Chapter 2.11

A Critique of Postmodernism

More Bark than Bite

Primary Points

• Postmodernism rejects the belief that there is anything that might be called objective, absolute truth.
• It is easy to exaggerate our need to accommodate our Christian message to the mental filters of our current culture in order to convince the unbeliever who doesn’t have the Spirit, or the believer who neglects the Spirit, to believe the things of the Spirit.
• Modernism has proven to be much more durable than some Evangelicals thought, because it is based on the God-ordained place of reason which is difficult for any human to deny in the long run
• Christ does not desire to be defended, as much as He wants to be preached.
• The hype concerning the influence of postmodernism is exaggerated and hardly deserves a response.
• Any truly philosophically postmodern person is in danger of going to Hell.

It is easy to exaggerate our need to accommodate our Christian message to the mental filters of our current culture in order to convince the unbeliever who doesn’t have the Spirit, or the believer who neglects the Spirit, to believe the things of the Spirit. There are times that you “Do not answer a fool according to his folly” (Prov 26:4) and the philosophical debates over epistemological issues would seem to be one of those times. Yet it has become commonplace in even Christian theology written for believers to expend a great deal of energy debating with pagans. ^[1]

The current response to postmodernism ^[2] may be a case in point. While this philosophical perspective has many different applications and angles, its core element is defined by Paul Feinberg, Professor of Theology at Trinity when he says, “postmodernism rejects the belief that there is anything that might be called objective, absolute truth.” ^[3]

One thing is clear then about a philosophically postmodern person: they are not a born again Christian. Such a person must reject Christ’s statement that, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). There is nothing more postmodern than rejecting such clear claims to exclusive truth, and yet no Christian could reject Christ’s claim and still call themselves a Christian. All of those who are philosophically postmodern are in danger of going to Hell.

In addition to the impossibility of a philosophically postmodern person being a Christian, if such a postmodern disease has infected their moral reasoning, then they are perhaps beyond repentance and irreversibly destined for damnation. Elsewhere in Knowing Our God we discuss the biblical concept of a “point of no return” for those with a corrupted conscience that can no longer distinguish right from wrong. ^[4] In such a case, the biblical response is not apologetics, or even evangelism, but shaking the dust of that place off our feet and going elsewhere (cf. Matt 10:14).

Nonetheless, the rage today in much Christian literature is that we must accommodate the Christian Gospel, and even Christian theology, to postmodern philosophy because it is such a controlling part of our culture. Regarding its necessary effects on how we do and present theology, Jonathan Hill in his recent book, The History of Christian Thought, remarks on postmodernism:

The relevance of all this to theology is clear. The claim [in postmodernism] that there are no certain authorities, that a text has no objective reality, that meaning varies from person to person and even from sentence to sentence-all of this requires a rethinking of traditional Christian ideas. ^[5]

We do not think so.

Along the same lines, John MacArthur writes in his book, The Truth War:

Postmodern influences have come into the evangelical movement through other avenues as well. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context, by Stanley Grenz and John Franke, was published in 2001 and has made a significant impact in the evangelical academic community, garnering lots of positive reviews and stimulating numerous papers and lectures from evangelical leaders who evidently find much to agree with in the book.

But as the subtitle suggests, the book pleads for a whole new approach to theology, with the goal of “contextualizing” Christianity for a postmodern culture. “The categories and paradigms of the modern world” are in collapse, the authors note in the book’s opening sentence. They go on to assert that Christian theology therefore needs to be rethought, revised, and adapted in order to keep in step and remain relevant in these changing times.

Grenz and Franke argue that the Spirit of God speaks through Scripture, tradition, and culture, and theologians must seek to hear the voice of the Spirit in each one. Moreover, since culture is constantly in flux, they say, it is right and fitting for Christian theology to be in a perpetual state of transition and ferment too. No issue should ever be regarded as finally settled. ^[6]

Much like Dr. Grenz, the Baptist theologian Millard Erickson, author of the popular Christian Theology, and a recognized expert on the “postmodern” mind says:

Whatever our exact description and assessment of the postmodern shift, we must acknowledge and admit that it is taking place and that the modern era is shifting or even passing away. If we intend to do theology in this age, we simply cannot ignore it. ^[7]

We would ask, “Why not?” Every age has had its different worldly strategies to undermine the authority of The Truth. Even Dr. Erickson admits that, “Sooner or later—and, based on the recent history of culture, probably sooner—it [postmodernism] will be replaced by what we may call ‘post-postmodernism.’” ^[8]

It must be asked, “Who is theology for?” Insane philosophers who by their own philosophies make them meaningless? Why do postmoderns and other skeptics even bother writing or arguing anything if they really believed what they write (i.e. there is no absolute truth)? On the contrary, Christian theology is for born-again believers who know instinctively that human language, including the Scriptures, do indeed reliably and powerfully communicate real absolute truth for all humanity.

Not only do we refuse to accommodate postmodern philosophy in a biblical theology, neither do we think it has much place in evangelism as well. Accommodating our message to the latest epistemological fad among the heathen is a dangerous thing, especially when that fad is so counter-Christian. It will always be love that gains us an opportunity to communicate the Gospel in words, ^[9] and such words will always be all that the Spirit needs to make the Gospel “the power of salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16), whether their perspective on truth is premodern, modern, postmodern, or post-postmodern.

In fact, we would claim that a supposedly widespread influence of postmodernism has been greatly exaggerated. For example, Dr. Erickson devotes a whole chapter in his book, The Postmodern World, ^[10] trying to convince us that postmodernism is as big a deal as so many are making of it. In our opinion, he fails to do so.

Likewise, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Professor of Theology at Trinity writes in his massive study of postmodernism:

The present work thus tries to answer a single question: “Is there a meaning in this text?” The reader may be forgiven for thinking that the size of the answer [in his 468 page book] is all out of proportion to the question [does human language mean anything?]. Nevertheless, philosophers, literary critics, and biblical exegetes are today finding it increasingly difficult to answer this question with a simple affirmative. ^[11]

We confess we would be among those readers that Dr. Vanhoozer thinks need to, “be forgiven for thinking that the size of the answer is all out of proportion to the question [does human language mean anything?].” Dr. Vanhoozer is obviously a first-rate scholar, but he failed to convince us in the book that there is as much cause for alarm over postmodernism as he implies. We would be eager to be corrected on that, as any viable threat to the Church is our concern.

However, we would wonder who would claim their salvation came about because of an apologetic defense of traditional reader-response theories? Nor are we aware of many highly influential Bible commentators in the Evangelical Church who are being dangerously misled by postmodern theories either, (although the OT scholar Walter Brueggeman is certainly one).

Especially if one remembers that not all philosophers and theologians who claim to be born-again Christians are, and that many, if not most of their followers aren’t either, then we might avoid getting overly concerned with merely philosophically debating the blind who are leading the blind, and who can only be helped by truly receiving Christ as their Lord.

Other examples of an over-exaggeration of the threat of postmodernism to Christianity include Gene Edward Veith, who in 1996 claimed: “Today, modernism [value of reason and belief in objective truth], though existing in certain isolated pockets, is all but over.” ^[12] However, modernism has proven to be much more durable than some Evangelicals thought, because it is based on the God-ordained place of reason which is difficult for any human to deny in the long run. Along these lines, the Reformed theologian Michael Horton is worth the following rather lengthy quote:

[The] pop-postmodernist cheerleading for the idea that we have entered a radically new era–a utopia of unprecedented opportunity–fails to move me. This is not because I am a stodgy conservative. I just do not believe the hype. . . .

This take on postmodernism is hardly new. Marxist intellectual Alex Callinocos’s illuminating analysis of postmodernism concludes that it is little more than the result of the self-obsessed flower children of the revolutionary sixties now taking their place in the professional new middle class. In other words, postmodernism and boomer go hand-in-hand. There is no epochal change in Western culture, Callinocos insists. “Moreover, much of what is written in support of the idea that we live in a postmodern epoch seems to me of small caliber intellectually, usually superficial, often ignorant, sometimes incoherent.”

Callinocos’s appraisal fits perfectly with what I see in contemporary Evangelicalism. In contemporary Evangelicalism, postmodernism is the new code word for mission, a new way of enforcing not just change but particular changes that involve particular ideological assumptions. There is even a note of fatalism in these challenges that verges on bullying: “Get with it or get left behind.” This is just the way things are now, so we had better adapt. . .

Superficial appeals to “our postmodern era” too easily cause us to capitulate before that worst of all threats: obsolescence. Frank Kermode calls postmodernism “another of those period descriptions that help you to take a view of the past suitable to whatever it is you want to do.”

This is like references to the “Dark Ages,” which–in spite of their wealth of discoveries, advancing technologies, the founding of universities, and so forth–were effectively nicknamed by the scions of the Renaissance. They thereby sold subsequent generations on the spin that they were in fact breathing new life into Western civilization.

For those who have been filled with God’s Spirit there is no need to be bullied by the spirit of this age, whatever its form. The agenda of the church in postmodernity is its task in every age: to tell the story, be written into it ourselves through Word and Sacrament, and to live that story in the power of the Spirit who incorporates us into its unfolding plot. ^[13]

Likewise, the Christian apologist William Lane Craig is concerned that popular evangelicalism “gives this faddish movement far more credit than it deserves.” He goes on to say:

We do not, in fact, live in postmodern times, as [a particular Christian theologian] asserts. Indeed, if he is correct in his contention that postmodernism is unlivable-and I think that he is-then there can be no postmodern society. Rather we live in post-Christian times, and what has replaced Christianity is not postmodernism but rather what has been aptly called “the new absolutism.”

Today the absolute values of openness and tolerance are cherished and even demanded. Nor do most people, including academics, think that there is no objective truth. No one uses a postmodernist hermeneutic when reading the label of a medicine bottle. Theologians tend to think that postmodern pluralism and relativism are all the rage, when in fact such thinking is largely confined to the literature, social sciences, and religious studies departments at universities.

AngloAmerican philosophy has in particular sturdily resisted the sirens of postmodernity. John Searle, an eminent philosopher at Berkeley, remarks that, “Those who want to use the universities, especially the humanities, for leftist political transformation correctly perceive that the Western Rationalistic Tradition is an obstacle in their path.” Unfortunately, theologians are largely ignorant of analytic philosophy and, groping in the fog of Continental thought, mistakenly believe that postmodernism has swept the field. . . .

It would therefore be terribly tragic if, out of deference to this incoherent, faddish, and widely repudiated movement, the church were to conclude mistakenly that we are now living in a postmodern era and that we therefore need a new postmodern apologetic for our time. Such a realignment would be not only unnecessary, but counterproductive, for the abandonment of objective standards of truth and rationality could only undermine the Christian faith in the long run by making its call to repentance and faith in Christ but one more voice in the cacaphony of subjectively satisfying but objectively vacuous religious interpretations of the world. ^[14]

Dr. Feinberg, agrees:

I am in pretty substantial agreement with Craig that we should not overestimate the importance of postmodernism. It is taken with greater seriousness in different parts of the world and in different disciplines. In Europe it has greater credibility than in the United States. In history and literature its influence is greater than in philosophy. One doubts that it will survive long since it is so nihilistic. ^[15]

Nonetheless, it must be admitted that more recently postmodern thought has become fashionable among what is called the Emerging Church. Unfortunately, we would suggest that this is because this segment of Christianity is very concerned about being fashionable in terms of the youth culture of America. Accordingly, J. P. Moreland writes:

A growing number of Christian intellectuals are opting for some form of postmodernism; more importantly, one of the fastest growing segments of the Christian community- the Emerging church -appears to have hitched its wagon to postmodernism in a way that is fraught with difficulties seldom appreciated.

I do not wish to be harsh or inappropriately critical of my brothers and sisters who are part of the Emerging church. There is much good in the problems they are bringing to the surface and in some of the solutions they are offering. For now, I simply register my concern about what I believe is their unnecessary association with postmodern language and thought. ^[16]

Even if our culture was postmodern in perspective, we would still suggest that instead of wrangling with people “of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth” (1 Tim 6:5), it would seem better to follow the Apostle Paul’s example in Corinth. No doubt the latest human philosophy was highly prized among the Greeks there. Nonetheless, as we have demonstrated thoroughly elsewhere, the Apostle did not cater to their philosophical filters, but rather, intentionally preached absolute truth even though it may sound foolish to those who heard him. ^[17]

While fire can be fought with fire, it is much more effective to use water. Accordingly, to confront postmodern philosophical arguments with Christian philosophical arguments is far less effective than using virtue apologetics. Love and holiness is what the Scriptures prescribe as the ultimate apologetic for every age and culture. ^[18]

In fact, it is suggested that modern day apologists should consider the approach of the Apostle Paul and George Whitefield who both preached the New Birth, rather than philosophy. Along these lines, Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof (1914-1995) comments:

The attractiveness of Hinduism and Buddhism to so many younger people in the “Christian” West [not to mention New Age, Wicca, and a host of other “philosophies”] is symptomatic of a large vacuum in reflection upon those realities which used to be called rebirth, conversion, surrender, justification, and sanctification. What we are waiting for is a revaluation–one which if not acceptable is at least intelligible to contemporary man–of the grand words about human renewal that come down to us from the New Testament and the Christian tradition. ^[19]

Pastoral Practices

• Be careful of giving too much attention to fads. Both in the world and the Church. When one has been in ministry for awhile, you learn as Solomon said, “What has been will be again . . . there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). Avoid books on the latest “church growth” technique, or trend in culture.

Unfortunately, even George Barna’s influence is rather dangerous, especially since his definitions of “born again Christian” and “Evangelical” are insufficient, leading the church to make erroneous or unnecessary changes based on his research. ^[20] There is way too much concern in American Christianity for appealing to the lastest cultural fad for the sake of the Gospel. Such a concern can be a mere distraction and not make the Gospel any more powerful than it already is.

• As Teachers of God’s word, we are to devote ourselves to whatever philosophy, science, history, or psychology is in Scripture, or effects our accurate interpretation and communication of it. Other issues are not for us to invest time in. For example, because postmodern philosophy does not have any practical effects on how we should formulate and communicate the Word of God to God’s people, we need not become an expert in it, or be distracted by the hype surrounding it. Teaching the truth as truth, is the most important thing a converted postmodern to Christianity needs.

Publications & Particulars

1. Along these lines, Gordon Spykman writes that the task of a Christian theological prolegomena “is not to justify dogmatics from the outside, but to initiate an explanation of it from within one’s own tradition.” (Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics [Eerdmans, 1992], 40. ↑

2. For further discussion regarding aspects of postmodernism see sections chapter 2.2; section 2.4.E; section 2.6.A. ↑

3. Paul Feinberg in Five Views on Apologetics, Steven Cowan ed. (Zondervan, 2000), 168. ↑

4. For further discussion of the epistemological and spiritual ramifications of a corrupted conscience see section 4.13.C. ↑

5. Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought (Intervarsity, 2003), 320. ↑

6. John MacArthur, The Truth War (Nelson, 2007), 19. ↑

7. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Baker, 1998), 168. ↑

8. Ibid., 169. ↑

9. Love is the essence of virtue apologetics which we address in Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑

10. Millard Erickson, The Postmodern World (Crossway, 2002). ↑

11. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning In This Text? (Zondervan, 1998), 16-18, 29. ↑

12. Gene Edward Veith, “Catechesis, Preaching, and Vocation” in Here We Stand, James M. Boice and Benjamin E. Sasse, eds. (Baker, 1997), 80. ↑

13. Michael Horton, “Pop Goes Postmodernism” in Modern Reformation, Vol. 12, no. 4 (July/August 2003), 19-21. ↑

14. William Lane Craig in Five Views of Apologetics, 181-83. ↑

15. Paul Feinberg in Five Views of Apologetics, 348. ↑

16. J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007), 67. ↑

17. For further on Paul’s approach to evangelism see chapters 5.11-5.13. ↑

18. We discuss virtue apologetics at length in Book 5: Biblical Apologetics. ↑

19. Hendrikus Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics (Eerdmans, 1985), 112-13. ↑

20. For further concerns about George Barna’s research see section 5.16.A.1-2. ↑