Reclaiming the Past / Imagining a Future: Revisionary Postmodernism

I love it. I never knew there was such an accurate description of the way I’ve been thinking under the influence of of guys like Jack Caputo- and I’ve even read Derrida this way (mostly). Besides David Ray Griffin, are there any thinkers out there who are uniquely postmodern revisionists? Thanks for taking the time to flesh this out.

I’m not sure ecological postmodernism escapes “modernist” methodologies of thinking, in that it still makes very specific moral claims. Even though it undermines other well accepted claims, it is still specific in its goal and invokes a kind of progress.  Of course, the term should not be equivocated on, but it does seem difficult to distinguish the movement from earlier movements in such a way that we are specific when we say “revisionist postmodern progress”.

Talitha Edwards responds…

I like how this treats experience in that it includes the community within the role of experience. Without a strong community with which to help balance experience it is to easy for someone to get off on the wrong track theologically. Although one could argue that a community could as a whole get off on the wrong track together, though that is far less likely than an individual doing so.

Talitha Edwards

Our worldview changes as much as our thoughts do.  For that matter, the worldview we have changes as much as we physically do each moment of every day in every experience we have.  I like to think of these changes as taking a picture of ourselves each day or taking a picture of your child every day (try it and you will see).  We or our children change daily and more times than not they/we change more than once a day.  I started one year with my son and took a picture of him daily.  As I reflected back on these pictures, I noticed how he was changing each time I took a picture: from mood, to physical appearance and awareness.  I believe that our worldview if we could take a picture of it each day would look no different (we would see the change visually even if we chose to blindly say otherwise).  With that being said, we must have a worldview that is not stuck in the moment but willing to change with the moment.  And in these pictures of us and our worldview of change, God should be photo bombing us because I believe, “God is actual, active, and interacting” (Dr. Oord’s Blog) in our lives.

While I appreciate the openness of the revisionary postmodern view and what it is trying to accomplish, I have to ask why do we need to reinvent the wheel?  The wheel was never broken but rather we have abused the wheel for so long, not caring for it, it has become cracked, broken, and unstable.  Instead of rejecting the “idea that we have a certain center or sure foundation upon which to build,” why would they not accept the foundation that Christ built in love?  Just because someone rejects an idea, does not make it go away, and I would argue that we do have a foundation and center, that being Jesus Christ.  However, I do understand and acknowledge that this is a worldview in which religion is just one aspect. 

I do like the revisionary postmodern approach to include those living “on the margins.”  Any worldview that excludes these groups is suspect in my opinion, as having validity.  I also support the revisionary view of the “centrality of community,” and the “interrelatedness” of the world.  Finally, I also think the revisionary postmodern view of God being “relational” is spot on and a fact that should be understood and realized by the masses.

We live in a post-modern world. I don’t think there is much disputing that. It seems to affect the way that we think about all aspects of the world….how it began…how it functions today…even how it will all end.

In the puzzle of post-modernism, one of the pieces that Dr. Oord mentioned was the tension between language and experience. It would certainly be non-sensical to allow language to override experience, but I wonder about the slippery slope that could quickly ensue. It seems that the next extreme step would be to toss out language completely and thus remove the centrality of Scripture all-together. This just doesn’t seem far off.

The puzzle piece that I am most drawn to is the one about community. I can see the value and necessity of it. I am surrounded by more and more people who are drawing away from community in the name of Jesus. They are leaving the church and are “experiencing” Jesus at home. I woner, as well, how much the aspect of social media is encouraging this exodus. What I mean by that is that could be possible that the facade of social media as a community could be allowing them to walk away. In other words, they feel they are covered here because they are on Facebook or whatever.

I am very much liking the fact that we never lose the power to choose. I know that my freewill is in tact and that I can participate in relationship with God.

Revisionary Postmodernism offers a more relevant and truly human approach to understanding the world. Some of the ideas that impressed me were: 1).common sense is a part of Revisionary Postmodernism; 2). People and the world are viewed holistically; 3).There are actual universal truths and standards; 4). All of creation is appreciated and recognized with value; 5). There is hope for this world, for people, to be transformed and improved; 6). We need each other to be strong as individuals and in community; 7). There is a balance between knowing and not knowing; 8). God is relational and interacts with all of creation – the sacred and secular are not separate.
All of the above thoughts lead me to believe there is much about Revisionary Postmodernism that is positive.  There will be more changes in the future, of course, but this is a worldview for now, grounded in what we know now but open to whatever the future holds.

This is nicely paired with Clayton’s reading this week. The main feature is that we all need to be able to think critically about what we believe, and how those beliefs affect our actions. As we have talked about before, we can believe something without having it change us. We can believe in Scripture, in Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension , but if we are not moved past this, then what is the point? Postmodernist are tired of this black and white idea. Churches that will be successful are going to have to bridge this gap between one extreme to the other. For postmodernist, it does not seem to be a question of preference, but rather of insistence. Without this the church won’t move forward. I think some churches will adapt to this new way of thinking while others will eventually fade. We are headed into something entirely new, yet not unfounded, and I am excited to be a part of it.

One of the most interesting things about a revisionist approach to postmodernity is its hybrid aspects. Hard core relativistic postmodernity (a la Derrida) reject that anything is knowable for certain, or that even if something is known, it cannot be reliably communicated between speaker and listener. But a revisionist approach wants to affirm things that are really able to be experienced, either directly, or indirectly. Revisionist approaches let us ascend into community rather than descend into isolation, unable to trust the communications with others. It is for this positivity that I think it affirms a holistic worth and priority to all of creation that looks the most like a “good” creation that the Creator made.
In the end, I am not satisfied with a deconstructive approach to theology and philosophy. I think there is an innate human tendency to want to build and improve not to just tear down and leave in ruins. There will always be the few who, not able to be content with incomplete beauty, will choose destruction instead. But if I am looking at a God who created, who creates, and who will create again in the future, I am looking at one who is always looking to turn ashes into beauty and a revisionist postmodernity envisions this very well.

Reading this blog inspires me allot because it challenges me to think beyond my comfort zone especially as we live in the era of globalization. No person is an Island and we all depend upon each other. Post modernity has given birth to globalization which has seen the world uniting together in the quest for human development. The need to step out of the ring and join the band wagon cannot be ignored in this age if we have to survive. The world is changing and therefore human beings cannot afford to embrace the status quo. Sometimes I wonder, if people who lived one hundred years ago could come back in to this world, they could be lost, because the world has made giant steps from where it was to this very day.

Frank

I found this article very interesting. I am very new to studying and understanding post modernism and all terms that come along with it. This article has sparked my interest and now I am interested in doing further research on these ideas. I must say that the paragraphs regarding community really resonated with me. I can definitely agree that though we are all one we are definitely all different.

Thank for you this helpful overview of “revisionary postmodernism” and the difference between it and other forms of postmodernism. This wholistic approach gives greater optimism for the transition than destructionism, for sure. I agree that we cannot separate the secular and the sacred. Anything God is involved in is sacred. As Wesleyans, we can say that between God’s creativity and prevenient grace, everything in creation should be considered sacred.
You mention in “Overcoming Relativism,” “these notions are features of existence we all share.” Even if we can agree that we all share these notions of existence, there is still the problem of “why” – why we think those notions are there. Some would assign differing metaphysical reasons for those notions, others might assign biological or bio-psychological or social reasons. And this gets back to each person’s or community’s or culture’s metanarrative. I’m confused (and confess my ignorance): at times it sounds like RPM’s (Revisionary PostModernists) reject a metanarrative “(RPM’s) reject, however, the idea that we have a certain center or sure foundation upon which to build,” and other times as if RPM’s are searching for one: “We should propose a worldview that seems best to account for life in all its dimensions.”

Although I love this post and the idea of a revisionist postmodernism, I still see a vital importance fpr deconstruction postmodernism. The thoughts of deconstructionist postmodernism help me like a bandage that you need to rip off quickly. I was ready for reframing of my worldview and faith. When first introduced to a deconstructionist postmodernity, it helped me put words to things I felt but couldn’t express. The ideas and worldview that modernity left me and the church for that matter, was no longer sufficient for the new world that was unfolding. I spent what I would say several years in the deconstruction mode before I saw the absolute need for revision. The idea of revisionist postmodernity is helpful in the reconstruction of a worldview that wasn’t all wrong or bad, just needed reworked and revised. If you are constantly deconstructing, with what are you left. Deconstruction needs to end and a rebuilding or reworking needs to begin. Again, as we rebuild and rework our view of the world, we may find that onl revisions need to be in order to better see and interact with the world in which we now live.

I found this blog article to be very informative. The part of the article that jumped out to me is the fact that our worldviews will always be in need of further revision. This is huge point that is being made in the blog article considering that many within the church seem to get stuck in their theological mindsets and aren’t willing to budge. I think it is important to be willing to be open to allowing our worldviews to be stretched and probed in order to reach an ever-changing world. In addition our everyday experience also seems to help shape this new mindset in order to move us away from simply believing we know it all. I also love the fact that a sense of being in community is critical to how we, as the church are going to help others experience and discover a living an active God. This would also challenge those with the church to humbly step forward and take the time to learn about different religious faiths in order to better communicate the Gospel. My only fear is that moving towards this type of mindset, if not balanced with one’s proper understanding so scripture will leave us open to becoming soft on important doctrines within the Christian faith. Much to think about and process considering this subject is really new to my understanding.

I am motivated to learn more about this topic. There is much truth in the statement that we spend our lives understanding and expanding our worldview. I understand a basic picture of postmodernism. I am very curious how this idea is expressing itself in other parts of the world and in religious contexts outside of American Christianity. With the opinion and understanding that we are learning more each day I believe we are able to enter into a conversation with those who see differently and at the same time stick to what we know is truth.

My initial response to “revisionary postmodernism” is why do we need to rework or rethink our worldview. Though this is my initial reaction, I already know the answer. As we approach our own individual worldview, we understand that our experiences dictate how we approach others. Though I may say I believe in God, my worldview determines how I decide to share the experience of God with others and/or even how I communicate that experience.

Within the ideal of missional theology, we must widen our view point to acknowledge that God’s grasp is not limited. Therefore should ours?

I have enjoyed the comprehensive review of the philosophical thinkers and how they are transforming a segment of our society, that could be on the leading edge. Yet that is greatly determined by how far we desire to share God’s love with those we interact with daily.

Nazarene’s are well positioned for the postmodern culture. As Dr. Oord noted, postmodern revisionist care for those on the margins, equality, and justice. As Nazarene’s “enter into solidarity” with the poor, lost and hopeless they additionally identify with a postmodern culture. The key for Nazarene’s and Wesleyan’s alike is becoming a people who sink their identity in tradition and roots. These denominations and movements started out a caring for the least of these. Regaining original focus is key if we intend to lead the way in a postmodern culture.

“Revisionary postmodernists agree with the conclusion Bono draws from this insight: ‘We’ve got to carry each other.’ We are designed for community, and our individual well-being is caught up in and largely dependent upon the well-being of the whole” (Oord). For most pure constitutionalists or capitalists this sounds like a purely socialist statement. At the same time, this statement rings true. I believe that when we focus not just on ourselves, but upon community it creates an atmosphere of loving openness. I also believe that it helps foster within us the want to loving, holy, and relational.
Word Count: 97
Oord, Thomas Jay. “Reclaiming the Past/Imagining a Future.” 15 March 2010. Thomas Jay Oord. Web. 10 December 2015.

Much like the example you started off with in your Blog of Growing a Beautiful Garden and how some things are nonnegotiable, such as seeds, water, nutrients, and sunlight. However, you go onto mention that over time new elements arise that may or may not produce beautiful gardens. It is still simply that the best gardeners look for new innovative ideas because as you point out , even gardening changes over time.

Then you mention “revisionary postmodernists” and how they are similar to good gardeners when identifying nonnegotiable of our lives and incorporate innovative ideas while searching for a postmodern worldview. That makes sense, just as in our class some of the ideas of “essential kenosis” made some of us struggle because they were new to each of us, so to knew ideas that deconstructs postmodern ideas and starts to reconstruct the new ideas over time. Of course there are going to be some barriers that need to be overcome, but that is in anything that people are not comfortable or content with. People do not always like to be stretched in the areas of their traditions. But in order to move forward sometimes that just has to happen. Not all change is bad, of course not all change is good either. We walk a fine line here. It will be interesting to see where this leads me now.

Word Count 228

The most salient point made in this blog, is that God is alive, relates to the world and truly loves. That message of love, God’s love, is the message that our postmodern world needs to hear. It is a message that was sent into the world loud and clear more than two thousand years ago, with the birth of Jesus Christ. Divine relatedness is demonstrated by a God who by nature relates with all creation. There truly is room for the Creator within all of creation. Constructing a postmodern view that seeks to tell a big story, appreciative of diversity, inclusive of language and experience, is not an easy task. Yet, it is one that if done well will create a vision for the beautiful garden designed for relational love to exist in abundance.

Common sense does tell us that living beings are much more than mindless machines. Creaturely freedom, purpose and intentionality are real. Creatures do possess intrinsic value. Science is beginning to prove out that God did originally create and life on earth continues to adapt (evolve?).

Another piece of essential common sense is that we all have a need for community. God’s inherent design for community is for our well-being and the well-being for the whole. Progress is a possibility but not a guarantee, after all humanity is involved. Transformation can occur. John Wesley provided great wisdom in his statement “the best is yet to be”. We are capable of responding to divine grace. We cannot fully understand the fullness of God, yet we can know and experience that God is alive and interacting right here, right now in the world. God and all of creation should be front and center. There is a better way of thinking and acting. It is in concert with God. It is the way of love.

This sounds absurdly obvious: it is imperative that any worldview take reality seriously. Yet, there is a sense that most worldviews do not account well for reality. Their focus seems to be more idealistic than realistic. In other words, their emphasis is on how reality should be rather than what reality actually is. I think Revisionary Postmodernism does well in employing the account of reality as we find it. Both, as a critique to Modernism and other forms of Postmodernism. Maybe we could call it Post-postmodernism.

What it does extremely well is that it explains and demonstrates the interconnectedness of all of our reality. In an existence where individuals are dependent upon others for their well-being it follows that each of us is important and has value – even those (especially those) who have been traditionally marginalized. Community is, or more specifically, relationships are an inescapable aspect of life. We are each a part of the community of others and of creation as a whole, in which the ever-present God loves and influences us to love.

One of the keys to being in community is experiencing community – actually experiencing community. Taking it in, being actively present through the joys of relationships, and experiencing life with others. The experience of others cannot always be articulated through words, syllogisms, or prepositions. Experiential knowing is much like story-based knowing, or learning through narrative. This is a different type of knowledge and it is a different way of knowing. But it can only be learned through loving community.

There is a common factor for postmodernism and that is the need for community. They don’t feel that we should just individualize ourselves from the world. Mr. Oord points out that we live in a relational world. It takes many people to make the body of Christ, not just one person.
If Revisionary postmodernist reject the fact that we have a certain center of a sure foundation to build upon, does this mean that they are rejecting the experimental non negotiables? You had talked about gardening in this article and you compared gardening to non-negotiables relating them to things such as seeds, water, nutrients, and sunlight. There is a comparison here with non-negotiables to our faith. We come to know Christ because someone plants the seed and then someone else comes and waters that seed and so on. This article is a little hard to follow, but when you are referring to elements of the gardening, are you referring to our faith? This article has definitely challenged my way of thinking about new things and ideas.

Revisionary post modernism accounts for all of life’s dimensions; this theory is something I can ascribe to. I appreciate this theory’s ability to allow for all areas of life, areas of physical composition, the senses, and those experiences outside of those realms. I also admire that this postmodern world view is one that is always moving forward, forever progressing. This theory recognizes that our world is ever evolving and changing, thus our outlook on life should too. We are always in need of revision, we are never perfect Christians, so I give credit to the statement of never being completed in this postmodern world view.
Another point of this theory I appreciate is the value placed on those living in the margins of life. These people are almost always forgotten or helped when it is necessary or is good for business. This theory shows the love of Jesus in practical ways. Our story of who God is should always include those different from ourselves; God’s story should include everyone.

Out of the four discussed post-modern views, I think we can easily say that this one provides us with the best chance of moving forward socially as well as theologically. There is one area of clarification that I would like to see. In the other examples, I found myself asking about how God could fit into these worldviews and how would we respond theologically to the issues they present. In revisionary postmodernism, at least as you presented it, the idea of God or some other deity is actually intrinsic to the entire system. My question is would others see it this way, or is this what you would consider to be the natural progression of this philosophy? Is a deity a “experiential nonnegotiable?”

Out of all the postmodern traditions, I find revisionary postmodernism to be the one that I would feel comfortable in adapting as part of my philosophy for ministry. “Revisionary postmodernists identify the nonnegotiable of life, draw from past wisdom, and incorporate novel ideas as they propose a credible postmodern worldview.” Revisionary postmodernism allows us to stay strong in what we believe and at the same time “account for truths in the widest range of experience”. The emphasis on experiences helps develop a true sense of the our relationship with God, with others, and helps paint a truer picture of the world around us. Emotions, history, and ideas help develop us in ways that our senses cannot. I also appreciated the inclusion of those considered to be in the “margins”. As Christians, we should include all, for God’s love is for all. We should reach out and fight for those in need.

While reading this great blog post, I was struck by how beautifully that revisionary postmodernism confronts modernism and also provides a check to the other aspects of postmodernity. As an example, rather than reverting to pure relativism wherein every belief is true, even contradictory ones, revisionary postmodernism brings common sense into the equation with “experiential nonnegotiables.” Likewise, instead of leading into the nihilism that deconstruction can bring, revisionary postmodernism seeks to construct a worldview that seeks to give some purpose or focus to life, no matter how incomplete it may seem.
Where this type of postmodernism keeps modernity in check, it seems as if it liberates Christianity to be Christianity free from many modern entanglements that bound it up. Instead of proclaiming ‘God is dead,’ revisionary postmodernism “places God and creation front and center.” For Christian ministry, there should be no fear that Christ can be brought into every area of life with the demarcation between secular and sacred removed. God can be understood in the person of Christ and therein the relational aspect of who God is can be experientially known. This type of philosophy/theology brings hope as it is not stuck and stale, but rather “will always be ‘on the way,’ partial, and in need of further revision.” I look forward to seeing what type of new Christian worldview emerges over these next few years.

In terms of postmodern philosophies I find revisionary postmodernism to be the most promising while still challenging itself to review, reshape and renew it proponents. It is unique among philosophies in that it can acknowledge common ground with a counterpart in reconstruction, the deconstructionist without reducing itself into the abyss of acute relativism. It can recognize the plight of the marginalized, add value to non-human creation, give credibility to nonsensory perceptions as a way of receiving knowledge about the world and do so without an apparent burden for pluralism. The central tenet that runs through this particular postmodern expression is the sense of connectedness between all of God’s creation, and between creation and the Creator. The communal or relational aspect of revisionary postmodernism is probably the aspect that I find most appealing. The appeal for me comes from the prominent position God plays, not as a theological symbol but an empowering force that encourages continual movement toward transformation of individuals, systems, and mindsets.

Christianity is most light appears at best tolerant of others. Christianity informed through revisionary postmodernism takes a more proactive role in reviewing the past, learning from experiences of many more voices, and continues to be guided by the Spirit of God to avail itself to new approaches that show God’s love and relationship to creation in transformative ways.

As I was reading about revisionary postmodernism, I realized that much of what I already believed in was consistent with this tradition. I want to briefly highlight some key areas of agreement, with a few caveats.
I agree that it is important to construct a worldview, rather than merely deconstructing. As a Christian, I believe that Christ is the sure foundation upon which to build our worldview, but I do realize this can still be very subjective for Christians, while being unhelpful to non-Christians. I absolutely believe that our worldview needs to be inclusive, as it is enriched through a diversity of thoughts. However, I do feel that discernment can often be lacking, as we can seem bigoted if we disagree with claims from the margins.
I agree that experience, more than language, offers a window into reality. However, I also believe that an overemphasis on subjective experience can lead to dubious claims. I especially find experiential nonnegotiables to be helpful in overcoming relativism and offering foundations from which to build our worldview. I also appreciate the “virtue of being resolute,” which avoids the extremes of relativism and absolutism.
I am a critic of modernity’s espousal of individualism, as well as its hopelessly optimistic views on human progress. I recognize that we can progress in some ways—fights against racism and sexism come to mind—but I believe humans, in their essence, are essentially the same across eras. We are broken, but we can be restored through God. I believe in ecology and the centrality of community. We are relational beings by nature, and this is because we reflect God. Our God is love, which implies the primacy of relationship.

This article was helpful in my personal theological journey and the thoughts I have been processing. “Revisionary Postmodernism” is a fairly new term to me and the idea of drawing from the past (tried and true methods) while being open to novel ideas in the present makes perfect sense. I believe it is essential to “construct a worldview adequate for our time,” and that our theologies should flow from this. As the world changes, and as our personal relationships with God change, our theologies take on new meaning. I especially appreciate that Revisionary Postmodernism is all-inclusive. “They seek a story big enough and adequate enough to include everyone.” This is an idea that is still lacking in the church at large and exclusivism still lurks. Institutionalized religion has created a church system/theology that promotes elitism, hierarchies, and dogmas that fail to promote diversity and inclusion. Like John Wesley, I am optimistic, “the best is yet to be.” One way or another our personal responses will influence the future.

This article was helpful in my personal theological journey and the thoughts I have been processing. “Revisionary Postmodernism” is a fairly new term to me and the idea of drawing from the past (tried and true methods) while being open to novel ideas in the present makes perfect sense. I believe it is essential to “construct a worldview adequate for our time,” and that our theologies should flow from this. As the world changes, and as our personal relationships with God change, our theologies take on new meaning.
I especially appreciate that Revisionary Postmodernism is all-inclusive. “They seek a story big enough and adequate enough to include everyone.” This is an idea that is still lacking in the church at large and exclusivism still lurks. Institutionalized religion has created a church system/theology that promotes elitism, hierarchies, and dogmas that fail to promote diversity and inclusion. Like John Wesley, I am optimistic, “the best is yet to be.” One way or another our personal responses will influence the future.

“Revisionary postmodernists agree with the conclusion Bono draws from this insight: ‘We’ve got to carry each other.’ We are designed for community, and our individual well-being is caught up in and largely dependent upon the well-being of the whole” (Oord). For most pure constitutionalists or capitalists this sounds like a purely socialist statement. At the same time, this statement rings true. I believe that when we focus not just on ourselves, but upon community it creates an atmosphere of loving openness. I also believe that it helps foster within us, the want to be loving, holy, and relational.

Early in the post, Dr. Oord states the rejection of a sure foundation upon which to build a worldview. Later in the post, he rejects negative theology and affirms that there is some knowledge of a God. He writes that the knowledge is seen through a dark glass. Therefore, he rejects two strong positions, first firm foundation, such as a theological worldview that articulates basic philosophical principles as its underpinnings, and second apophatic theology and that nothing can be known.
Instead of strong positions, Oord argues for a worldview that is always on the way, changing and evolving. A person could then ask, “In this recasting and adapting worldview, can anything be known and if it can be known, can it be referred to as a universal principle?”
Along those lines, Dr. Oord did highlight “experiential nonnegotiables” or “hard-core commonsense notions.” These are presuppositions that undergird our interpretations of experiences. A person could ask, “Are we assuming the truth of our conclusions from our experiences when our conclusions are the results of our presuppositions?”

You mention the failures modernity, particularly its failure to care for the marginalized. I wonder what some of the failures of postmodernity will be, regardless of which tradition. For this reason, I appreciate that revisionary postmodernists understand that while we can understand truth on some level, it is a work in progress. This allows for humility but avoids the apparent fatalism of deconstructionists.
Nevertheless, I would push back and argue that language might be more important than revisionists give it credit for. Our experience is shaped by our language even if that experience is “non-linguistic”. In “Story of Your Life” by Ted Chiang (adapted into the recent film “Arrival”), a linguistic hypothesis is brought up that states that our worldview and experience is dramatically shaped by our language. In other words, different cultures understand the human experience differently not only because of cultural differences but also linguistic differences. While I am no linguist, I believe this an actual theory within the science. Even those who use sign language consider themselves to be a somewhat different culture than that which surrounds them. It would seem that words shape our culture to a large extent.
I am not sure that it is possible to separate experience from language. Without words, we have nothing which to understand or express our experience. For these reasons and more, I still tend to fall along the lines of narrative postmodernity.

Here, Oord introduces revisionary postmodernism which attempts to construct a worldview that is “adequate for our time.” I appreciate how it answers Modernity’s neglect of the marginalized, choosing instead to include those people and realities that the modern approach traditionally excluded–such as women, ethnic minorities, the religious or spiritual, non-human creation, and even God—giving this approach a more holistic view of reality than modernism.
At the same time, Oord argues that revisionary postmodernism also challenges even some concerning postmodern traditions, specifically extreme relativism. I greatly appreciate how this revisionary approach allows for one to choose one worldview which one truly believes makes the best sense of reality better than others do.
Revisionary postmodernism also combines into its worldview a respect for both science as well as realities not perceived through the 5 senses—things like God and faith. It emphasizes the value of non-human creation and the importance of community and relationships that bring meaning, purpose and value to our experience.
In short, I believe revisionary postmodernism is a wonderful option for people of faith like me, who want to adapt our personal worldview out of the weaknesses of modernity without leaving a relationship with a loving and relational God behind. Revisionary postmodernism allows us to be able to honestly and critically evaluate worldviews to determine which are best and make the most sense of the reality we are living, a reality which includes both faith and truth.

In reading this particular paragraph regarding the offering of revisionary postmodernists, I found it disingenuous, as here, as they want “to account for the voices of those at the margins and the mainstream.” Really? The mainstream is the default, as it is when defining whiteness versus that of people of color. ‘The voices of the marginalized or forgotten is what has been sought out for an incredible length of time within Catholicism and other mainstream Protestant denominations. It may be relatively new to those in the Holiness traditions; it is not for other denominations in Christianity.
However, in reading, I found there were many things with which I find agreement with revisionary postmodernism. In relation to God, revisionary postmodernists “affirm that God is actual, active and interacting in the world. God really lives and truly loves.” I find the ‘relational’ God much more believable than the distant, aloof God some define as God’s nature. Further said is, “We cannot neatly separate the secular and the sacred.” I agree to a point. It’s similar to what I experience in living the principles of AA – “we practice these principles in all our affairs.” It’s the same with being a Christian, we are to walk the talk. I place the limitation of regulating my beliefs to the public/governmental sphere.
Another thing I find compelling with revisionary postmodernism is that isolationism is not conducive to community. “Community is essential.” Absolutely. We need others for support, communication and sharing, for help when we find ourselves drifting and a bit out-of-tune with life. I have a community wherein I can be ‘called out’ for not being true to the principles or to myself which comes about due to my allowance of vulnerability so others know who I am.
Best of all, though, is the coining of a word I need to find a sentence for – theocosmocentrism! How great a word is that?!!

Kitt

I have really gotten a lot from reading about how revisionary postmodernism addresses some of the major issues and questions in this day and age, but I believe that the aspect which speaks to me the concept of theocosmocentrism. Too often in today’s world, it seems that people try to isolate religion, or at least the Christian religion which deals with moral and theological absolutes, from the rest of life. This has never set well with me, and I am glad that you address this in your OP, Dr. Oord. Understanding how the mysteries of God, and how God relates to the world helps us to understand how the world, how creatures, including human beings relate also to God. Being willing to make the proper adjustments in our worldview is key to understanding this, and to having an evolving view which takes into account new understanding, and this is key to growing closer to God.

This makes good sense to me. I resonate with the middle way approach to developing a worldview which cannot be described as either absolute or relative. I do note, however, that traversing the middle way is often more difficult and dangerous than choosing preexisting “sides.” Perhaps especially in Evangelical circles, charges of “luke-warm”, “sitting on the fence” and references to Revelation 3:16 abound when one attempts to think carefully and critically about God and humans and the relationship God desires us to have with the non-human elements of his creation.

I’m a sucker for most things Bono and/or Berry. I would suggest that the only hope of fulfilling the first part of Berry’s quote and avoiding part two (The End) is to heed Bono’s lyric. Also, if I could be so bold, the One lyric is actually “We get to carry each other”, not “We’ve got to carry each other.” The difference is grammatically small, but theologically massive. If followers of Jesus can unlearn what keeps us from a bigger, more generous theology, I stand with Wesley, “The best is yet to be.”

In this introduction to Revisionary Postmodernism, Oord gives insight on how one of faith can have a place in this new world. He states, “Progress toward a better world is possible by divine grace and proper creaturely responses.” As a child, I grew up in Southern California in the 1970’s and 80’s. I remember red flag smog alert days where we weren’t allowed to play outside during recess.
While I would not call myself an environmentalist, I do believe that man, as the “top” of God’s creatures, have a responsibility to take care of this earth. The idea of revisionary postmodernism can help to bridge the gap between the extreme “ist” groups who often (not always) are anti-God (feminist, environmentalist, animal activist, etc.) and those who have a strong faith in God. It allows us to work together and not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to postmodernism.

Times are truly changing. We must take serious this change and be willing to evaluate our processes and structures to adapt and morph within our context. This sort of post modernism approach takes seriously this idea. One of the things that was mentioned several times was the role of experience. contextualizing any ideology (especially theology) that we teach or hear by applying and identifying it within our own subjective experience and shared experiences helps the hearer create their own idea and conception that is applicable and relevant in the reality in which they live. Modernity identified with authority and took many beliefs by faith, whereas post-moderns do not. There has to be a reason I should believe it. This is a move towards that shift in thinking. If we want to be effective in all things, beyond making disciples, we must be able to contextualize the message we have without watering it down or compromising the heart of the message.

Revisionary Postmodernism is a new term for me that seems to take a step forward from post modernism. What I really appreciated about the overall arch of this essay is the centrality of community as an underlying foundation within revisionary postmodernism. It takes into account how we relate with one another, how we relate to God, how we relate to creation and how we all move together into the future. As we seek to understand human relationship more fully we must embrace the changing landscape and experiences we share. As we seek to understand our relationship to God more fully we must do so in a moving and changing conversation and interaction with our own experiences.

Our progress towards God’s fully restored world is dependent upon our communal participation in all areas. I really connected with the insight that even my own understanding is dependent upon my experience in and with community and creation. Our struggle can come when we forget that reality or tend to lean towards our individualistic focus in world and life or lean towards our tendency of modernistic influence and our desire for absolutes.

Dr. Oord I think it is imp[ortant to understand that, “Our worldviews will always be “on the way”, partial.” That we don’t get set in what we believe that nothing ever can change the way we think. The best is yet to be. Too many Christians today are so set on what they believe that they will never even entertain the possibility that things could be different in today’s world. But I think we also need to keep at the forefront of our thinking that “Progress toward a better world is possible by divine grace and proper creaturely responses.” It’s a team effort, God and creatures working together. We need to make sure that we are not creating these new theologies and trains of thought without the interaction of God, allowing God to be the central focus and not just trying to “keep up with the times.” Not only with God but with others.

This was a good review of why it is important to know where you stand, to have a good foundation, but not become so mired down in personal beliefs that there is no room for change. As Oord wrote “we must always be prepared to recast, generalize, and adapt” without which we become stagnant in our beliefs and connection to others. In identifying that “experience is prior to and more basic than language” Oord helps us to realize that some of the most divisive arguments are due to language and by finding a common ground through mutual experience we can better know who we are as well as what that shared experience means for others.

Dr. Oord, of all the postmodern tradition I do relate most to the revisionist because I agree with the standards. Like gardeners, we need the absolute essentials and are open to new ideas. I like that revisionists include what happened in the past, worldview, and things to come in the future. The revisionary postmodernism concept allows for “diversity and difference,” but not neglecting the fact that God exists in everything. “Revisionist seek to account for a variety of sensibilities, including religious, scientific, ecological, liberationist, economic, and aesthetic” It is nice to hear that we can include everything we believe (sensory) and things that we can prove (science). God is still in control despite the new concepts, modern ideas, and anything that science proves. The bottom line has God created everything; therefore, he is still creating.

When I think about revisionary postmodernism, I think about community and everything that exists around us. No one or nothing is more valuable than the other. The circle of life is not the best example, but it reminds me that all creatures are important because it serves a purpose, to sustain life. We need to continue serving others and being in community with others. “Community is essential.” We can experience God and sense his presence when in a community because we know that God is relational. God is relatable in science, ecology, economy, etc. and “we cannot neatly separate the secular and the sacred.” I believe that God cannot be removed from anything we know and everything we see around us.

Thank you, Dr. Oord, for this very helpful summary of revisionist postmodernism’s distinction from other forms of postmodernism. It’s heartening to know that this form of postmodernism makes a place for God! I know that other postmodernisms still hold sway in the world—as does modernism—but I now see how Christians can engage and partner with revisionist and narrative postmodernists to bring to younger generations an understanding of God’s role in creating and sustaining our world, His enduring love, and the working of His Spirit in our lives.
Your remarks on language particularly interest me. You write, “experience is prior to and more basic than language. In fact, most experience is nonlinguistic.” How does exposure to language change our relationship to the world and to God? I have wondered about this for some time. Once we learn how to read, we can’t unlearn it. I can see a mountain and decide not to climb it, but I can’t see a word (in a language I know) and decide not to read it. This automatic, involuntary “skill” places language as an intermediary between me and my experiences. It colors them and even limits them. So when I read the Bible, I think of God differently than I might if I were to have experienced Him in other ways. When I hold a Bible in my hands and think, “this is God’s word,” I remember I have been told that all His necessary communication is to be found in the words. Is this, perhaps, why non-literate peoples often have a more direct experience of God?

The idea of revisionary postmodernism is the one that I have found the most workable yet. The idea is that our view of the world must be broad enough to encompass everything but with the realization and understanding that that view will change. This means the view is not static and is never meant to be static. This fits far more seamlessly with my view of how we should see ministry. As a church we make a plan and have a vision. But, as time goes on the vision needs to change to fit the group that is currently making the church as well as the community you wish to effect. If you go into a church community that is still using the mission and vision from 50 years ago, they will be the church that does not reach the people of today.
What this really means for ministry is that our churches die. If we stay stagnant and don’t change over time, we will slowly die off as we don’t attract new members. If we refuse to get out of our old patterns and habits then we will die as a church. We must revision and constantly seek to encompass new methods and different ways of doing things. We cannot grow and thrive in a changing world without changing to match.

Hi,

There were three aspects of revisionary postmodernism that I found quite intriguing…

First, the idea that “language is not the only or even the most important lens on reality. Rather, experience is prior to and more basic than language.” In other postmodern approaches, experience is often overlooked and language is favored. While deconstructive postmodernism questions the validity of language, there is still emphasis on the importance of language. Whereas the importance of experience is not as highly assessed.

Second, the idea that “knowledge is not confined to logic or facts obtained through our five senses… personal knowledge must play a role in our attempts to make sense of the world.” My intrigue and favor of nonsensory perception lead me to support this claim. Knowledge is not limited to hard facts, numbers, or concrete evidence. Knowledge can be gained through failed attempts, mistakes, and experiences. Jean Piaget was a developmental psychologist who brought forth the ideas that children learn through experience and piecing together aspects of their world.

Lastly, the idea that “creatures are not isolated individuals. Community is essential.” The mention of community caught my attention, because I feel that other postmodern approaches don’t include community in this way. Yes, narrative postmodernism emphasizes the importance of one’s story within a community, but it does not emphasize the value of being in community.

These three aspects of revisionary postmodernism caught my attention, because I can immediately see ways they relate to living a Christian life. Personal encounters with Christ have such immense value in a person’s faith. Understanding Christ for yourself and not because someone else wants you to or someone else passed it down to you is what personalizes your faith. And lastly, being in community with other like-minded believers strengthens your faith.

I found this article to be helpful and insightful. I feel like this postmodern view is easiest to relate to and find applications within ministry. I like the idea of the constant need and importance of striving to improve and revisit concepts, ideas, and “truth”. I agree with the importance of community and thinking of the whole when making decisions in ministry. I also appreciate the value of creation and ecology in this view of postmodernism. I think more than ever we as Christians should be concientious about how we affect the earth and God’s creation. I believe since we are stewards of the earth we should lead the way in taking care of God’s creation and not exploiting it because we have dominion over it. I really appreciated the metaphor of the garden and gardener. It helped me to understand both the idea of “non-negotiables” and the things that may help the garden to grow that are apart from that category.