The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity

In this important book Carl Raschke aims to do the following: 1) demonstrate that many of the authors who have been captured under the broad umbrella of postmodernism have all too often been dismissed unfairly and that the church would do well to give them a fair hearing. The most substantive argument in this regard is probably the debate over the correspondence theory of truth; 2) disabuse the church of the merits of the Enlightenment project and of modernism. One of the most important moves here is Raschke's argument that "The God of the philosophers is logical. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is relational;" And, 3) to call the church to adopt a primarily relational rather than a logical view of faith, which, If I am understanding Raschke correctly, does not mean "anything goes," but that we must develop a greater appreciation for the limits of rationality and the merits of faith. On balance, these strike me as credible and important arguments. One reason I say this is because, by demonstrating how Christianity flourished in the US, not because of its pristine logic, but because of an emphasis on affective conversions, i.e., conversion to a relationship rather than to a set of doctrines, Raschke allows us to provide a more coherent view of the recent history of the church. When we look at some of the more hostile reviews of this book we can get a sense of what Raschke is up against: a group of intelligent, well-meaning people who, nonetheless, seem intent on dismissing anything they perceive as postmodern in a single, potted gesture. The typical move goes something like this: "Postmodernists" like Derrida, Barthes, Lyotard, Kristeva, and _____(fill in the blank because anyone remotely associated with critical theory will usually do) believe authorial intent is a blind alley and that all we have is the text. So there; "postmodernists" must be wrong, and we do not have to engage anything they say at a serious level. It seems to me the problem with such critiques, apart from being alarmingly misinformed, is that by failing to engage serious arguments at a substantive level they run the risk of making Christians look incurious, provincial, and unnecessarily doctrinaire. The great 20th century rhetorician Kenneth Burke once commented on the striking similarity between Jesus' statements about refraining from judgment and the need for objective distance in academic work. Paul Ricoeur makes a similar point when he stresses that the starting point for any valid critique will nearly always be a disciplined attempt to appraise a text as kerygma (sincere testimony). Put more simply, this means we are obligated to do our best to listen fairly and reflectively before engaging in critique. This does not mean we have to swallow any hoo-ha that comes along. Only that we have an obligation to do our homework and check our own hearts to see how our own sinful impulses and biases may have intervened before we take an ad hominem sledgehammer to the thou

Reflecting on how things were done in past can be a useful exercise, but as the trite saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Does gaining a more enlightened perspective based on hindsight mean that what was done in the past was all wrong, and somehow we will get it right this time, because we now we know better? Raschke's thesis on the un-holy alliance of Evangelical theology with Cartesian rationalism and British evidentialism seems to suggest that. His arguments defending that assertion provides interesting read, but the subtitle (Why Evangelicals must embrace Postmodernity) is what caught my eye. What I had hoped to gain was a clearly stated, cogent argument, to support that statement. Instead, what the reader gets is Raschke's personal and fascinating journey of a theologian and philosopher who discovers the power of the Holy Spirit as expressed through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Interwoven in this personnel narrative are provocative statements about oppressive Evangelical church counsels imposing things such as inerrancy and fundamental tenants of faith on believers. I found many of Raschke's hindsight statements helpful, as they do provide some explanation for why Evangelicals are the way they are. But the philosopher him in is still tugging at him as evidenced by his attempts to frame Postmodernity as a harmless philosophy, even suggesting that Derrida's theory of language is not so harmful when it comes to Biblical Hermeneutics. His definition of Postmodernity is as vague as readers on the topic have come to expect. That is because, as he says, Postmodernity is simply popular culture. And I thoroughly agree with him that Evangelicals should mix with popular culture in their mission to be a light to the world. If you are a patient and mature reader, Raschke provides many good insights that make the book worth reading.

Finally, an exposition of postmodernity and emergence that connects the present cultural revolution of the West to its historical roots. With a style and level of scholarship not unlike Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue," Raschke presents postmodernity in Western secular and Christian cultures with poise, grace, and thoughtfulness. The work is accompanied by a host of practical conclusions (both direct and implied) for those seeking to understand themselves and world today and respond in an informed manner. For all who have found McLaren difficult to take seriously, Raschke will be a refreshing, deep, and profoundly complex read that simultaneously manages to maintain a humble yet direct tone throughout every chapter.

"The Next Reformation" is not armchair theology/philosophy, though it is among Dr. Carl Raschke's more accessible texts. Carl is a world-class professional postmodern philosopher who happens to love God and the church; he has done today's North American church a great service in writing. Could it be that history will reveal Derrida and the postmodernists as providing a service not unlike the service provided by Luther and the protestant reformers? I think Raschke would answer, "Damn right!" Carl evangelizes evangelicals with God's invitation to faith/relationship offered through the prophets of postmodernity. I was almost expecting an altar-call, inviting evangelical Christians to personally accept and live into an existential conversion to a life of faith transcending objective truth, inerrancy, and worldviews. I highly recommend this text.

There are really three parts to Raschke's new book. The first is a history of philosophical and religious postmodernism, the second part is a critique of the politicization and legalization of Evangelical Christianity, and the third part is what a Christian faith stripped of our politics and self comforting legalisms (idolatries) might look like. You can read any of the three parts as a self standing work. Anyone curious about what postmodernism is apart from the usual cliches will find the first part very informative. Those who like me, enjoy a little bomb throwing, will enjoy the second part. And those who are actually interested in the nuts and bolts of a postmodern ministry will appreciate the third part. Underlying all of this though, is a truly threatening proposition for the vast majority of Evangelicals who seek salvation through Big Box cathedrals, who feel comfort in the herd mentality of the new political/moral laws, and who prefer to seek salvation through crazy rationalistic formulations of literary theories. Knowledge collapsed into salvation will always be Gnosticsim, as Rashcke says, one of the greatest heresies of all time and one that has overtaken American Evangelicalism. Basically Raschke beckons us to worship God by way the Spirit and not the letter (or knowledge) of the law, for as Paul said, the Spirit gives life but the written code (of reason) kills. But faith alone as Martin Luther said, and Raschke is fond of repeating, makes us uneasy. We need our hard and fast idols. And America (conservative as well as liberal) is all about the idolatry of the written codes, the idols of reason, and salvation through obedience to (many) laws. Evangelicalism is not about the freedom of the New Tesatment writers because Evangeliscals are afraid that freedom leads directly to gay marriages, gun laws and teenage abortions. So once again we have "a fence built around the law" -- the ancient call to protect God from Man by legalisms. "On both the left and right, Protestantism - with its denominational, ministerial, and ecumenical councils, its political action committees, its preoccupation with palaces proffered as church buildings, its elaborate financial schemes and fund-raising...It has buttressed these worldly ambitions with regal rationalism that aggrandizes the institution of the church and its claims at the expense of broken souls crying out for grace and forgiveness." Raschke is pointing us back to the God who cares not about the widow's penny (much less the golden calf of materialism), but about a broken and contrite heart. God cares about our relationship to him above all else. "Proofs, "reasons," and "the rule of law" are not the basis for a relationship. They do not make for "Good News." Jesus broke rules, he didn't make up more rules. And look what happened to him. In one of the greates insights of the book, Raschke points out that Hitler had a lot more in common with Hegel than Nietzsche. As a friend of mine emailed me