I read the first two articles today for that Erickson class. They are conflicting views on evangelicals response to postmodernism. Grenz thinks that postmodernism is around to stay and finds that we should respond primarily in community. Read the article if you want that fleshed out. Note one thing however! Grenz neither accepts crowns Postmodernism king, nor accepts unwittingly the tenets of Postmodernism as D.A. Carson assumes. He clearly states that while Postmodernism negatively rejects the tenets of Modernism he still finds validity in truth claims and science! But then again, if you already disagree with him, you will probably not see that. Or at least that is what I have experienced from opponents of Grenz.
Parker rejects the validity of postmodernism in general and thinks it will die off soon like any other fad. Unfortunately, as you will see in the article he has very little proof of this. I don't feel like he takes this issue very seriously and his article reflects that. He also believes that a new shift is happening that he is coining Transmodernism which is more wishful thinking than it is a visible reality. His proof for that is even more mediocre. I think he is just trying to get credit for coining a term in case it actually happens! However, like Parker I would also like to take the best aspects of both modernism and postmodernism but I do not see that happening on the large scale. I hope it does but his article gives little evidence of that. I agree with Parker that we should challenge postmodern thought more instead of just submitting to it and I think Grenz does this. Anyway, read the articles and decide for yourself.
The first is an interview with Stanley Grenz
The second is an article from James Parker III.