One more comment on Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? The problem with “robust and confessional dogmatism” in a postmodern world is this. There are only a limited number of options here, and all of them but one are variations of what Leithart identifies as “Christianity.” As he uses the word in his book Against Christianity, Christianity is a system, an ism — what this or that individual thinks, or what this or that voluntary group confesses. But the setting in which individuals do their thinking, or voluntary groups gather together, is a setting that is completely controlled by secular modernity. Modernity sets the terms, modernity makes the rules, modernity tells all of us kids in the class to stay in our seats and raise our hands when we want to talk. The law-order is the law-order of modernity. This is the structure of secular and liberal democracy, and every form of postmodernism which does not challenge this is a sham. And every pomo friendly evangelical book I have read goes along with this sham, is comfortable with some form of “Christianity.”
“Robust dogmatism” within a voluntary group is better (in most ways) than radical skepticism within such a group, but there is still a problem. That kind of robust dogmatism is the hallmark of sectarian fundamentalism. Smith decries such fundamentalism, as do I, even though it has its advantages — by this means, Christians in America have preserved the fundamentals of the faith by hiding them in caves. But when we are isolated in our caves, there are only a limited number of options. We can go outside with our hands up, and surrender to the zeitgeist. Or we can drift to the back of the cave and quietly despair, losing our faith. Or we can gather the remnant around us, and keep everyone pumped by means of robust (and increasingly lurid) dogmatism.
But in a time of reformation, the Lordship of Jesus Christ will be preached in the public square, and it will be a proclamation of His ownership of the public square. When this happens (and it will), and God is kind to His people, and Christendom rises again, it will be appropriate for historians a thousand years from now to point to that phenomenon and call it postmodern. But what goes by postmodern these days is deeply committed to the structures (and police forces) of modernity.