James K.A. Smith (2006). Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Postmodernism–this word is essentially a profanity in many evangelical circles. It has also been (ab)used as a war cry for those Christians who have “emerged” from their modernist coreligionist. Most people have no idea what it means…maybe this is the most accurate appraisal.
For those confused by postmodernity evangelical philosopher James K.A. Smith provides a road map. Along the journey the reader is invited to worship God in the presence of the “unholy, Parisian Trinity” of Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault. For those wondering what Jerusalem has to do with Paris this book is a starting point.
Smith begins by introducing the postmodern situation. The reader may find herself scandalized or he may shrug his shoulders as if Smith is describing the town in which you were raised. For both the modern peering in at postmodernity and the postmodern who is like a fish in water this book will provide a description of the world that is coming/has come.
It is from there that we are introduced to Derrida and his project of deconstruction. We are challenged by Derrida’s direct assault on our myth of objectivity when reading a text. At the same time we are challenged to ask where Derrida goes too far in his literary criticisms and what this means for a church that reads Scrip-ture.
Lyotard is next with his criticism of meta-narratives. How does Christianity–a story that explains everything from Creation to Eschaton–survive in a world post-meta-narrative (if we are in such a world)? Is the result some sort of cultural relativism?
The third and final stop is lunch with Foucault and his critique of power. Is all knowledge power? Is power bad in and of itself?
Smith is often very accommodating of these philosophers, but I found this helpful. We often hear from Christian writers how demonic these Frenchmen are. It is nice to see there is a good side (especially as one with French roots).
It is from here that a reader can launch into her own exploration of the merits and demerits of postmodern thought. Before the book ends Smith takes a look at the ecclesiological implications. I found myself struggling more with this chapter than the other ones. As a Reformed philosopher Smith’s arguments for dogmatics seems more befitting of a Papist. I wondered how a “Protestant” could appeal so strongly to tradition and catholicity in the sense that he does. It gave me a lot to ponder and I am sure it will do the same for you.
the archives near Emmaus 
Really? I haven’t read this book but I can’t imagine his appeal is any stronger than your run of the mill Presbyterian authors (e.g., R. Scott Clark) or any of the great Reformed writers of the past (e.g., Calvin or Bavinck [whom I’ve been devouring as of late]) in his appeal to tradition and catholicity. It’s pretty common (I’d say essential actually) for truly Reformed writers to appeal to their traditions (of course as they’re submitted to Scripture — but we could argue how much one actually submits to the other) since without them they’re not truly Reformed.
In any event, it sounds like an interesting book, I just wish I was more interested in the subject matter personally. BTW, what exactly does Smith say that postmodernism is?
@Nick: Rather than providing a definition he more or less surveys the current philosophical landscape. I came away without the general sense that it is more or less a culture of epistemological skepticism. He argues that it is essentially something that comes “slouching out of Paris” and he tried trace various sources from which our current condition has emerged (e.g. existentialism).
When I read his chapter on tradition I kept thinking I need more on this because I couldn’t see how his arguments (in this particular book) would prevent a total demolishing if the very idea of Protestantism. In fact most of his interaction is with Catholics George Weigel and G.K. Chesterton.
Sorry: * with the general sense that it is more or less a culture of epistemological skepticism.
Brian,
Smith gets Lyotard and Foucault completely wrong, and I wouldn’t doubt if he got Derrida wrong as well. His final chapter on ecclessiology is bothersome, you’re right, because of his faulty reading of these philosophers as well as his obvious agenda.
It is obvious he gives them a positive take, but how do you see him getting those two wrong. I’m interested in your take.
Brian,
I have so much to say about how Smith although positively uses, but still manages to get Lyotard and Foucault wrong. I want to read Lyotard again before I make my case. I promise to blog on it. Hold me to that!
Brian –
I just began to read think Peter Rollins’ book How (Not) to Speak of God. I think you would like it. He comes from an evangelical charismatic background but has been involved in the emerging conversation and how to be the church in a postmodern era. I’ll post some initial thoughts this week on my blog.
For what it’s worth, Merold Westphal (in Overcoming Ontotheology) agrees with Smith’s main point about Lyotard – that Christianity isn’t a metanarrative due to the way it is legitimized.
There were a couple articles in Faith and Philosophy debating this a few years ago. Smith’s article “A Little Story about Metanarratives” and then a reply by Justin Thacker who questioned Smith (and Westphal’s) interpretation of Lyotard. I tend to side with Smith and Westphal, but if Rod never gets around to his critique, it may be worth checking out Thacker’s.
Eric,
Thanks for the heads up. I am now interested in Justin Thacker’s essay and Smith’s respons
*response.