Assent

It has recently been brought to my attention that I am a modernist in post-modern clothing.
The illuminator did not intend to undress me as such, but instead was critiquing the skin of somebody else. Suddenly, I looked down and noticed that underneath my clothing, I looked much like that man.
It went down like this:
Perhaps you've heard of the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. I, also have heard of this book, but have never read it. I read a review of it, though, and thought very highly of the review - less so of the book.
You can catch the review here: http://www.perspectivesjournal.org/2004/10/review.php
Since I respect the views of some of those who have (at least I thought had) read the book, I sent them the link asking them if it was an accurate critique of the book. Following are some of their responses.

Mike:
"Sorry ken, I couldn’t even make it through their first point of refutation. That article helps me understand just how anti-modern I am. My stomach turned as whoever wrote the article said that much of what eldridge wrote was WRONG.And while I’m sure that they have good points of refutation, I just can’t read articles that come across with such a closed, concrete agenda. The truth is, I haven’t even read the book :-) However, this article makes me want to read the book, love it like a girl, play it like a guitar, and then go out to dinner with dean bob. And all I did was read the first couple of paragraphs. It is good to know that I still have a ton of maturing to do. One day I hope that I will stop reacting so strongly to the modernism of academia."

Bill:
"I have read the reviews and have seen differing opions. I highly recommend you read this book. As with all books you might not agree with all that is said. The overall content is good. You will enjoy in light of your theme in your read-thru."

Jeremy:
"I pretty much have the whole wild at heart thing nailed...I mean look at me. 100% adrenaline all the time. It's all go, go, go. I mean...that's what being a man is all about. What??? You haven't ridden a horse...pansy. Never braved the white waters with nothin between you and the jagged rocks than inflated rubber[Actually, that's what I do all summer, Jeremy. In your face girly-man!]? There's something inherently wrong with you then.
Seriously, I can say that I pretty much despise those kinds of books. Something seems totally forced about them. They don't speak to me at all...but hey, that's just me. We're starting the "Wild at Heart" Bible study...I dunno, something smells like the cheese I ate in France, but like I said...that's just me."

After reading Mike's reply, I was pretty downtrodden in my realization that I was, as I had with fear suspected, more modern than many of my peers and even those older than me. Still, after reading Bill's and my brother's evaluation of the book (to his credit, Bill is the only one of us who actually has read it), I'm now having doubts that one's acceptance of Wild at Heart is a reliable determiner of one's philosophical/cultural leanings. Bill, seemingly, should be steeped in modernism, but this, as in many other instances, is a clue as to his inability to be solidly labeled despite his age or place in life. He's more flexible, gracious, understanding, and accepting of cultural trends/developments at 59 years old than I am at 26. My brother tends to lean somewhere between modernity and post-modernity, tending to surprise me in both facets at times. But, Mike, well, let's just call Mike the pomo poster child.
At the end of all this, I'm not sure what makes a person modern or post-modern or anywhere in between.

I'm fairly certain of the tenets and oppositions of each philosophical stance. Epistemologically, it seems that post-moderns give much more value to experience than do modernists. Also, post-moderns seem to be much less trustworthy of "the" answer to anything, whereas "the" answer seems to be the modernists' holy grail. Ontologically, I believe a post-modernist would define being as determined by oneself and one's choices as one exists while being self-aware to the point of irony; conversely, the modernist may be more apt to define self and being in more concrete, static, and objective terms. This is the extent that I'm willing to stick my neck out, as I'm not even certain of what I've already typed. I'm pretty certain that no post-modernist would attempt a concrete definition of their paradigm, though, if you gather what I'm saying.

So, in my opinion, this blog could define me as either pomo or mo(?): I'm trying to define myself (modern?) while being unsure and looking for communal interaction coupled with an attempt to be more self-aware (pomo?). Ugh, defining myself is wearing me out.

The original point I was trying to make is that, at the very least, I don't think I am who I thought I was. This is both a scary and comforting thought all at once. It's scary because losing an idea of oneself when one is obsessed with knowing (statically) who one's self is (again, statically) confusing and often revealing to the point of disturbance. It's exciting because I'm tired of trying to hold on to false realities and photographs of some abstract personality while my true self sits just underneath. I also believe my uncovering, or derobing as it's been called, allows me to more genuinely interact with my Lord. So, like my friend Eric Keck alluded to, I do pray that more and more of my false layers will be peeled off as the Lord leads my friends to help me in those ways.

So, my conclusion at the end of my assessment of my post-or-not-modernity is: "I have less of a clue than when I began." Still, it (conscious incompetence) is a far better place to be than where I was (unconscious incompetence).

Steps to take:
Understand what modernism and post-modernism really are.
Understand not just what I do, but what I prefer.
Continue to be honest and open about those preferences.

That's all for now.