In response to Micah's comment...

Here is a great challenge point, Micah. We describe our era as Postmodern. We are in a postmodern era, postmodern culture, etc. The adjective is the same as that used to describe postmodern philosophy, but postmodern philosophy is not what defines or describes the postmodern era. Postmodern philosophy is a particular and isolated product of postmodernity, rather than the reverse, postmodernity being an outworking of postmodernism.

I expect this will be a challenge for those who have interacted with postmodernism in an academic setting, but I recommend that you shift your thinking for the changing usage of this term. I would say that 98% of those who fit within the description of postmodernity have not a clue what academic postmodernism is. On the other hand, quite a few of them might describe themselves as part of postmodernity, a postmodern era, or an era after modernism.

I firmly believe that the language of the classroom is going to lose out in this. The language of the street will prevail. I think it is more reliable when one hears anyone refer to something as postmodern to use the street definition (having to do with postmodernity) rather than the academic definition.

Stating it in dictionary form, this is my practical definition:

Postmodern: (adj)
1.) Having to do with, being part of or related to postmodernity which is an era that follows and is in reaction to modernity.
2.) Descriptive of particular schools that have developed in postmodernity (i.e. postmodern architecture, postmodern art, etc.)
3.) (less common) having to do with philosophical postmodernism as might be represented by Derrida, Focault, or Rorty.

I'm not sure if this analogy works, but it would be kind of like the growing numbers of Protestants who are interested in natural law referring to their thinking as "universalist" b/c of the universal worth and human rights that adhere to everyone, regardless of sex, status, religion, etc.

Universalist might be a description that works in that it descrbies something accurate about them, but it carries so much baggage b/c of its use in other contexts that it would be tough not to misunderstand it.

Postmodernism is known for more than just a mild corrective to the excesses of Enlightenment modernity, and I think its continued association with the emergent stream you are interested in will continue to muddy the waters. But this post clears them up to some degree, and I'm glad ot have read it.

Micah, I think it might be helpful to recognize that the usage of postmodern I am describing refers to postmodernity rather than postmodernism. There is no seperate adjective that could be used to refer to postmodernity vs postmodernism. It's not an arbitrary and capricious disregard for previous defiinitions; it is not emerging church folks just "making up terms" as I have heard some mockingly (and IMO foolishly) say. It is the appropriate use of what has become and will continue moreso to become the dominant term (postmodernity over postmodernism.)

I agree that there is a distinction. We're all postmoderns in the sense that we live in the era following the modern era. Some are postmodern"ist"s in the sense that they buy into a certain philosophy (Derrida, etc.). On one hand, many of us too often assume the philosophical movement when postmodernity is mentioned. However, postmodern philosophy has had a profound impact on postmodern culture, and that needs to be recognized as well.

I am interested in your idea, Roger that Postmodern philosophy has had a profound affect on postmodern culture. I would be more willing to accept this if I had a sense that the postmodern culture had a clue as to what postmodern philosophy had to say. It may be there, but I do not yet see where postmodern philosophy is an antecedent to postmodern culture (not chronologically, but in causality.)

It seems to me that they rise of postmodernity more coincided with the development of postmodern philosophy - which leads to my tentative framework that postmodern philosophy is a product, or a particular incarnation within postmodern culture.

I think that postmodern philosophy, the deconstructive branches that is, has had a significant effect in the Academy. I have a more difficult time seeing how this has led to our culture's postmodern shift.

I talked about this in my paper; I'll try to find it post an excerpt.

Bill, few things…

1. I don’t think that you can argue that postmodern philosophy came from a postmodern culture unless you also want to argue that we have been in a postmodern culture much longer than most people do. The philosophical work that is typically categorized began during what is typically classified as a modern culture.

2. While there is a difference between postmodern culture and postmodern philosophy, I don’t think you can claim that the two are somehow only weakly related. Relativism and a weakness of belief in an overarching narrative abound in our culture. Granted they are not present in most people to the extreme that they are found in an academic setting, but if there isn’t a tie, it is an odd coincidence. And if the two are not related, why would we assume something different about modernism and the modern culture. I ask this because you have attacked the philosophy of the modern era in your attempt to show that church lacking. Why haven’t you just assumed the modern church came from a modern culture that was detached from the prevalent philosophy of the time?

3. Now I will readily admit that what seems to be driving the emergent church is a desire to appeal to the postmodern culture, speaking their language and what not. The philosophy seems to be secondary. There is a model for this. Paul appealed to the people where they were when he spoke of the unknown God. He did not however preach a god among gods to the church. I can understand reaching out to the culture through an appeal to story and a desire to show the beauty of the Gospel people to others. But I cannot see how this would lead to an argument among Christian that we cannot know with certainty that Christ has risen.

Moon, I agree that much of postmodern art, postmodern architecture and postmodern philosophy preceded what looks like a manifestation of postmodernity in our culture.

Still, how did the former lead to the latter? My framework sees a slightly different path for culture than for the Academy. I don't claim it is perfect.

But I cannot see how this would lead to an argument among Christian that we cannot know with certainty that Christ has risen.

Moon, just reflecting on this, I would say that I have an internal certainty that Christ has risen. This is not based though on a foundational proof that I could reason with others. It is a complex interworking of my faith experiences, my reasoning, what I have embraced from tradition, and maybe more importantly, a coherent system of belief that is both dependent upon this particular belief and supports this particular belief. This may help explain why I am drawn to the model of evangelism of asking someone to come and stand where I stand and see if they see the truth that I see.

Ah, that is a much better articulation of what you believe. I actually believe much the same thing. I think that the best arguments from the “foundations” can only serve to make others consider beliefs (Christianity and their own) afresh, and show Christianity to be a viable option. They cannot close the door, and ultimately the truth must simply appear evident to the person. I think revelation and the spirit plays a large role in this. So I think we are largely in a greement on this. I feel better having heard you affirm that we can have a certainty (but we cannot force this certainty upon another). Ironically, this is not that far away from what Moreland argues (if my memory serves me correctly). I think he slightly overstates the argument for a god (because he underestimates the other things that can drive beliefs beyond reason), but his argument for Christianity is largely one that spins a web that include things like the historical possibility, but also includes things like personal experience.

I might have augmented his argument, but I do remember thinking his was the best stating of an “argument” for Christianity that I have ever seen.