# Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church



## RamistThomist

*Do we really have to watch Fight Club again?*

This book corrected a lot of my misunderstandings about postmodernism. In it Smith examines three of the most crucial claims by postmodernists and shows how, given a proper deconstruction, they support a most radical Christianity. postmodernity has suffered from naive supporters and savage critics. I had my own misunderstandings. I thought postmodernists were those people with dark eye-liner, low-brow culture, readers of Nietzsche and those who sit around all day watching *Fight Club.*


Claim 1: Derrida: "There is nothing outside the text." 

Response: This appears to say that the bible's claims to metaphysical truth are false. While Derrida is an atheist, and would probably believe that, that wasn't the point he was getting at in the statement. He meant that nothing escapes interpretation. Interpretation of the text and of all events is inevitable. In other words, see Van Til. 

Claim 2: Lyotard: "The end of all metanarratives."

Response: This would suggest that the Christian story, with its claim to all truth, is false. Again, Lyotard being an atheist would agree with that. BUt that wasn't his point. He was saying that Enlightenment claims to an "absolute standard of universal truth" are merely just powerplays. Lyotard was rebutting the notion of an autonomous, equally accessible "reason." The Enlightenment claimed to transcend other narratives by its definitionally superior reason. Lyotard shows that the Enlightenment's project is simply another narrative, not a metanarrative. 

*A Radical Orthodoxy?*
If the Enlightenment project is dead (praise be to thee, O Christ), what remains for Christians? Nihilism is not an option. Smith shows how many postmoderns are turning to the ancient church and drawing upon Patristic and Medieval sources. The result, while flawed at times, is quite stunning.


----------



## reformedtexan

*Not So Great in my opinion*

I mention my misgivings here.


----------



## jogri17

be careful. I just finished reading Jacques Derrida in french and one think I have learned is that you can't take what they say at face value. The text means nothing even to the author. The key problem to this book's argument is that truth may be absolute but it not clear. The Biblical worldview is that while we live in a fallen world, God still communicated through language. God did not pre-fall (in my opinion because the faculities were radically corrupted by the fall so I base this on logic and not scripture, but the logic is from the scriptue). Language, though not perfect, has levels of clarity that God deemed sufficient to give his revelation by. Not perfect but sufficient. I like the comparison is a Car with broken windows, rusty, and a broken headlight. Ugly, can be dangerous if used incorrectly (ie bad hermeuntics/exegesis) but it can get you from A to B. Even a junky car does the job, and in our fallen state that is what God uses to communicate his precious truth to us. This just shows the love of God that He would condescend to use the foolishness of language to communicate His Word (or as Derrida would say La Parole).


----------



## RamistThomist

The book doesn't make an absolute defense of Derrida. It only examines one claim of his. Now that claim might have no objective meaning to Derrida, but Smith take that claim to illustrate and apply Van Tillian epistemology.


----------

