Postmodernism Is Triumphalism

Sharing Options

James K.A. Smith recently made a good start in reviewing Greg Boyd’s book on Christians in politics. Justin Taylor had linked to it, and here it is. The book reviewed was The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church. The review seemed promising, and Smith scored some good points, posing some questions that I do not see how Boyd could possibly answer. He takes Boyd to task for urging a retreat to pietism that has an absolute commitment to nonviolence, and which abandons politics to be untouched by the gospel entirely.

But my concern here (not surprisingly) is to take up an issue with Smith that showed up right at the end of his review.

“Can evangelical thinking about cultural engagement leave behind the either/or of Constantinian triumphalism vs. pietistic retreat? To escape an oscillation between these two unbiblical extremes, we must nurture a more nuanced and creative political imagination.”

Now here’s the deal. If by “triumphalism” he means an arrogant attitude — Constantinian chest bumping while shouting “We’re number one!” — then of course, we should reject that. Triumphalism is as bad as all other isms.

But given what he has said elsewhere, I suspect he does not mean this. I suspect his objection is to triumph, or victory, even if humble guys are doing the triumphing. When the meek inherit the earth, will that be triumphalism? Or triumph? But if this is the case, then what he wants is a nuanced position of cultural engagement somewhere between retreat and victory. What he wants is a nuanced stalemate.

What Smith appears to be advocating is a Church that is culturally engaged, but which is (for reasons of her own) perpetually consigned to the position of a minority voice, which sometimes makes a slight difference, meaning that things did not go as badly as they could have gone.

There are a number of problems with it, but let me reiterate one of the central points I want to make in this regard. If we have resolved, when taking on the societal apparatus of modernity, to never, ever win, then in what possible sense are we using the word postmodern? Doesn’t use of the word postmodern imply some sort of victory? Isn’t that triumphalism?

Either the use of the word postmodern is a sham (as I have been arguing), or somebody (besides the Muslims) really intends to take modernity down and replace it with something else. Isn’t this latter option triumphalistic? And, if so, why is this kind of triumphalism okay and the Christian Constantinian kind bad?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Garfield Davidson
3 years ago

To what shall I liken this nuanced stalemate? We are the ketchup of the earth, and we really wish the Owner of this establishment would fire this terrible chef already, which he will but, no man knows the day nor the hour when the plans to do so.