Premodern, modern and postmodern
This posting was originally a response to one by arkouda on The return of the one true king, but LiveJournal rejected it as too long, so I though I would post it separately here.
David Bosch, whose book Transforming mission (Maryknoll, Orbis, 1991) put the question of modernity and postmodernity on the agenda of missiological discussions in many parts of the world, invited me to lecture in the Missiology Department of the University of South Africa in 1989. Unfortunately his untimely death in a car crash in 1992 took him out of the discussion.
The subject I had to teach was Mission as African initiative: the African Independent Churches. There are more than 8000 African Independent Churches (AICs) in South Africa alone, and hundreds more in other parts of the continent. More African Christians belong to them than to any other group of religious bodies, and most Orthodox Christians in Africa belonged to an AIC before becoming Orthodox. In fact there are several AICs that became Orthodox as groups, and several more that think of themselves as Orthodox.
One significant thing about AICs is that many of them represent a "contextualisation" of the Christian message in a premodern world. Missionaries from the West (Western Europe and North America) came to Africa in large numbers in the 19th & 20th centuries. Their message had been contextualised into the societies that they came from, societies that were imbued with the spirit of modernity. And so the Christian gospel that they preached was likewise imbued with the spirit of modernity.
There were three main factors that gave rise to modernity in the West - the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. These were dominated by a print culture (see the works of Marshall McLuhan, passim). And Protestant missionaries translated the Bible into most of the languages of Africa. The interesting thing here is that the Bible is a thoroughly premodern book, and made a lot more sense to Africans, still embedded in a premodern culture, than it did to the Protestant missionaries. One result of this is the rise of thousands of AICs.
Where do the Inklings fit in?
At the height of modernity, because I think it is safe to say that the mid-20th centuiry was the height of modernity (1920-1960), they began to interpret premodernity to the modern mind. They reintroduced mythical thinking, as a counterbalance to the rationalism and empiricism of modernity. They made it possible for modern man to read the Bible with the eyes of premodern man, and therefore in a way closer to the worldview of its writers. They did for the West what the AICs are doing in Africa, and in doing that they have helped to make Orthodoxy more accessible to people in the West.
I believe that the Inklings have acted as bridges to both premodernity and postmodernity. They have helped people to escape the constraints of modernity, by making premodernity accessible, and opening the way to postmoderninty.
Note that I speak about modernity and postmodernity, not modernism and postmodernism. There is an important difference. Modernity and postmodernity are worldviews, ways of thinking, an outlook on life. The outlines of modernity are fairly clear, because its development lies mostly in the past, and we have the benefit of hindsight. Postmodernity is much more fluid, because it is taking shape in our time. It takes many forms, and the only thing common to them all is a dissatisfaction with modernity and modernism, a feeling that they are inadequate. The Inklings were postmodern in that sense, that they promoted that kind of dissatisfaction with modernity, they fanned the flames of discontent, and made people feel uneasy about the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
And that, of course, was a very Christian project, because the Ruler of this Age, this world, is coming to an end.
While modernity and postmodernity are worldviews (especially the former), modernism and postmodernism are ideologies. They take the "is" of the age and turn it into an "ought".
But, as many have pointed out, Orthodoxy did not experience the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Orthodoxy has been touched by modernity, but not penetrated by it as Western Christianity was. It was touched by modernity in the sense that modernists, from Peter the Great to the Bolsheviks, tried to impose modernity on Russia, but such was their enmity towards Orthodoxy that Orthodoxy was not ultimately seduced by it.
I found your comments on postmodernism and modernism a bit too gloomy. I believe that Orthodox Christians should not fear postmodernity. I believe that Orthodoxy is better placed to help man cope with postmodernity than Western Christianity is. Much of the theological debate that is going on is Western Christianity is making heavy weather of the transition. Orthodoxy has sailed around it, and can approach it with a lightness and a freedom that is different from the Western angst.
Is this the unbearable lightness of being?
David Bosch, whose book Transforming mission (Maryknoll, Orbis, 1991) put the question of modernity and postmodernity on the agenda of missiological discussions in many parts of the world, invited me to lecture in the Missiology Department of the University of South Africa in 1989. Unfortunately his untimely death in a car crash in 1992 took him out of the discussion.
The subject I had to teach was Mission as African initiative: the African Independent Churches. There are more than 8000 African Independent Churches (AICs) in South Africa alone, and hundreds more in other parts of the continent. More African Christians belong to them than to any other group of religious bodies, and most Orthodox Christians in Africa belonged to an AIC before becoming Orthodox. In fact there are several AICs that became Orthodox as groups, and several more that think of themselves as Orthodox.
One significant thing about AICs is that many of them represent a "contextualisation" of the Christian message in a premodern world. Missionaries from the West (Western Europe and North America) came to Africa in large numbers in the 19th & 20th centuries. Their message had been contextualised into the societies that they came from, societies that were imbued with the spirit of modernity. And so the Christian gospel that they preached was likewise imbued with the spirit of modernity.
There were three main factors that gave rise to modernity in the West - the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. These were dominated by a print culture (see the works of Marshall McLuhan, passim). And Protestant missionaries translated the Bible into most of the languages of Africa. The interesting thing here is that the Bible is a thoroughly premodern book, and made a lot more sense to Africans, still embedded in a premodern culture, than it did to the Protestant missionaries. One result of this is the rise of thousands of AICs.
Where do the Inklings fit in?
At the height of modernity, because I think it is safe to say that the mid-20th centuiry was the height of modernity (1920-1960), they began to interpret premodernity to the modern mind. They reintroduced mythical thinking, as a counterbalance to the rationalism and empiricism of modernity. They made it possible for modern man to read the Bible with the eyes of premodern man, and therefore in a way closer to the worldview of its writers. They did for the West what the AICs are doing in Africa, and in doing that they have helped to make Orthodoxy more accessible to people in the West.
I believe that the Inklings have acted as bridges to both premodernity and postmodernity. They have helped people to escape the constraints of modernity, by making premodernity accessible, and opening the way to postmoderninty.
Note that I speak about modernity and postmodernity, not modernism and postmodernism. There is an important difference. Modernity and postmodernity are worldviews, ways of thinking, an outlook on life. The outlines of modernity are fairly clear, because its development lies mostly in the past, and we have the benefit of hindsight. Postmodernity is much more fluid, because it is taking shape in our time. It takes many forms, and the only thing common to them all is a dissatisfaction with modernity and modernism, a feeling that they are inadequate. The Inklings were postmodern in that sense, that they promoted that kind of dissatisfaction with modernity, they fanned the flames of discontent, and made people feel uneasy about the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
And that, of course, was a very Christian project, because the Ruler of this Age, this world, is coming to an end.
While modernity and postmodernity are worldviews (especially the former), modernism and postmodernism are ideologies. They take the "is" of the age and turn it into an "ought".
But, as many have pointed out, Orthodoxy did not experience the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Orthodoxy has been touched by modernity, but not penetrated by it as Western Christianity was. It was touched by modernity in the sense that modernists, from Peter the Great to the Bolsheviks, tried to impose modernity on Russia, but such was their enmity towards Orthodoxy that Orthodoxy was not ultimately seduced by it.
I found your comments on postmodernism and modernism a bit too gloomy. I believe that Orthodox Christians should not fear postmodernity. I believe that Orthodoxy is better placed to help man cope with postmodernity than Western Christianity is. Much of the theological debate that is going on is Western Christianity is making heavy weather of the transition. Orthodoxy has sailed around it, and can approach it with a lightness and a freedom that is different from the Western angst.
Is this the unbearable lightness of being?