April 1997 In this Issue

April 1997

This Issue

I can still vividly remember one Sunday evening
from my childhood I was only 8 or 9 years old at the time when our church
in Holmes County, Ohio rented a projector to show a film on Noah’s ark.
Those planning the service had advertised the event widely, hoping that
the film’s subject would pique the interest of the unchurched in our community.
Once inside the church doors, the unconverted were confronted with archaeological
evidence offering conclusive proof that the biblical story of Noah and
the flood happened exactly as the Bible described it. Though the full
details of the film are no longer clear in my mind, I do recall the conflicted
emotions I felt during and after the event. On the one hand, it was a
relief to hear that stories from the Bible could be defended by empirical
evidence. And I was pleased that the strangers in our church that evening
would have to consider the hard logic of archaeological factsfacts that
communicated the truth in terms that they took seriously. Yet at the same
time I remember a vague disconcerting sense that there was something wrong
with this blatant appeal to science to defend the trustworthiness of scripture.
If the truth of scripture and the coherence of Christian faith ultimately
had to be validated at the bar of Reason, then the odd rituals of singing,
testimony and prayerand indeed the language of faith itselfseemed unnecessary.

I must confess that I had something of the same
disease when I initially considered for publication this set of papers
on the subject of "Mennonites and Postmodernity." On the one
hand, postmodern theory is a serious intellectual current in contemporary
universities. Its logic and arguments are sophisticated, powerful and
compelling. If The Mennonite Quarterly Review is going to stay
current in scholarly circlesif, above all, we are going to be relevant
to our readershipthen we should not flinch from presenting Anabaptist/Mennonite
convictions through the lens of postmodern inquiry. But at the same time,
I was uneasy with the sense that the framework of the discussion was once
again being defined by a particular culture-bound logic. Reason now displaced
by the "deconstructionist" impulse of postmodern thoughtin which
the very terms of the argument guaranteed that the language of faith would
be nudged aside as a problematic, if not embarrassing, relic.

Although I am not yet a convinced "postmodernist,"
my initial uncertainties regarding the papers have long since dissipated.
As I have corresponded at length with the various authors and wrestled
with the arguments presented here, it has become clear to me that my initial
analogy with the Noah’s ark film breaks down in at least one crucial respect:
the authors of the papers presented in this special issue are not addressingat
least not primarilythe unconverted. Rather, as Christians deeply committed
to the Anabaptist/Mennonite tradition, they are seeking to reconstruct
meaning and order for those within the faith, calling for a fresh and
fuller understanding of the gospel amidst the givens of a postmodern context.
Although provocative and disturbing at places, these essays have a timeless
and venerable implicit goal, namely: a Christian discernment of contemporary
culture which calls for repentance, conversion and renewal. Whether the
old wineskins are sufficiently flexible to contain this new wine, will
depend on the discernment of MQR readers and the response of the
broader church.

With the exception of the contributions by Scott
Holland and Rudy Wiebe, the papers in this special issue had their origin
in a project initiated by Holland and Gerald Biesecker-Mast titled "Anabaptist
Radicalism and Postmodern Publics." The participants in that projectthe
authors of these articlesare all relatively young scholars, many of them
finishing doctoral programs or in the early stages of their careers. As
a group, they have been deeply influenced by postmodern critical thought;
but they are also all engaged in research or teaching related to Anabaptist/Mennonite
studies. They are undoubtedly the first generation of Anabaptist/Mennonite
scholars who have read Wittgenstein, Derrida and Foucault alongside the
texts of Guy F. Hershberger and Harold S. Bender.

Possibly some MQR readers are not familiar
with postmodern theory. Thus, rather than summarize each article individually,
I would like to offer a brief overview of the main features of postmodern
theory and some additional thoughts on its potential relevance for contemporary
Anabaptist/Mennonite groups.

* * *

Though the term is used frequentlyindeed almost
casuallyconcise definitions of "postmodernity" nearly always
collapse under the weight of nuances, qualifications and exceptions. In
part, this reflects the wide-ranging expression that postmodern critical
theory has been given in such disparate disciplines as literature, history,
music, philosophy and theology. But it is also a result of the inherent
suspicion that postmodern theorists have of any attempt to describe reality
in a systematic or hierarchical manner. Here we begin to find points of
common ground among postmodernists. Virtually all postmodernists, for
example, begin with a deep distrust of Reason and the triumphalist claims
of science, progress and liberty which, since the Enlightenment, have
been the foundations of modern civilization in the West. In place of the
Enlightenment confidence in the universal truth of Reason, postmodern
theory argues that everythingevery person, every deed, every "fact,"
every claim regarding Transcendence, Truth or Ultimate Realityis ultimately
embedded within a particular, and therefore limited, cultural context.

Though such notions as Reason or Truth appear to
be self-evidently woven into the very nature of reality, they are in fact
linguistic fictions, historically contingent creations of particular cultures
or communities. In a closely related vein, postmodern theorists also challenge
the standard western notion of the Self as an sovereign agent, capable
of free and independent choices. They argue instead that the individual
is ultimately constituted by the dominant cultural logic (or "discourse")
of the community. The illusion that these concepts are universally validthat
they somehow transcend their specific contextis a useful means by which
self-interested elites within a culture or community maintain their power.
Thus, one central task of the postmodern theorist is "deconstruction,"
namely, exposing the intricate webs of power interests whichconsciously
or unconsciouslylie behind the deepest assumptions a particular community
holds regarding the nature of Truth. In short, postmodernity announces
not only the demise of the Reason as the grounding of society and human
identity, but it also exposes any universalizing theory (or "metanarrative")
as a human creation which serves particular vested interests within a
given society.

Not surprisingly, many Christian intellectuals
have reacted to postmodern theory with deep skepticism, if not open alarm.
At its best, some have argued, postmodern theory is an elitist academic
exercise, a cynical word game played by scholars anxious to ensure their
publications and academic tenure by cloaking old ideas in the patina of
technical and obscure jargon. At its worst, others have claimed, postmodern
theory is blatantly hostile to Christian faith. Like some new computer
virus unleashed in the academic community, its relentless "deconstruction"
of Transcendence leaves in its wake a trail of intellectual chaos and
ethical confusion.

Yet even though some Christians might wish it otherwise,
the issues raised by postmodern thought, like the troubles unleashed from
Pandora’s box, are not simply going to disappear. More than merely an
academic whim, postmodernism attempts to describe a "condition"
of western thought and culture which ultimately cannot simply be ignored
or pretended away. Although one may ridicule its linguistic reductionism,
scoff at its self-inflated jargon, or denounce its moral relativism, the
questions posed by postmodern theorists demand a thoughtful response,
not least because the reality its theorists describe is, for better or
for worse, an unavoidable part of the (post)modern world. More important,
as readers of this issue will discover, it is indeed possible for critical
analysis informed by postmodern thought to move beyond the "deconstructionist"
impulse towards a prophetic vision of a new heaven and a new earth rooted
both in Christian convictions and in Anabaptist/Mennonite sensibilities.

* * *

But why should postmodern thought be of any interest
to contemporary Anabaptists/Mennonites? Why should readers of MQR
bother to wrestle with the conundrums posed by another academic theory?

We should care about postmodern theory, in the
first place, because our lives are indeed embedded in the culture around
us. Even people of faith live in a temporal worlda world in which our
commitment to Christ is always expressed through the "filter"
of contingent human institutions, whether they be the local congregation,
our workplace, civic organizations, or the economic choices we make as
consumers. Not only do we participate in a culture which extends beyond
the boundaries of the "redeemed community" but our lives within
the "redeemed community" are also profoundly shaped by the assumptions
of this broader culture. If we are indeed called to be faithful discerners
of the culture within which we speak, think, work and worship, then we
should use every tool and insight at our disposal to understand its inner
logic rather than simply to react, as has often been the tendency in the
past, to its particular manifestations. As the papers in this special
issue suggest, postmodern theory has the potential of offering the church
new insights into the challenging task of cultural discernment.

In a related vein, Anabaptists/Mennonites should
also take note of postmodern theory because we share several key points
of interest and emphasis. Anabaptists/Mennonites, for example, have long
been aware of the ways in which public rhetoricparticularly in times of
warcan disguise the hidden realities of selfishness and violence. Anabaptists/Mennonites
share with postmodern theorists a deep awareness of the role of the community
in shaping individual, as well as collective, character and identity.
And both streams of thoughtsensitive to the persistent idolatrous human
temptation to confuse the created with the Creatorregard humility as a
primary virtue. If Anabaptists/ Mennonites wish to become conversation
partners with theo rists of postmodernity, numerous topics of common concern
are readily at hand.

Finally, Anabaptists/Mennonites should be interested
in postmodern theory because it provokes, challenges, disturbs and critiques
traditional assumptions and realities. Contemporary Mennonites, for example,
have tended to be quite articulate about the fallen nature of the culture
outside its boundaries; but postmodern theory suggests that even the "community
of the redeemed" participates inescapably in the logics of power
which canand shouldbe exposed to the light of day. Postmodern theorists
are also critical of the traditional Mennonite focus on "boundary
maintenance," structured by a well-defined set of doctrines at the
center and a vigilant enforcement of ethical standards at the margins.
In their view, this understanding of community too easily confuses human
rules with the will of God, it suppresses the liberating movement of the
Spirit with its capacity to surprise, and it arrogantly rejects the gifts
of perspective and dialogue offered by seekers and strangers outside the
boundaries of the community.

Postmodern theorists also challenge Mennonites
to think more carefully about the meaning of the Body, particularly when
it is used to identify the church with the "Body of Christ."
Such rhetoric, they argue, can easily dis guise the fact that the congregation
or denomination is embedded in a particular history and culture, that
it is an "earthen vessel" which re flects the idiosyncrasies
and flaws of its human leaders. In a similar vein, the abstract language
of the "Body of Christ" has encouraged a preoccupation with
regulations controlling the individual body in a way which devalues the
flesh-and-blood physical body within which we live. Thus, several of the
articles in this issue explicitly challenge Anabaptists/Mennonites to
embrace the passion and poetry and aesthet ics of a life truly "embodied"
in time and space.

The articles in this issue of MQR are not
always easy to read. Readers who are not already familiar with the literature
of postmodernism may find the vocabulary or writing style of some articles
to be confusing and needlessly obscure. Those looking for a tidy coherence
to this special issue are likely to be disappointed by the wide variety
of styles and arguments presented here. And some readers may even be irritated
or shocked by the substance of what follows in this issue.

Since one central goal of the issue is to encourage
open discussion on postmodern thought, I invite readers to send critical
responses and reflections to MQR or directly to the authors. Certainly
neither postmodern theory nor the articles in this issue offer the final
word on questions of Christian faithfulness. But at the same time, we
would do well to remember that flourishing faith traditions are continually
renewed and sustained by fresh encounters both with culture and with the
Holy Spirit. Thus, in the last decades of the nineteenth century John
F. Funk promoted cultural innovations such as Sunday schools and a church-related
printing press to invigorate a new generation of mission activity within
the (Old) Mennonite Church; at the same time, pioneer evangelist John
S. Coffman borrowed the forms, language and emotional energy of Protestant
revivalism to inspire hundreds of young Mennonites to dedicate their lives
in a new way to the work of the church; in the 1930s and 1940s Daniel
Kauffman sought to focus a fragmenting Mennonite identity by introducing
a new emphasis on systematic theology, doctrinal purity and biblical inerrancy
which he found in the contemporary Fundamentalist movement; and even H.
S. Bender’s historical-mindedness, his concern for church polity, and
his organizational zeal reflect the Reformed influence of his seminary
training. In each case, these leadersnow largely regarded with deep respectbegan
their careers in the church under a cloud of suspicion because their innovations
and efforts at renewal disturbed the established certainties of their
day. This is not to suggest, of course, that every new impulse within
the church should be adopted. In all things we are to "test the spirits"
and not to "blow and bend with every wind of doctrine" that
comes our way. But at the same time it behooves us to remember that each
generation needs to reappropriate the tradition anew and that in so doing
the tradition is renewed in ways that may challenge and surprise.

My hope is that the articles presented in this
issue of MQR might servein form, if not always in substanceas a
model for the church’s own engagement with contemporary culture, namely:

that we might tenaciously seek after Truth, even
as we are humbly aware of the limits of language and the seductions of
power in our claims to understand that Truth; that
we might respect the voice of the dissenter in matters of faith, even
as we celebrate the gift of community;that
we might creatively tell and retell the stories of our tradition, even
as we listen to new stories from the "margins" and from those
outside the tradition; and that we might
have the courage to act boldly upon our convictions, even as our actions
lead us to new and fresh convictions.

John D. Roth

This page and all
its contents ©1995 The Mennonite Quarterly Review. All
rights reserved.
E-mail The Mennonite
Quarterly Review: mqr@goshen.edu
Voice: (219) 535-7433

Fax: (219) 535-7438