Comments on: Abstracting Postmodernism, Pluralism, and Ethics

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:09:38 +0000

Oh yeah, one more note: the thing I’m trying to get at is liberal religious folk then call what I cite in the above comment “postmodernism” and “pluralism”. I don’t think it is either, honestly. I think it is modernism in a cheap suit.

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:06:39 +0000

Thanks for the thoughts, ck. They are appreciated.

I find your disagreement, coming from a Unitarian Universalist (liberal religion), whose “religion” is an attempt to rebuild ethical structure in a way that distorts and twists authentic qualifying adjectives, just a bit … odd.

Rasor would be correct, as long as he then cites community specific qualifying adjectives to his moral/ethic; otherwise, he would just be blowing smoke.

By: ck

ck — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:05:50 +0000

Did you ever read Paul Rasor’s Faith without Certainty? He tackles liberal religion, modernism and postmodernism, and in the chapter I was looking at today specifically said that morality can occur only within the context of a defining community.

His thoughts on the self emphasize Jurgen Habermas’ philosophy of intersubjectivity, and he argues that social justice is more than just another choice (I think you alluded to this in your decription of a “pomo banquet”) but coming out of seeing ourselves in solidarity with others in different circumstances.

Naturally, I’m going to disagree with your characterization of liberal religion–no point rehashing that–but you might want to check out Habermas, at least, if not Rasor.

By: Shawn Anthony

Shawn Anthony — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:44:01 +0000

The liberalism I’m talking about is of a religious sort, and it is an attempt to rebuild ethical structure in a way which actually minimizes or alters the need for authentic qualifying adjectives (identity detrimental mix and mash). This sort of rebuilding fails, as people still instinctively reach for familiar qualifying adjectives, as a result of an authentic ethical structure’s real-time persistence, in spite of weak attempts to rebuild it.

So, if religious liberalism can discipline itself, and actually make a few decisions, then it might be capable of being a qualifying ethic. However, one should be very careful not to mistake the attempted rebuilding of ethical structure itself for a qualifying ethic. Too, a religious liberal should be very prepared to stop being all things to all people, and referring to this act as postmodernism and/or pluralism, because it is neither. It looks like modernism, at least from here.

All of this to say, that when properly understood, postmodernism and pluralism can work very well in a Christian context, and the slippery slope that has become contemporary religious liberal pluralism can be totally avoided … thank God.

By: ck

ck — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:54:25 +0000

Re postmodernism: Thanks, Shawn.

Question - why can’t liberalism be a qualifying adjective for ethics like Hinduism, Christianity, et al?

By: Shawn

Shawn — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:35:08 +0000

Thom - Thank you for the suggestion! I’ll be putting that book on my shelf soon. It sounds very interesting. Thanks!

By: Thom Stark

Thom Stark — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:36:26 +0000

On this subject see Doug Harink’s good book (with the exception of the tendentious and careless fourth chapter), “Paul among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity.” Chapter five, “Religion and Pluralism in Pauline Perspective,” justifies your best insight here, that “these things are much more conducive to Christianity then was initially advertised.”