It's interesting to think through the differing operational definitions used with the term "postmodern."  (An "operational definition" isn't so much the dictionary listing for any word:  it's more the definition that evolves as that word is expressed and brought to bear in "real life" usage.  In an operational definition, connotations associated with a term have as much power over the meaning of that term as do concrete definitions.  This process includes cultural associations that are often more powerful "shapers of meaning" than definitions and connotations are.) It should be pointed out that many people, modern or postmodern, do not particularly like the use of the term for what appear to be quite different reasons.

True "post moderns" don't particularly like the term because it's of little or no value beyond marking the time in which we live.  ("Post"  meaning "after" and "modern" meaning "era" - the time begun roughly in the 16th century and either is ending or has ended, depending on who you ask).  Beyond that the term means either too little or too much to be of much value.  It means too little if one accepts it for what it is - a sign that we are now living in the "after modern" age.  It means too much because its been appended to mean a myriad of different things to different people - thus has little formative power in a given situation. 

"Moderns" however (some of them at least) seem to see the word postmodern in a much different light.  To many, it is a much more loaded term.  To someone who will not entertain the thought that the world has changed and we live in a vastly different era than the one they have staked life and meaning to, the term seems to be linked to many others. Some of this meaning stems from the evolution of the term, while other parts tend to be linked more to folklore surrounding it.  Mention post modernity to some people and you will hear terms like nihilism, relativism, anarchy, or universalism as often as not.  (This is in the context of the theological / spiritual / religious conversation. An excellent example of this is an article Charles Colson wrote for Christianity Today, entitled "The Postmodern Crackup," on the subject.  You can see it here.)

"Postmodern" is not not a new term.  The word first appeared in Webster's Dictionary in the late 1940s.  It probably was in use at least by the mid-40s, primarily in the field of literary criticism.  Over time the word has morphed into different meanings and connotations, perhaps based somewhat on who was using it and what they were saying.  E.G., a word linked to J.D. Salinger (Catcher In The Rye) in the "Pleasantville" / "Leave it to Beaver" world of the 1950s would quite possibly become guilty by association.  Thus was born an operational definition that seems to still be in use by many modern thinkers that bears little resemblance to either its true meaning or to the way many postmodern thinkers use it.

Post moderns tend to see a different etymology.  The "modern era" began with the development of both the printing press and ocean-going caravels.  Sailing ships opened up vastly different understandings and knowledge of the world, people began to read widely for the first time in history (without books, why is it important to know how to read - the village or castle priest (scholar) could read for them), and people like Newton, Copernicus, Descartes, and Galileo altered long held understanding of things taken for granted.  Thus is a general marker for a world view where science, understanding, reason, and the mind are the height of human capability.  In the world of the church the modern era was undoubtedly adopted.  Faith became reasonable, understandable, knowledge about God was equated with knowing God, and Protestantism in particular, has never looked back.  Stop and think for a moment about one of the paramount church institutions and where it came from.  The Sunday school was originally intended to teach children (and adults) to read, write, and do math.  It had to be on Sundays when Robert Raikes started the first one in 18th century England because both children and adult peasants worked 12 hours a day, six days a week.  It had no other religious links than the fact that Bibles were used to teach people to read because Bibles were available.

Yet in the ensuing 250 years, modern thinking has enshrined the Sunday school as one of the pillars of faith development and religious formation.  Learning information about God and Jesus is, in the modern mentality, of supreme importance to faith development.  (You don't believe me?  Just mention the idea at your next board / vestry / session meeting of "canceling Sunday school because it just doesn't work very well as a tool for spiritual formation / discipleship" and see the reaction you will get.  Every other program in most churches is developed with some kind of evaluation process built in to see if its worthwhile - why is Sunday school any different?  Because of the modern, cultural value appended to it over the past 250 - 300 years.) That world has changed forever.  We can't go back to the "good old days" (and besides, most post moderns agree that they weren't all that good anyway).

We now live in a world where everything cannot be explained.  Mystery has reentered our lexicon even in the realm of science.  (Quantum physics is an excellent example - light is both a particle and a wave, which should be impossible but is true.)  Linear, deductive thinking is no longer the way most people learn.  Watch how kids "surf" the web and learn from it and see the difficulty some adults have amidst such a "spider web" of information with no step by step directions on how to use it.)  Post moderns accept this as a relatively value-neutral statement of where we are.  Stanley Grenz has said that what he calls the "postmodern turn" is a "mixed bag," with some good points and some not so good points.  And in fact, this sense of moving beyond that which can be explained or understood has re-acquainted many with the desire to know God - a desire that sat latent for many years while knowing about God was equated to communion with God.

Where these two mindsets differ is in the sense of imposed values on a descriptive term.  Many moderns see imposing and threatening values appended to the concept where many post moderns simply see a description.  In fact, some postmodern Christians are looking further and seeing the implications for new and exciting ministry and mission within a new world while others are seeing that same thing as a threat to the status quo of cultural religion.  If you read Colson's article, take the time to read Brian McLaren's response (here) and then read the response to the response that Chuck Colson wrote back (here).  (There is also a really good response in an open letter to Colson by Ron Martioa, pastor of Westwinds Community Church in Jackson, Michigan (here).)  There seems to be this case of "apples and oranges" in some of the thoughts Colson makes.  Brian McLaren told me when I asked him about it in Nashville in May, 2005 that "he (Colson) just doesn't get it."

Another place to see this is when you read Stan Grenz's books like "A Primer on Postmodernism" or "Beyond Foundationalism" (with John R. Franke) and compare them to Douglas Groothius' "Truth Decay."  There is a very real sense of emotive feelings in Groothius' writing.  Grenz is writing about ways to do theology and mission in a changed and changing world; Groothius appears to speaking out in a crusade to correct heresy.  The emotional sense of what's at stake that seeps through his academic prose is palpable and seems to belie a fear that seems a common trait in some of the modern writing on post modernity.

In some ways it is helpful to think through these value connotations of the term postmodern as we approach our own operational definition of it.  But more importantly, I think we need to see clearly the fact that different people (and different groups) aren't really talking the same language when they speak of modern or postmodern.  This is especially true when you stumble across some of the formulaic writing and speaking (in and of itself a very "modern" construct!) that connotes some idea of "modern equals good, accepted, tried and true, and right" versus "postmodern equals new, bad, unacceptable, and wrong." Some of the arguments I have heard or read are classic examples of people saying vastly different things and not seeing that the argument is superfluous.  Why should I argue with you about whether an apple is bad or not when you've got an orange in your hand and are describing it?