Metamodernism Compels Us To Be Authentically Countercultural.
Since roughly the 1970’s, social observers and thinkers have argued that the Western world has moved beyond the modern world into a post-modern world. The modern world believed in science, progress, the primacy of the individual, and that there was no problem we couldn’t solve. We then moved into a post-modern world of “incredulity toward metanarratives,” a term coined by French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard to describe the post-modern rejection of sweeping explanations of all of human history, society, or reality. We see this play out in a number of ways, including the rise of the “Nones,” or people who don’t claim to be part of any religious tradition.
Post-modernism, however, can breed cynicism and hopelessness. Peruse social media long enough, and you’ll encounter the “LOL nothing matters” crowd, who have taken post-modern thinking to the extreme. Others, having found post-modernism wanting, are searching once again for meaning. Some have returned to faith, as Ryan Burge has noted.
Dutch thinkers Timotheus Vermeulen & Robin van den Akker theorize that society is not fully in a post-modern age, nor has it completely left the modern age. They describe society as oscillating between modern and post-modern, or “metamodern.” This seems valid. The enthusiastic proponents of AI certainly have the technological optimism of the modernists, while AI skeptics are more post-modern. They question the sweeping narrative of the enthusiasts, while others point out the dangers of losing our humanity, as Pope Leo XIV outlines in his Encyclical Letter, Manifica Humanitas, which we might categorize as metamodern, since the Pope does not fully reject AI, as some skeptics do.
Scandinavian thinkers, Daniel Görtz and Emil Ejner Friis, writing under the name “Hanzi Freinacht” have developed upon the idea of metamodernism, saying:
Metamodern philosophy enters the scene only once the Internet and the social media have become truly dominant factors in people’s lives and when many of us no longer partake directly in the production and distribution of industrial goods. It is a worldview which combines the modern faith in progress with the postmodern critique. What you get then, is a view of reality in which people are on a long, complex developmental journey towards greater complexity and existential depth. The metamodern philosophy is a whole world of ideas and suppositions that are counter-intuitive to modern and postmodern people alike. But since both the modern and postmodern philosophies are increasingly outdated, these metamodern ideas are set to develop, take hold, and spread. One day, they may become as dominant as the modern philosophy is today.
Let’s bring this back to our present political situation and assume the Metamodernists are correct. How do we, as Christians, deal with metamodern thinking? Consider this sentence from Hanzi Freinacht above: “people are on a long, complex developmental journey towards greater complexity and existential depth.”
The search for existential depth is not a rejection of faith in favor of science (modernism), nor a rejection of a sweeping explanation of reality (post-modernism). It provides Christians with an opportunity to make our case that the absolute truth of scripture and the Good News of the Gospels is the existential depth people are searching for.
This, in turn, requires us to live authentically. To demonstrate, not through words, Tweets, or YouTube videos, but to demonstrate the authenticity of Christianity in our entire lives. For the metamodernist, strong preaching and snappy videos aren’t enough. Is it real? Do we believe it enough to live it? This is what the metamodernist is asking. We are flawed human beings. We cannot, under our own strength, be perfect like Jesus, but living authentically doesn’t require perfection, and the grace of God is ever present - praise the Lord for that!
Francis Schaeffer describes three avenues of achieving desired ends in the American system: political, legal, and what he calls “Christian alternatives.” The political is, of course, winning elections, using political power to pass legislation, etc. Legal action is sometimes necessary to block or overturn unjust laws. The power of the Judiciary is enormous in our time, as the Supreme Court almost always has the final say on major political issues.
The Christian alternative is Schaeffer’s term for what I call living authentically in this essay. All three (political, legal, and the Christian alternative) are necessary to change our political system. Schaeffer writes:
“Now I must quickly say there are going to be people who say, ‘don’t use the political and legal means, just show the Christian alternatives.” That is absolutely utopian in a fallen world, and specifically in a world such as ours at the present moment. But while it is utopian to say, just use the Christian alternatives and do not use the political and legal means, on the other hand, it is also incomplete and wrong only to use the legal and political means without showing forth the Christian alternatives. It is incomplete in conviction and will be incomplete in results; and it is wrong to the reality of the God we say we are obeying.” “A Christian Manifesto” pp 133-134
Aaron Renn’s 2024 book “Life in the Negative World” makes the case that we no longer live in a society where Christianity is the dominant cultural influence. This seems self-evident, but he goes on to say American Christians often behave as if this fact is not indeed a fact. The book is well worth your time, as he urges Christians to adapt to the new reality as a means of remaining true to our beliefs and becoming more effective witnesses to the Christian alternative. One recommendation he offers is that we must embrace countercultural living.
In his book Center Church, Tim Keller took H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and culture model and turned it into four main patterns of doing church that he labeled transformation, relevance, counterculture, and two kingdoms.
The bulk of evangelicalism is either transformation oriented (culture war) or relevance oriented (seeker sensitivity, cultural engagement). My argument is that there needs to be a rebalancing away from transformation and relevance towards being a counterculture.
That is, the evangelical church needs to spend much more time self-consciously and intentionally stewarding the strength and health of its own community.
Evangelicalism is very internally weak in my view. Churches are often shallow, etc. This augurs for an increase in internal focus vs. external focus.
I agree with Renn here. We must, as Schaeffer argues above, fight necessary battles. We must engage culturally, but we must also embrace the countercultural nature of Christianity. We are not the cool kids, and we never will be (if we ever were). Jesus was certainly countercultural. His Disciples embraced that and turned the world upside down. Christian history is filled with countercultural Saints who changed the world for the better and advanced the Kingdom of God. Why shouldn’t we do the same?
I hope that my recent essays have convinced you that Love, Accountability, Meekness, and Purpose are essential to demonstrating authentic Christianity in the political realm - they are most certainly counter-cultural as Renn urges. Our political system is desperate for something better, and our metamodern world is crying out for it.
