Faith and Postmodernism

According to Walter Kasper, we are currently living a time where, in our collective outlook on life, “the belief in (God) affords no impulse of any kind that might be said to determine human life and human history” (1). Essentially, it is a time when we are collectively divorced from any deep spiritual connection that gives us access to purposeful meaning. Instead, we have come to believe that we are autonomous, that is, we are not connected to the universe in any way. This self-centered perception of the world around us began with what we now know as the Modern Enlightenment. This understanding evolved as the result of a crisis to what had been “true” before. Kasper succinctly points out that traditionally people tend to react instinctively to the word crisis with a negative thought or understanding. He continues to point out that originally a crisis is simply a situation in which a decision has to be taken. In other words, it is only data; it has no pessimism in its etymological beginnings. As Kasper intends for us to understand it, one falls under this type of predicament by lacking forward movement. The flow of our life has been interrupted and we must change something. Not changing one’s behavior or thoughts and expecting a different outcome is precisely what entails a crisis.

The choice made during the Enlightenment meant that the spiritual realm of human existence would no longer be considered to determine human life and human history. This meant that “man” would assume total control over his life and destiny, thus, resulting in the Age of Reason. As such, the mental realm of human existence began its development. Consequently, man became the reference point of all reality. In such a perception, the Spiritual Realm was seen as a barrier to progress and Science and Technology became detached by default from any divine association. When one has no connection to his or her higher self, unshakable isolation, darkness, numbness, and void that can not be shaken take over. When man assumes he can control his destiny, he annihilates his spiritual connection and loses his origin, his purpose, and his divine worth. To lose this is to lose light and gain darkness. We have no access to miracles when we do not believe in them, nor do we have peace if we do not have a scientific name for it.

The effects of such an imbalance began to be felt. Hence, the Dialectic of Enlightenment began. Tension grew between conflicting ideas. There was, however, no acknowledgment of the terrain reason had gained. “Here the word of God is again critically maintained as against the false claims to autonomy made by human reason and a ghetto church” (Kasper 12). As a result, an abyss opens between the human experience and the divine explanation. We are left with the uncertainty of how faith and thought and Church and society can coexist in a mediated existence.

The Second Enlightenment, or as Kasper describes it, “the decisive point in the present crisis in theology” (Kasper 13). Freedom is the main concern of the Second Enlightenment. Are we really free at all? Is trust in reason at all reasonable in itself? These inquiries relate to Richard Kearney’s mirrors. It seems as though in the Second Enlightenment man is beginning to gain a glimpse of the illusory image of what he considers reasonable reality. It is particularly apparent in the present time, where technology in the form of social media allows us to see that reality is completely and absolutely in the eye of the beholder.

Without a doubt, the Second Enlightenment brings about the problem of freedom as a result of reason. “One the one hand, man in his freedom is greater than reality; he exceeds all externally posited bounds. On the other hand, reality is greater than man; it restricts and confines him; indeed, it threatens his freedom” (Kasper 15.) Clearly, the key word in understanding the dilemma of the crisis of reason is “externally.” Man can attempt to control external posited bounds that are set by other men. It is however, the outside forces, those that cannot be seen or measured by the scientific and rational mind, that confine and restrict him. To a degree, the irony of it all might be that what is really restricting man is confining his existence to the physical, mental, and emotional (although not always felt completely) realms with no regard to his spiritual needs. Poignantly, the work and tragic life of writer David Foster Wallace point to how the struggle of humans to “control” is, as Kasper points out, self-destructive. Culturally, we are a society who gives their power away to externally posited bounds we sometimes call science and technology. We exist individually, battling our desire to be free, perhaps not knowing that freedom is synonymous with surrendering the illusory control of our intellect (or reason) and letting our faith restore our sense of purposefulness.

Richard Kearney encourages us to heed the call of the times and learn from the past. He proposes we do so by interpreting reality, or imagination as he calls it, in three new ways. He believes this will aid in responding to the challenges of Postmodernism. He calls his first suggestion the “critical imagination.” In this first stage, Kearney is reacting to the mimetic effect of a society engulfed by consumer and global materialistic trends. As such, he is seeking to remove the individual as the only source of meaning in a relationship. He is thus seeking a more empathetic model. “It is more human than the ontotheological imagination in that it refuses to see man as a mere copy, or copier, of some otherworldly origin of meaning which denies man any creative role in history” (Kearney 43). Clearly, a stable relationship between the self and the other will depend on our capability of discernment. We will need to look with blind eyes and listen with quiet minds. If we are only attuned to pre-existing characteristics and notions of others, we will not aid or allow them to unleash their creative power. Or who knows, perhaps their newly projected image will be the spark for an unprecedented creation. A critical imagination, however, must above all be strong, pure, and disciplined. If it is to serve as a model, it has to cleanse itself of previous patterns and behaviors. In other words, “the postmodern imagination can only be fully critical when it submits its own deconstructive tendencies to scrutiny and refuses to reduce itself to a mere plaything of parody” (Kearney 44).

With such fortitude, poetic imagination can flourish. The purposeful development of a new society is the charge assigned to this ingenious imagination. Fundamentally, the intention behind this is to create a model that transforms current social trends into new ones that “are capable of challenging the nihilism which increasingly informs our postmodern society of commodification (the ideology of endless imitation)” (Kearney 44). Certainly, these new models will be dramatically innovative and would not rely on satisfying rational desires. To that extent, art plays an important role in the development of such a project. Art allows us to access unexplored terrain and sometimes take a glimpse into future trends. Or as Kearney aptly articulates, “For art, as an open-access laboratory of imaginative exploration, is one of the most powerful reminders that history is never completed and that man still possess the potential to envisage alternative modes of experience” (Kearney 44). Without a doubt, the reminder that history is never completed is a powerful reminder of our unlimited potential as complete beings.

The last piece that completes this puzzle of imagination is the hermeneutical imagination. Armed with the strength and creativity of the other imaginations, the hermeneutic piece can accurately explain and inform. It is to a degree, a job of interpretation. It upholds the truth that one needs to know where one comes from in order to know where one is going. It is the only way of knowing that one is ultimately responsible for himself and aids in not giving away one’s power to nihilistic trends. It might avoid repeating patterns and paralyzing fear of the unknown. We have reached a dead-end in our current societal existence, one which catapults us into an existence of nothingness. We keep advancing into the depths of our false desires. Consequently, we suffer from cultural paralysis. The goal of the hermeneutic imagination is to retrace our steps in order to re-steer our current reality, and thus be able to have life-infusing forward movement. This, of course, cannot be done without the help of the sociological imagination and the poetic imagination. Whilst, the hermeneutic imagination will go back and identify the stories that need to be told, it will also “renounce the idea of a totalizing narrative of narratives which might reduce the complexity and diversity of historical experience to a single, all-embracing plot” (Kearney 54). Clearly, a single all-embracing plot breeds a society of mimetic, one in which we all wish to be a part of the “one” and then become paralyzed by the lack of meaning. With the aid of the critical and poetic imaginations, we will be able to devise a society that reflects more aptly what we are truly made for. Although, this is yet unknown and waiting to be discovered by the fortitude and discipline of the critical imagination, the innovation of the poetic imagination, and the elucidation of the hermeneutical imagination.

Works Cited

Kasper, Walter. An Introduction to Christian Faith. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. Print.

Kearney, Richard. “Ethics and the Modern Imagination.” Thought 62.244 (1987): 39-58. Print.