Is Postmodernity a Lame Duck?

For those interested in the Emergent conversation, I found this article by Sam Blair ('Why be Postmodern' )helpful.

Recently, many thinkers I have listened to have been talking about Postmodernity--not as the world's predetermined course--but as just another step (and most-likely a very short one) in history's march. Reading this article, I was reminded that the deconstructionist perspective (if you can even designate it as such) has brought some needed critiques and perspective to the Church, but we should not give postmodernity more power than it actually possesses. We should remember, PM does not offer anything substantive. Its most important work is as a (necessary) critique of Modernity, and its excesses. The question is: once the criticizing is done, what fills in the void left by a dead modernity?

Instead of this being somehow a rebuke to the Emergent conversation, our questions need to change just a bit. Instead of only asking how we can react to the coming Postmodern wave, we should be asking how we can best create the language/atmosphere/persuppositions assumed by our culture as it moves from modernity into something else. PM will not do the work, and will not be stable enough for any culture to hang its hat on. In short, PM will soon outlive its usefulness be discarded.

So, what does that mean for us as the Church? What would it mean for us to build a new epistemology, a new set of presuppositions that--rightly and restoratively--acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus over thought and experience and knowledge.

Here is an article worth reading on this front by Historian NT Wright. There aren't too many more answers here either, but it may spur on the conversation a bit.