—

however that may be defined. Jameson‟s historical perspective defines the postmodern as the

cultural logic of the age of late capitalism and the modern as the previous machine age. The

reaction to the previous period of history is the next. Rorty‟s epistemological perspective defines

McCarty 10

the postmodern as that which is relativistic and seeks solidarity over objectivity. Objectivity is

seen as the modern that is passing away. Lyotard‟s dispositional perspective of the postmodern

acknowledges the problem of the legitimation of knowledge through metanarratives. A

postmodern thinker is someone who is incredulous toward modernist metanarratives. They

recognize that rationality requires a measuring stick to measure reality, and if no measuring stick

can quantify or qualify reality then there is no such thing as Enlightenment rationality.

Everything is irreducible—composed of irrational numbers. Thus, a true postmodernist strives to

present the unpresentable continually without totalizing or becoming attached to one presentation

over another. Baudrillard shares Lyotard‟s incredulity, but his cultural vantage point asserts that

there is no longer any real unpresentable to know. There was once before, but it is now long

gone. Thus, each of the four views (and virtually every view) of postmodernism agree that the

postmodern is the reaction to the modern. Modernism and postmodernism will always go

together. This is best summarized in a quote used by Tim Woods in his book: “From the

modernism you choose you get the postmodernism you deserve” (Woods 1).

According to Lyotard‟s reasoning, neither Jameson nor Rorty are postmodern. Jameson‟s

metanarrative is Marxism and a historical perspective based on this mindset. Rorty‟s

metanarrative (along with Habermas and Nietzsche) is solidarity through consensus. Unlike

Rorty, Lyotard is not a relativist. He is suspicious of all claims to proof or truth, but he does not

assert that there is no truth or reality (Woods 21). Jameson and Rorty are modernists who

misunderstand Lyotard‟s point. Thus, they each criticize Lyotard. Jameson considers Lyotard to

be contradictory and stylistic (Jameson xi). Rorty refuses to be incredulous toward his

metanarrative and critiques Lyotard for his elevation of Western culture. Yet in hypocrisy Rorty

does exactly same thing (Rorty 211-212). True postmodernism is defined in the views described

McCarty 11

by Lyotard and Baudrillard. Thus, the object of the rest of this study will be to discover whether

or not there is such a thing as true postmodern theology or theologians. Those who claim to be

postmodern with views described like Jameson and Rorty will be exposed as modernists.

Now that the most difficult task of defining postmodernism is complete, the simpler task

of defining theology is at hand. There are three definitions of theology. The first describes the

other two vaguely. That is, theology is the study of God. However, this definition is too general

and lacks the specificity required for this paper. Thus, the other two definitions must be

considered. The first of these two is the colloquial meaning of the term “theology” as it is used

by professors and students on the Master‟s College campus. In this definition, theology is the

doctrines or beliefs one holds about God. It is this definition which is used in the assumption that

all people—even atheists—have a theology. Everyone holds to certain teachings which are based

on certain general convictions they have about God. This definition is more specific, but it still

does not completely limit the meaning of theology as a discipline of academia. Thus, the best

definition for theology is a professional theologian‟s definition. This is a definition of

“systematic” theology.

Wayne Grudem defines systematic theology as: “any study that answers the question,

„What does the whole Bible teach us today?‟ about any given topic.” Systematic theology is

about picking apart passages from the Bible to determine what people should believe about any

given topic. It is necessarily based on Western historical traditions and philosophy (Grudem 21).

It requires rationality and the Enlightenment metanarrative of systematizing knowledge (Grudem

34-35). Thus, it is contrary to postmodernism. Systematic theology is the product of realism and

modernism. More often than not it is the product of human arrogance instead of humble reliance

on the Holy Spirit‟s illumination of the Sacred Text. One can have a postmodern “theology”

McCarty 12

from the first two definitions described, but this third definition prevents postmodern theology—

as the remainder of this paper will demonstrate.

All theological disciplines are systematic in nature. They all begin with special revelation

from the Holy Scriptures and attempt to use human reasoning to figure out everything that can

possibly be known about God. The modernist mindset active in scientific reductionism is also

active in many theological ideas. This quickly turns these theologies into metanarratives. This is

why Christian theologies will tend to emphasize one particular attribute of God over all others

(such as those obsessed with God‟s love). This is where heresy originates. Heretics begin with

revelation and distort this to correspond to their sinful desires. It is vital that those who seek

revelation from God do so with humility and being content with incomplete knowledge until

Christ returns.

Though it is already clear that postmodernism and theology cannot go together, there are

many who have sought to combine the two without success. They do this through false views of

postmodernism (like Jameson‟s and Rorty‟s) and/or insistence on some form of Enlightenment

rationalism. Tim Woods‟ survey of postmodernism reveals that there are six theologies which

attempt to incorporate some form of postmodernism into their main premises. These theologies

are: postliberal, postmetaphysical, deconstructive, reconstructive (process), feminist, and radical

orthodoxy (Woods 56). This paper will evaluate three of these theologies according to the views

of one of their major theologians.

The first theology under consideration does not see itself as postmodern, but rather as a

reaction to those who are postmodern. This is the theology of radical orthodoxy. The theologian

who proposes this perspective is John Milbank. He is from an Anglo-Catholic social background,

and his theology reflects this (Milbank viii). Milbank‟s ideas borrow from a variety of social

McCarty 13

theorists, philosophers, and theologians (Milbank 1). Radical orthodoxy in general borrows from

“postmodern” philosophy momentarily to enhance its own modern philosophy. Milbank

embraces orthodox Christian doctrine such as creatio ex nihilo, the full divinity and humanity of

Christ, the importance of the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and an insistence on the Church as the

body of Christ (Vanhoozer 144). However, he also embraces the Catholic doctrine of

transubstantiation (Vanhoozer 134). He views the Church (and all her theological traditions) as

the “gift” which should be used to “constantly mediate all forms of knowledge” such as

“ontology, ethics, aesthetics, politics, and economics.” He considers himself “radically”

orthodox in the sense that he returns to ancient Christian roots—particularly to the Augustinian

vision of knowledge as Divine illumination (Vanhoozer 144-145).

Milbank is clearly an intelligent and well-rounded theologian. He is familiar with many

philosophers, but it does not seem that he accurately understands their writings. Milbank places

Lyotard together with those he speaks against—those he considers as “postmodern”

philosophers. He assumes Lyotard‟s view is in line with the nihilism of Nietzsche (Vanhoozer

129-130). One of Milbank‟s comrades in the radical orthodoxy movement borrows Lyotard‟s

concept of the sublime and compares it to Christological beauty (Milbank, Pickstock, and Ward

15). In his book, Milbank refers to Lyotard many times and seems to completely miss the point

which Lyotard is making. He uses Lyotard‟s terms such as “metanarrative,” but he does so

without any incredulity toward his own metanarrative (Milbank 94). Milbank suggest Lyotard‟s

version of postmodernism is based on a historical, nihilistic metanarrative. He also misquotes

that Lyotard spoke of an “age of metanarratives” (Milbank 276). John Milbank is not

postmodern, and his view of the postmodern is that it is a historical age which includes aspects of

relativism. He makes the same mistake as Jameson and Rorty by interpreting Lyotard‟s text

McCarty 14

through a modernist lens. His metanarrative seems to be the emancipation of the rational

subject—the Enlightenment metanarrative.

The second theology to consider is reconstructive or process theology. This theological

perspective is perhaps one of the most unorthodox in “Christianity” today. One major proponent

of this theology is David Ray Griffin. To understand David‟s unique theological perspective, it

helps to know his personal background. Griffin grew up in a conservative Christian home and

actively participated in a conservative Christian church. He originally went to college to get a

degree in music, but he transferred to a conservative Christian college to study to become a

minister. While at this school, Griffin became increasingly unsatisfied with the traditional

doctrine of the atonement (which he calls “Anselmian”). He was also bothered by the

“exclusivism” of conservative doctrine. When he went to get his master‟s degree in counseling,

he discovered new philosophical views which appealed to him. He switched his focus from

pastoral counseling to philosophical theology. Eventually, he attended the Claremont School of

Theology. During his time there, his experiences with the hallucinogen peyote caused him to

consider the idea of altered states of consciousness. Also, he studied many books regarding ideas

about reincarnation combined with the philosophical considerations of evolution to form a

theology of universal salvation. He studied theosophy which combined concepts of Christianity

and Hinduism (Griffin and Smith 2). All of these influences are evident in Griffin‟s theology.

David Ray Griffin summarizes the major views of reconstructive theology in his section

of Kevin J. Vanhoozer‟s The Cambridge Companion To Postmodern Theology. Griffin rejects

the sensationist and mechanistic view of nature in favor of panexperientialism. In this view, all

things are “occasions of experience” which have evolved over time from lower forms and are

still evolving into higher forms. The lower forms are “demonic values” and the higher forms are

McCarty 15

“Divine values.” Thus, the demonic evolves toward the Divine. Griffin is a theistic

naturalist/evolutionist, meaning he combines the “creation” accounts of both Judeo-Christian

religion and science for a new metanarrative embracing both. He believes that God‟s act of

creation is not “ex nihilo” but rather it is bringing order out of chaos—a belief which he

considers as a return to true orthodoxy on the doctrine of creation. Unlike other so-called

“postmodern” theologians, Griffin does not reject metaphysics. However, he does define it

slightly differently. To Griffin, metaphysics is more experiential than existential. Griffin‟s

theology is heavily influenced by the philosophical notion of panpsychism, but he does not

believe this is the case. Griffin claims that reconstructive theology is the reconciliation between

conservative and liberal views of theology, but his political views are clearly liberal in nature:

environmentalist, feminist, and anti-militarist (Vanhoozer 92-108).

Griffin uses the term “postmodern” as though it refers to the dominant secular worldview

of the contemporary world (Griffin 13). He also sees postmodernism as an era or way of thinking

which combines thought processes from the premodern and modern eras of history (Griffin and

Smith 35). He does not disagree with ideas of Jṻrgen Habermas, and he says that postmodernism

subscribes to relativism in some cases (Griffin and Smith 17). Griffin is in favor of a political

system of global democracy and he clearly embraces a consensus view of knowledge. Griffin

may see himself a postmodern theologian, but his views do not fit this description. His view of

postmodernism is inaccurate like Jameson‟s and Rorty‟s. He subscribes to the Enlightenment

metanarrative of emancipation for the rational subject.

The third and final theology to assess is postmetaphysical theology. The major proponent

of this perspective is a Catholic theologian named Jean-Luc Marion (Marion xiv). As the name

of this theology implies, it is primarily a reaction to traditional metaphysical philosophy. In a

McCarty 16

sense, Marion seems to have been influenced by Baudrillard‟s concept of the death of

metaphysics. However, unlike Baudrillard, Marion does not believe reality is totally lost. The

reality of God is present, but human conceptualization has hidden this reality from society.

Marion‟s primary objective in his book is to respond to theologies of history and the present

which describe God ontologically (in terms of Being). Marion sees this ontological emphasis in

theology founded on Exodus 3:14 where God names Himself “I AM THAT I AM.” He proposes

that people move away from this understanding of God toward the First John 4:8 understanding

of God—that is, the notion that God is love (Marion xxii).

Marion critiques the ideas of three famous metaphysical philosophers of the past:

Descartes, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. Descartes is known as the father of modernism, and he is

famous for his major metaphysical statement: “I think, therefore I am.” Nietzsche is chief among

the philosophers who fathered existentialism and nihilism. His proclamation of the “death of

God” and his concept of the “will to power” were strongly influenced by metaphysical thinkers.

Heidegger‟s concept of Sein or Supreme Being (the Being in which all other being is grounded)

is also of interest to Marion in demonstrating how the metaphysical concept of God has failed.

Essentially, by discussing the impact of these men and other ideas from Church history, Marion

explains that humans have attempted to trap God in the study of metaphysics. God is imagined in

terms of being. Marion insists that this metaphysical concept of God is an idol which limits the

true, infinite nature of God. He interprets Nietzsche‟s “death of God” declaration as evidence of

the failure of this ontological obsession. Marion is convinced that people should not seek to

understand God to be close to Him. They should just love Him and do His will in humility.

Humans must exist (have being) before they can love, but with God this is not the case. In this

way God is “beyond Being.” Marion stresses that God loves beyond being and into being. God‟s

McCarty 17

love is His selfless, generous act of giving revelation of Himself. Marion believes that this love is

revealed through the “paternal distance” or “withdrawal” of God the Father. This paternal

distance is God‟s gift to humanity. However, humans are not interested in this gift, so they insist

upon conceptualizing God in ontology and metaphysics (Vanhoozer 58-75).

While John Milbank and David Ray Griffin are most clearly misinformed in their

understanding of postmodernism, Jean-Luc Marion‟s thinking is similar to ideas in the writings

of Lyotard and Baudrillard. However, Marion is still interested in measuring knowledge

according to the tradition of the Catholic Church. He is influenced by medieval and modern

theologians who came before him. Marion claims that he is not premodern, modern, or

postmodern because God‟s love is not bound to a period of history. He states that he uses

postmodern ideas to get where he wants to go in his theology, but he eventually abandons these

ideas so as not to disregard the overarching love of God in all times. Thus, Marion‟s view of the

postmodern is inaccurate in that he views it as a historical period like Fredric Jameson (Marion

xxiii-xxiv). Marion places so much emphasis on “God is love” that nothing else seems to matter

(Marion 46-49). His focus on the Apostle John‟s first epistle is to the detriment of the rest of the

Bible and Christian tradition. He attempts to monopolize knowledge through the metanarrative

of God as agapē. It is here that his theology is dangerous. While Milbank and Griffin are clearly

modernist, it seems that Marion advances to the next level: realism.

When the metanarratives are complete, realism is always the result. Theology as an

academic discipline will always end in realism. Realism suggests that “There is exactly one true

and complete description of the way the world is” (Patterson 12). The result of realism is

totalitarian government. This can be seen throughout history: the great ancient empires (Egypt,

Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc.), the Roman Catholic Church during medieval

McCarty 18

times, British imperialism, Hitler‟s Germany, Stalin‟s Russia, and Saddam Hussein‟s Iraq.

Christians today have a tendency to view postmodernism as a relativistic worldview (Rorty‟s

perspective). As such, they believe it is the dominant secular worldview in government,

replacing the previously dominant worldview of Christianity (Cobb 12). This inaccurate view of

the postmodern does not allow Christians to recognize that the Christendom of the past was an

oppressive totalitarian system governed by realism. Christendom—the human desire and attempt

to build the Kingdom of God without Christ—is a metanarrative. It is not immune to the dangers

of realism. The reactions to realism‟s problems are true postmodernism and modernism.

Modernism and postmodernism always go together. One is the response to the other. Some even

say that postmodernism is a parasite to modernism (Aichele 334).

Unlike postmodernism, modernism always ends in realism. When modernism is killed

postmodernism dies alongside it. Realism always destroys them both. This is the way it was

meant to be. For this reason, postmodern philosophers question modernist ideologies which

distinguish between “reality” and fantasy. Postmodern thinkers see that, “Fantasy exposes the

discontinuity between the signifier and any signified, the gap which we must endlessly seek to

fill with „reality‟” (Aichele 325). The process of filling this gap is what causes the controversy,

and it is why postmodernism exists. Postmodern thinker recognizes that this gap cannot be filled

on this side of Eternity. Thus, the postmodernists are incredulous toward metanarratives. On the

other hand, theologians have a tendency to embrace metanarratives tightly. They are not

incredulous, but rather they search for a metanarrative that will be universally accepted through

human rationality. Their grand narratives of reality cannot be accepted without coercive

consensus (Patterson 162). Theologians (in the systematic, scholastic sense of the word) will

always be modernists at best and realists at worst. This is why there is no such thing as

McCarty 19

postmodern theology. Such a title is truly a contradiction in terms (Woods 53). The two subjects

will always be a heterogeneous mixture.

The only appropriate response to this information is complete humility before the Creator

of the world. Christians must humbly give up on attempts to expose God and the universe

through theology. Such is the pride of realism. Realism is all about the knowledge of only one to

the detriment (and denial) of all others. Modernism is about knowing the many in order to create

only one out of them through consensus and solidarity (that is, the idolatry which will succeed

through the antichrist). Postmodernism is about getting to know the many for their own sake so

that the unpresentable might be presented imperfectly yet better with each new presentation

(Lyotard 81). By this understanding, postmodernism is the only way to love your neighbor as

yourself (Leviticus 19:18).

God is the Real. He is unpresentable except in the face of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit

uses the Word of God to help the believer perceive the Real from afar, but there is still the

paternal distance. Humans in their sin nature are realists without the Real, and postmodernism

and modernism are the tragic consequence. The essential problem with realism is that it is not

Real. It does not seek Reality and it is obsessed with hiding Reality until Reality disappears

altogether (Baudrillard 3). In this way, realism is the true relativism. It reveals the human plot to

perfectly present the Unpresentable in idolatry. According to the lusts of the flesh, the deepest

human longing is for the masses to worship their personal representation of the Unpresentable

(Baudrillard 5). Nevertheless, the depraved will always be nostalgic for the Real. Like

Baudrillard, Christians recognize that Reality has been lost in the precession of simulacra. Unlike

Baudrillard, Christians have hope that one day the Real will be manifest to all people. When that

day comes, postmodernism and modernism will both die together. Believers will be realists who

McCarty 20

have attained Reality. The Unpresentable will be forever present. There will be eternal life,

knowledge and relationship with God unaffected by sin (John 17:3). In the meantime, Christians

who are prudent will remain incredulous toward metanarratives knowing that their God is the

God Who hides Himself (Isaiah 45:15).

McCarty 21

Works Cited

Aichele, George. “Literary Fantasy and Postmodern Theology.” Journal of the American

Academy of Religion 59.2 (1991): 323-337. Print.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Print.

Cobb, John B. Postmodernism and Public Policy: Reframing Religion, Culture, Education,

Sexuality, Class, Race, Politics, and the Economy. Albany: State University of New

York Press, 2002. Print.

Griffin, David Ray, and Huston Smith. Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology. Albany:

State University of New York Press, 1989. Print.

Griffin, David Ray. God and Religion in the Postmodern World: Essays in Postmodern

Theology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. Print.

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction To Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: Inter-

Varsity Press, 1994. Print.

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke

University Press, 1991. Print.

Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Print.

Marion, Jean-Luc. God Without Being. Second ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,

2012. Print.

Milbank, John, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward. Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology.

London: Routledge, 1999. Print.

Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell

McCarty 22

Publishing, 2006. Print.

Patterson, Sue M. Realist Christian Theology in a Postmodern Age. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999. Print.

Rorty, Richard. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers Volume I. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1991. Print.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Cambridge Companion To Postmodern Theology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Woods, Tim. Beginning Postmodernism. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press,

2009. Print.