Does ‘Jesus is Lord’ Translate Today?

A couple months ago I did some reading on postmodernism or on as John Stackhouse refers to ‘hyper-modernism’ with the aim of understanding the moderate evangelical understanding and response of the current cultural landscape. Several mainline Liberal authors or Emergent leaders have weighed in on the repercussions of postmodernity over the years but I wanted to learn something of the history of thought leading up to this cultural shift in North America, hence the following two articles by Craig M. Gay and John G. Stackhouse.

In The Way of the (Modern) World, Gay investigates the conditions and causes by which modern society has and is becoming increasingly secular and practically atheistic. Within the central orientation of modern structures, values and thinking, exists the implicit organizing principle that God, if he exists, is superfluous to lived human experience.[1] The New Testament, contrastingly, defines and treats “the world” and “worldliness” as attempting to explain human affairs apart from the reality of God. Three impulsive themes of the modern world are control, secularity and anxiety. These result, in large part, because of Christianity’s banishment and the subsequent dehumanization of personhood. Gay, contends that to uncover the deeply embedded secularity and atheism in our society is to begin to understand why we willfully construct a world without God in it.

Stackhouse, in order to explicate postmodernity and postmodernism(s), distinguishes the former from the latter by describing it as a condition to which the latter is a response.[2] Modern thinking, concerned with apprehending truth, is not a significant departure from premodern thinking, save its focus on locating new understanding to better navigate the future. Premodern thinking, conversely, looks to the past to establish current knowledge. Within Postmodernity, the confidence that knowledge is accessible to all is not present, instead it is widely held that human thinking is perspectival and subject to, both, the point of view and the viewer herself. The outworking of such thinking is represented in our current notions of pluralism and multiculturalism, wherein the intended acknowledgment of multiple vantage points have resulted in a multiplicity of perspectives that can fragment rather than unify through diversity.

A natural question then, how would one currently characterize the relationship between Christianity and contemporary culture? And: what, if anything, is to be done about it?

The Christian faith finds itself, presently, as one proposal in the marketplace of ideas. While its place in the past can be understood chiefly as one of considerable power and influence over contemporary culture, it has undergone something of a shift to a playing field that is, so we are told, plum level.

Whether our current modern/postmodern society is truly open and ensuring the equality of all thought and perspective is doubtful. As Gay asserts, there is a practical atheism that punctuates our way of life, meanwhile implicitly promising what it cannot deliver. Christianity has had an ironic part in determining its current habitation.[3] While upstanding citizens efforted a new and better world for all humans influenced in large part by the Christian view of personhood, God was overlooked.

The relationship between Christianity and culture can, as Stackhouse argues, no longer be defined by dominance. On the contrary, I believe that Christianity today must give up any reverie of possessing power over culture and return to its latent power-to posture, an undeniably effective standpoint from where we can lean back against the work of the Holy Spirit; active from age to age, embody true humanness and collaborate with the mission of God.

In the advent of increasing secularization and bewildering pluralism, it is not enough for Christianity to define itself over-and-against the multitude of perspectives within postmodernity. Granted, ‘Jesus is Lord’ has signified a dangerous form of criticism in the past, however, to contemporary culture today, it is nonsense. This declaration must ring new with assertive hope, given as confession and perhaps then heard, as if, for the first time.


  [1] Introduction in The Way of the (Modern) World, pp. 1-28.

  [2] “Postmodernity and Postmodernism(s)” in Humble Apologetics, pp. 22-37.

  [3] See Os Guinness’ “Gravedigger Hypothesis”.

Essential identities in Philosophy and Theology

My background is in philosophy (full disclosure) but I’ve only begun to read and engage with non-reductive materialism and radical orthodoxy. I found your paper captured many of my intuitions about the relationship herein.

Where I would disagree with Milbank, and in fact a host of continental philosophers is that all is philosophy, even the narrowest of medieval Christian orthodoxy is philosophy. Theology is thought, neither more scared nor profane than continental thought. Radical theology has to buy what it is selling and move away from such preoccupations with identity. If all the categorizations of the world are subject to sacramental participation then why distinguish, John, between the Queen and her magistrate philosophy? It seems RO’s totalizing view is not internally consistent.

But philosophy cannot deny its place of birth either. For instance, as much as I wish my birth certificate says I was born in Vancouver (speaking of vain identity ;/), it simply does not reflect my wish. It’s an empirical fact; I was born in New Westminster. So western philosophy must come to grips with it’s humble origins and recognize it’s teleological baggage, western philosophy originated from a babe in a manger.

I think where RO goes sideways and jeopardizes affordance of any self-respect is in the neglect of epistemological skepticism. Why and how one can make such ontological pronouncements as they do, I’ll never know.

I have no problem with RO absorbing the world in its vision (we all do it!), IF the vision were not only of the lamb. The Lion is not in the picture. The ‘history’ and ‘conflict’ as you say Marika, is not invited into this vision. And that’s a shame because ultimately it can only be a fundamentally flawed vision of reality; it is empirically deficient. RO is not robust enough to receive the materialist critique. Rather than confront the unsettling, RO turns it aside as “nihilism”, which sells nihilism short BTW!

Just a few fragmentary thoughts, thanks!