I don’t see postmodernity at odds with special revelation. However, postmodernity is very in in the midst of a vigorous conversation with a foundationalist approach to the text.
I dare say that a postmodern reading of scripture brings it to life in a way that was not possible in modernity.
One of the many assumptions foundationalism makes is that there is one reading of a text and that reading is for all time. So when we preach through Romans we try to exegete Paul’s arguments. Generally making the assumption that Paul would preach that same sermon in Galatia, or Jerusalem or Detroit, or Tokyo. This approach was great for preachers because it meant – among other things – that once you had preached through Romans once you could always go back and use the same material because “it” was constant.
Not so any more. The text literally has different meanings based on the time/place/relational/cultural context. There is not “once for all” interpretive lens.
The question of “what is sin” stands out. If the message of the text is relative to the time/place/relational/cultural context than sin must be as well. What would a fluid definition or upstanding of sin be? This is vital, and must be explored further.
Maybe, just as a post-foundationalist reading of the text enlivens it, so a post-foundationalist approach to sin, may raise the standard of discipleship. No longer would the mere adherence to an external, and hieratically enforced morality be enough. It feels to me that a more post-foundationalist reading invites a more open hearing of the Spirit.
Peace, dwight
