Here at Precipice we’ve spent plenty of energy praising the contribution postmodernism has made to western conceptions of faith, church, etc. Of course, much of these recent shifts in paradigm could be understood as a rediscovery of a pre-modern worldview. The abandonment of belief in pure reason, pure science, and the simplistic boxes designed to hold multi-dimensional mysteries, etc: all of these recent trends in philosophy are of course, not new. They are throwbacks to a pre-Enlightenment era.

Similar as it may seem however, postmodernism is certainly not a synonym for pre-modernism. Postmodernism - in its most radical form - not only questions how we measure and represent truth, but goes as far as to question its very existence. And of course, this development goes too far. At least it does for anyone who claims to believe that a baby lying in straw was, and is, Truth incarnate.

What I’m saying is that, while we at Precipice appreciate postmodernism’s reigning in of the Enlightenment experiment, we certainly recognize “the barbs amongst the roses”. As Tom Wright has aptly said, postmodernism’s constructive role has been “to preach the Fall to arrogant modernity”. But postmodernism, taken in the extreme, is not an improvement on modernism. It offers some tools to point us home, but postmodernism itself is not home.

One of the barbs amongst the roses rises up in something we might call the paradox of choice. This idea expresses that when choice exists in myriad forms, it becomes a trap all its own. Paradoxically, a dazzling array of options actually often ends up limiting one’s ability to make a positive choice and move forward. When one can not only choose A or B, but also C, D, E, all the way to Z, one might be understandably weary of choosing too quickly (if at all?).

Being in my mid-thirties, I am very familiar with this postmodern peculiarity. I’ve seen friends who’ve sat paralyzed in the same spiritual/mental state- for years on end, simply because they cannot choose amongst the multitude of options available to them. By making one choice, one must necessarily leave behind numerous others. And for some postmoderns the fear of this potential loss actually leaves them in a state of perpetual in-between. It’s like decision purgatory. Ironic, isn’t it?

This phenomenon can even take place in the process of planting a church. If too many options exist for how we: worship, celebrate communion, structure our meetings, form our leadership, etc. a church plant can end up stuck in a phase of perpetual abstraction- not really moving forward, not really forming, not really incarnating, but merely “considering its options”. And of course this isn’t good for anyone. And what’s true for a church is true for an individual; and on the other end of the spectrum, it’s true for an entire movement.

Another strange outworking of this postmodern peculiarity is the sense that this in-between state is actually substantial; that it’s actually akin to spiritual-formation, church-planting, movement creation, etc. But it’s not.

Please, don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying we should rush ahead- not taking the time to seed community through prayer, thought, and conversation. What I am saying however, is that there’s a distinct difference between pondering something- and actually doing it. Perhaps we should remember that Jesus was big on doing- not so much on intentioning.

And while the paradox of choice plays a large role in a postmodern’s tendency to avoid concrete decision, there is much more than multiple-option-confusion going on here. When it comes to “thinking something through” as opposed to actually doing it- it’s often much more comfortable, and ironically, more rewarding- to operate in the abstract than in the real world.

After all, in the abstract there is little- if any- measurable risk; there is certainly no measurable loss. At least that’s what postmodernism, in its most extreme form, would have one believe. But as I’ve already pointed out above, this simply is not true. Forethought is good, even essential, but as the term itself implies- it should come before the actual decision. It cannot, should not, parade as the decision itself.

Such an argument might sound strange coming from the editor of a magazine who’s meta-tags (sorry if you don’t know what those are) suggest this magazine is all about “Postmodern Christianity”. However, as others have suggested elsewhere, the point here is to discuss the incarnation of Christianity within a postmodern culture; not to let faith mutate into mere postmodern abstraction.

Incarnation is the key word here. And again, thinking back to the messy, yet miraculous way God Himself made incarnation such a central point in the history and fabric of the cosmos, we would do well to follow suit. We are, after all, image-bearers. Deconstruction is a necessary step following in the wake of modernism. But as disciples of Christ- who was and is the Incarnation, we would do well to remember that it can never be our final destination.