Postmodern is a defining characteristic of the culture in which we live, however, it has been around for centuries. Postmodernism reduces to relativism and permeates to every area of life, and it is the aim of this essay to make this point very clear. Especially for the Christian, the concept of relativity serves as quite the obstacle. “The root of [this] obstacle today is the postmodernist redefinition and degradation of truth.”
Truth has been defined, and traditionally accepted, as: that which corresponds to reality. When postmodernism redefines truth, it is implying that truth is no longer considered what corresponds to reality. Once this concept of truth is lost,everything is reduced to perspective and preference; however there is no room for an objective standard.
Postmodernism “involves loss of optimism and confidence in human progress, incredulity toward metanarratives, skepticism, suspicion of claims to truth, exuberant celebration of diversity, relativism, pragmatism, and pluralism.” Sadly, some would rejoice at this comment, and exclaim “Yes, this is the appropriate way to conceive of reality!” Paul refers to this type of understanding as “wisdom of the world,” and instructs the believer to not be deceived by it (1 Cor 3: 18-20).
This essay will serve to show that postmodernism as a philosophy reduces to relativism, is illogical, and is therefore unlivable. It will also look at postmodernism in relation to Christianity, and comment on the challenge of the Christian apologist and evangelist.
Postmodernism as a philosophy
It is interesting to examine postmodernism under the lens of philosophy, because what is discovered, is its self-refuting nature. Comment on this will be reserved for the section below.
In order for the postmodern philosophy to get off the ground, it must first seek to redefine truth. They assert that in remains unknowable in its current regards, and therefore in order to know truth, we must redefine it. Instead of the previous definition, postmodernists regard “truth as socially constructed, contingent, inseparable from the peculiar needs and preferences of certain people in a certain time and place. This notion has many implications – it leaves no value, custom, belief, or eternal verity totally untouched.” This very redefinition underscores the whole philosophy; things can be changed, nothing is absolute, and all is relative.
As a philosophy, postmodernism not only attacks truth, but is very abrasive to anyone who subscribes to the “ludicrous” notion that we can even know truth in the first place. These people are labeled as intolerant and bigoted. “Postmodernists fret mightily about arrogance and dogmatism, but to avoid them they typically rebound into the equal and opposite errors of cheap tolerance and relativism.”
The question that arises is can this cheap tolerance and relativism withstand the scrutiny of philosophy? If the discipline of philosophy is dedicated to studying truth and reality, then the worldview of postmodernism ends “up being more of a preference or prejudice than a philosophically argued position.”
Engaging postmodernism
Postmodernism can and should be engaged apologetically. One way to engaged people apologetically, is it to push them to the logical conclusion of their proposition. When this is done with the postmodernist, it becomes quite apparent that their philosophy commits the fallacy of self-refutation.
If an essential part of postmodernism is that there are no ultimate standards, then this applies to even language. The postmodernist believes that even semantics are arbitrary, yet they use words to express their various points. According to the fine print of their teaching, it would be allowable for someone to completely misinterpret the postmodernist. So why then even speak?
Postmodernism carries with it incredulity towards metanarratives. It asserts that rather, everything is determined by biological and cultural forces, leaving no place for judgment. However, this very notion undercuts itself, because the postmodernist places themselves as judge for all those who disagree.
Included in their attack on truth is an attack on logic, because it has been associated with the rationalism of the Enlightenment. However, the postmodernists is not able to break free from using it. In stating that postmodernism is the best philosophy, are they not implying that it possesses its own identity? Thus they invoke the law of identity. If the postmodernism claims a different philosophy is not right, are they not invoke the law of non-contradiction, which is necessary for something to be considered wrong?
In the claim that we cannot know truth, postmodernism conflates the categories of metaphysics and epistemology, byimplying that therefore truth (in its classical form)must not exist. Though humans are surely flawed, this does not mean we are completely hopeless to know anything as true. “The hazards of human reasoning count nothing against the validity of logic itself.” What is more, is not this very implication a truth claim made by the postmodernist themself? They seem to be saying that we cannot know truth because of our limited perspective, yet are they then claiming to have the perspective from which it is allowable to claim the truth of this statement?
“There is a real world consisting of logical and moral truths that serves as ‘the last word,’ and it cannot be dissolved into nature or culture.” If it could, it would be anchorless, even for the very philosophy that teaches it. “Postmodernism reduces to nihilism because there is no final standard. It’s as if they say this with a smile on their face.” The Christian should be disturbed by this and spurred to action. Paul has taught us to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), even when dealing with the very people who carry this smile, because we know it is only masking the bondage of a deceptive philosophy. Only the truth will truly set us free (John 8:32).
The challenge of postmodernism to Christian apologetics
“Speaking truth in love” is easier said than down. As the postmodernists undermines the notion of truth, the task of the believer only becomes harder. How would the Bible be interpreted through the lens of postmodernism? It would undermine the Gospel message. How can the truth set us free, if it is not regarded as absolute, uncompromising, exclusive, unchanging truth? Through the lens of postmodernism, men cannot be culpable for the rejection of Christ. How can grace, defined as giving something that is not deserved, be received if one does not see themselves as underserving? “Only if we recognize that the truth of truth… is today in doubt, and that this uncertainty stifles the word as a carrier of God’s truth and moral judgment, do we fathom the depth of the present crisis.”
The Bible teaches a correspondence view of truth because the truth value of a proposition can only be assessed by its correspondence with reality. However, as has been shown, this runs completely contradictory to what postmodernism teaches. Because “the basic laws of logic… and argument forms… constitute proper thinking, [and] are not contingent social constructions,” we must rely on these very things to expose the nature of the philosophy of postmodernism.
We know that the Lord is near to those who call on him, but we also know that they must call on him in truth (Ps 145:18).It is our job, as evangelizers, to winsomely argue for the truth that is assumed in this verse.
Without a thorough and deeply rooted understanding of the biblical view of truth as revealed, objective, absolute, universal, eternally engaging, antithetical and exclusive, unified and systematic, and as end in itself, the Christian response to postmodernism will be muted by the surrounding culture and will make illicit compromises with the truth-impoverished spirit of the age.
Conclusion
“Truth is a daunting, difficult thing; it is also the greatest thing in the world.” For the Christian, called to be ambassadors for Christ, begging the world to be reconciled to God, (2 Cor 5:20), we must accept the confrontational nature of this task.The concept of truth must be the evangelizer’s primary focus when engaging with the postmodernist. When they “seek to disparage metanarratives, deconstruct truth into language games and render spirituality a mixture of subjectively compelling elements, evangelicals must bring objective truth back to the table as the centerpiece of concern.”
G. K. Chesterton has insightfully penned that “pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist.” Our compassion should drive us in our task, as we were once far away ourselves until saved by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13). We cannot compromise on the absolute nature of the truth of the Gospel, because again, it is the only thing that will set us free (John 8:32).
Bibliography
Groothuis, Douglas. , Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.
Anderson, Walter. The Future of the Self: Inventing the Postmodern Person. New York: Jeremy P Tarcher/Putnam, 1997.
Groothuis, Douglas, Class Lecture in Advanced Apologetics, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO, October , 28, 2013.
Henry, Carl. God, Revelation, and Authority. Waco: Word, 1976.
Chesterton, G. K. Chesterton. Orthodoxy. 1908; reprint, New York: Doubleday, 1959.
No comments:
Post a Comment