Thoughts on "Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism?"

I'm not going to summarize the entire book, but rather point to why James K. Smith's Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism is the most accessible  and helpful book on the post-modernism for the Church. Smith is a professor of philosophy and the three major french philosophers he engages (Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault) are part of his world. He recognizes when they are falsely represented by other it is the same when people outside the Church attempt to explain theology and Church history  they miss the point. 

Each of the philosophers have ideas that are useful for the church to reclaim it's vision for this new world. Naturally each philosophers have ideas that Christian need to disagree with, Smith at  no point hails the three as saviours for the church and tongue in cheek calls them "an unholy trinity of postmodern thinkers." To write them off as having nothing to say would be a grave error and could give a glimpse into why the church is thriving in all areas of the world except in the West.

The answer Smith gives is Radical Orthodoxy, which in of itself is hard to understand. My only direct interaction with Radical Orthodoxy is John Milbank's "The Other City" found in Theology and Social Theory. While the chapter was hard to grasp, because of its utterly unique language. That is inaccessible to a degree, but I believe it is done purposefully. Is the Church the same as the rest of the world do we have the same values and ideas of the world. Naturally the answer needs to be an emphatic NO.

The three ideas that Smith puts forth are Redeeming Dogma, Recovering Tradition and Renewing the Body. The first emphasises a need for renewal of Dogma in the sense that we live in a world where certainty is met with skepticism on all side. This is problematic for forms of Christianity in the West. This idea of certainty is a problem and as Smith asserts that Derrida once said " I don't know..I must believe." In other words, the postmodern theologian says, "We can't know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The best we can do is believe." The second is similar in the sense we need to be Historical Christians. Many have been advocated this idea particular the late Robert Weber in his Ancient-Future series. This fact struck me during my time studying Historical Theology at Providence College how I am a Christan, but do not know the Christian Tradition very well. While Tradition is always superseded by Holy Scriptures at times we need to heed Tradition as the on going interpreting of these Holy Scriptures. The last point is that the place of the world that God deemed good in Genesis need to be taken serious by the Church. Too often in my former experience in the Evangelical world the only thing that mattered was the soul. The stuff of the world matter as well(and equally) and this requires a renewal of the arts, the neighborhood and all the other areas of life.