Amanda De Kelaita
Book Critique
Regent University
COM 600
Dr. Benson Fraser
September 21, 2014

Spotting mediocrity within a tradition, a normal routine, can be dizzying and threatening once blinded eyes have been opened to it. One begins to question the philosophies, traditions, practices and routine norms of the humdrum in those traditions. Postmodernism, put simply, is the movement of questioning and challenging the traditional – philosophies and practices that are established, conventional and exclusive. Through this questioning and challenging, new ideas are birthed because in postmodernism, there is no master way, style or manifesto.
Elements can be borrowed from all forms of philosophies, practices and the arts and blended for a new concept altogether. Because postmodernism is an intricate concept and can be intricately difficult to understand, James K.A. Smith attempts to define the term through relatable comparisons, take the term to church with
Derrida, lyotard and Foucault, and launch refreshing ideas around the term in Who’s
Afraid of Postmodernism.
Smith reminds readers of the dizzying disorientation that hit Neo when he experiences the new world. Neo in The Matrix expresses that his eyes hurt once he is removed from the controlled, false world and opens his eyes for the first time in the real one. “Our contemporary culture, including the church, has experienced a similar dis- and reorientation (Smith, 2006, pg. 17).” Postmodernism questions and challenges tradition. It promotes change. This is not always easy for individuals to accept, especially in the church. Eyes may begin to hurt! Let’s investigate postmodernism deeper with James K.A. Smith examining how he deconstructs with
Derrida, explores Lyotard’s metanarratives and challenges the modern church with postmodern ideas, removing “bumper-stickerization (Smith, 2006, pg. 85).
Deconstruct with Derrida
Smith strategically uses Derrida’s philosophy to interpret Derrida’s philosophy. He explains that Derrida’s prominent idea, “There is nothing outside of the text (Smith, 2006, pg. 31)” is often misunderstood by those that miss the very premise of this concept. “If postmodernism has anything close to a brand name, it is deconstruction (Smith, 2006, pg. 31).” This deconstruction is a breakdown of the text, or context of everything. This breakdown leads to interpretation. Smith argues on Derrida’s behalf that, “Interpretation is not a series of hoops we jump through to

eventually reach a realm of unmediated experience where we don’t have to interpret anymore. Interpretation is an inescapable part of being human and experiencing the world (Smith, 2006, pg. 38).” Smith, although many disregarded
Derrida’s ideas because of his sweeping statement about text, chose to dig for a deeper interpretation. This is the very premise of Derrida’s ideas.
This thought hugely influences the postmodern movement. Under this deconstruction, one cannot simply accept text as it is. Text must be intently looked at, broken down and interpreted. “To claim that there is nothing outside the text is to say that everything is a text, which means not that everything is a book, or that we live within a giant, all-encompassing book, but rather that everything must be interpreted in order to be experienced (Smith, 2006, pg. 39).”
This deconstruction opens the door to deep, complex interpretation of
Scripture, philosophy, education and the arts wide open. Smith argues that this form of text breakdown broadens the Christian experience and influence.
Lyotard’s Metanarratives
Lyotard, “Simplifying to the extreme,” defined “postmodernism as incredulity toward metanarratives (Smith, 2006, pg. 63).” Most individuals translate metanarratives into big or grand stories. Smith explains that digging deeper into
Lyotard’s philosophy shows this is not exclusively what he meant. He was not doing away with all illustrious stories. “What is at stake for Lyotard is not the scope of these narratives but the nature of the claims they make.” The larger concern in this philosophy is the way big or grand stories are told and why they are told.
Metanarratives with the sole purpose of proclamation that demands the response of faith are not seen as metanarratives in Lyotard’s eyes because they lack the attempt to state a universal, scientific absolute. “He formulates the tension as a conflict between science and narratives: when judged by the criteria of modern science, stories and narratives are little more than fables (Smith, 2006, pg. 65).”
Smith argues that Christians should not do away with Lyotard’s ideas because at first glance they seem to negatively challenge Scripture. On the contrary, his ideas can help enhance the way the Bible is shared by the church.

Possibilities in the Postmodern Church with Foucault
“For Foucault, at the root of our most cherished and central institutions- hospitals, schools, business, and yes, prisons- is a network of power relations
(Smith, 2006, pg. 85).” These power relations, he argues, shape and mold individuals to behave in certain ways. “He does not mean that knowledge and power are identical; instead, he means to emphasize the inextricable relationship between knowledge and power (Smith, 2006, pg. 85).” Where you find knowledge, you find power.
Smith explains that the world has taken advantage of the truth in Foucault’s findings using power and knowledge to manipulate people to becoming exactly who they want them to be, consumers of their products. This shaping power of covert, secretive operations can be dangerous and must be identified as anti-Christian. The understanding of the knowledge-power relationship is to be used to edify the body of Christ and expand the image of God within the body, without manipulation and to be aware of the world’s potential influence on the body of Christ. The church must come alive to this idea in order to “Enact countermeasures, counterdisciplines that will form us into the kinds of people that God calls us to be (Smith, 2006, pg. 106).”
Proposal for the Church
Smith challenges the rigid ideas that many Christians hold about the ideology of Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault. He argues that within these postmodern ideas we should not find “an enemy but an ally (Smith, 2006, pg. 64).” Through Derrida, we learn to dig deep and interpret the Scripture through the Holy Spirit to broaden the scope of what we believe and ultimately, broaden our Worship of an ever-new God.
Through Lyotard, we learn strategically how to share the “metanarrative” of the
Bible. We understand that the postmodern church “values story and as such values the aesthetic experience engendered by material signs and symbols (Smith, pg. 77).”
The addition of these “signs and symbols” in the church helps celebrate and communicate the message of Scripture in a broader, more dynamic way. “God communicated to humanity through the incarnation of the Word as flesh – the image of the invisible God (Smith, pg. 77).” What an illustrated sermon and object lesson of love! The church is taking on this style of communication, being visual and appealing

to the senses. Through Foucault, we learn to challenge what and who we are becoming from day to day in an image driven society, being alert to covert operations in knowledge and power, and to find our identity and “image” in
Scripture. “Because of the covertness of this information, Christians are often not alert to what they are becoming (Smith, 2006, pg. 106).” We also learn that we have godly power to help shape and mold (train) ourselves and others into the image of
Christ projected in the Word.
As we question and challenge the “modern” – the traditional, as Smith has done, we will have challenges and questions to face. Can we overcome the initial disorientation of having our eyes opened to a new method and a new way? Can we allow the haze to clear enough to see the possibilities of being ever-evolving and changing? Will we remain blinded to the powers that rule and reign over popular ideas? Will we choose to let postmodernism in our lives be monstrous or redemptive? Let’s conclude with powerful words from James Smith. “The radically orthodox church, then, is not traditionalist, even if it is traditioned; it is not a rote system of repetition but a creative repetitive of the core features of what constitutes us as the people of God (Smith, pg, 146).”

References:
Smith, James K.A. (2006). Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard
and Foucault to Church. Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.