POSTMODERNISM:A WORLDVIEW WITHOUT ANSWERS

P000461942Ruben Videira Soengas

Box # 308Apologetics and Evangelism TH 701

April 11, 2023

CONTENTS

Why does it matter?.........................................................................................................1How did it get here?.........................................................................................................2

The Pre-Modern Era....................................................................................................2The Modern Era...........................................................................................................4The Postmodern Era....................................................................................................7

Postmodernism?.............................................................................................................12A vanishing dream.........................................................................................................16The Impossibility of the Contrary..................................................................................18Conclusion.....................................................................................................................20Bibliography..................................................................................................................21

Why does it matter?

A new day has dawned. A new post-generation has arrived—post-Enlightenment,

post-Christian and postmodern. Now the church faces a new challenge. The debate has

shifted from “Does God exist?” to “There possibly is a god for you, but which god is

there for me?” Christians must be aware of this significant change in this secular and

pluralistic society. They ought to be equipped to stand against the postmodern roller

coaster.

In his article Responses,1 Carl R. Trueman lists a number of needs for current

Christianity in a postmodern context:

The need for Christians to respond to postmodernism; the need for the church to be constantly seeking to communicate the gospel in a manner sensitive to the culture and society in which it is placed; and the need to avoid both the knee-jerk rejection and uncritical embrace of any or all aspects of such a diverse phenomenon as postmodernism.2

1 Trueman’s article is a critique against John R. Franke’s essay, Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics. Franke proposes a reform of Reformed dogmatics in the contemporary setting. Following the principle of ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda (Reformed church is always reforming), Franke proposes to reject the epistemological foundationalism of the Modern Era and adopt a non-foundational and contextual conception of epistemology. In other words, his proposal includes the rejection of absolutes and allows a contemporary perspective to answer the question “how do we know?” Thereby many of the concerns of postmodern theory can be appropriated and fruitfully developed in the context of the Christian doctrines of creation and sin. This means that the present day mind ought to see creation and sin—origin of sin, total depravity, etc.—through the lens of relativism. Thus, man is not necessarily depraved and God did not creat the universe in seven 24 hour days. In sumary, Franke’s essay does not get a grip on the pressing questions that Reformed theology must ask. It is not about how postmodern minds should account and understand divine revelation. In fact, that question is a direct attack to a reformed epistemology that is faithful to objective and unchanging divine truth. If Franke wishes to reform Reformed theology he must not depart from foundational epistemology, moreover, his starting point should be the question, how can Reformed Theology grasp a deeper understanding of the world in which it takes place? This is, how can it hold a more radical view of total depravity and the sufficiency of divine revelation? For more information on this issue see John R. Franke, "Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics: Reformed Theology and the Postmodern Turn," Reformation and Revival Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 117-32.

2 Carl R.Trueman, "Responses It Ain’t Necessarily So." Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (2003): 309.

1

Postmodernism has plagued current Christianity, aiming to vanish the truth of God. Thus,

the postmodern worldview must be rejected, criticized and destroyed (2 Co 10:4–5). On

the other hand, a better understanding of the present society’s mindset would enhance the

contextualization of the Gospel without compromising it. This, therefore, is the aim and

purpose of the present essay—to trace, define, explain and criticize broad

Postmodernism, as a means to (1) introduce the Christian worldview as the only valid

worldview and (2) to proclaim the Gospel. The structure to follow will be the

development and definition of Postmodernism followed by a critique from a

presuppositional perspective.

How did it get here?

In order to understand the Postmodern Worldview it is necessary to trace its

baggage from its origin.3 After all, it did not appear out of the blue. Postmodernism is a

fatalist response to a previous extremist worldview. The pendulum swung diametrically

opposed from one end to the other. Understanding what caused such a deviation from

previous worldviews is crucial to define, explain and criticize postmodernism.

The Pre-Modern Era

Pre-modernism is the period of history that led through the Dark Ages, the

Reformation and up to the 1700s. During this era, people believed in the supernatural, the

divine and the reality of spiritual realms.4 The pre-modern mixed bag of beliefs included

3 Although it is hard to clearly determine a specific date or event responsible of triggering the establishment and development of postmodernism, there are crucial factors that positioned the former Western Worldview into the postmodern path.

4 Rick C. Shrader, “Postmodernism," Journal of Ministry and Theology (Baptist Bible College) 3, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 17.

three elements: The first element was the Mythological Paganism inherited from the

ancient Greeks, which even Socrates rejected arguing that the stories of the so-called

gods were nothing more than projections of human vices. Most of this mythological

traditions contained moralistic tales about the battles of good versus evil. The second

element was Classical Rationalism. This was the result of the minds of Socrates, Plato

and Aristotle. Socrates challenged Mythological Paganism and argued for the existence

of one God behind all history. Plato developed classical idealism, which was the view

that particulars of this world owed their form to transcendent ideals in the mind of God.

Aristotle affirmed the existence of objective values and argued for a first cause to all

causes. He and his analytical method pushed human reason to dizzying heights. The last

and third element is Biblical Theism, which was the influence of Christianity on the

rational mind of the pre-modern era. The Biblical and the Classical worldviews did not

always fit together, but they were completely opposed. They agreed on the existence of

transcendence, on the possibility of the physical world to be knowable, on objective truth

and on intellectual absolutes. Hence, the reason why Augustine used Plato’s philosophy

to formulate Christian theology, or why Thomas Aquinas, in the Middle Ages, attempted

to synthesize the Bible with Aristotle. For over a thousand years, Western civilization

was dominated by a difficult mingling of worldviews—the Biblical Revelation, Classical

Rationalism, and the remnants of native pagan mythologies. During the Middle Ages this

achieved something of a synthesis resulting in a subordination of the Bible to Aristotelian

logic and human institutions.5

The pre-modern paradigm was unaware of the notion of distanciation. It viewed

the world as an undifferentiated whole, and in this respect, social relationships, personal

5 Gene Edward Veith, Postmodern Times, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 29–31.

assessments, inner motivation and so on blended holistically into a unique perception of

truth. In other words, for a pre-modern mind the quest for knowledge was centered on

understanding agendas emerging from peoples of power and how allegiances or lack of

allegiances to those agendas affected a particular world. This caused the pre-modern

mind to think of dualisms—an individual was either allied or opposed to the agendas of a

person of power. Hence, a typical premodernist allied to God would never have

questioned the inherent righteousness of God’s actions on this world. Also essential to the

pre-modern mind was its communal character. It tended to embrace what its community

affirmed. For the pre-modern mind, then, the scientific method, the notion of

distanciation and radical doubt are absent. However, objective divine revelation had

already been compromised.6

The Modern Era

The term modern comes from the Latin word modo, meaning “just now.” It

originally meant something like recent, present or contemporary. It shows the desire to

express the Modern thought as a distinct entity from its predecessors. The Modern society

acquired a different consciousness from the classical antiquity. However, today such a

term expresses obsoleteness.7 The Modern era comprises the “period, the ideology, and

the malaise of the time from 1789 to 1989, from the Bastille to the Berlin Wall.”8 The

Pre-Modern Era was shattered by the three blows commonly associated with Columbus,

Copernicus, and Luther:

6 Robert C. Greer, Mapping Postmodernism, a Survey of Christian Options (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 218–22.

7 Albert Borgmann, Crossing the Postmodern Divide (Chicago: Chicago Press, 1992), 20.8 Thomas C. Oden, “The Death of Modernity,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, ed. David S.

Dockery (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1995), 20.

The Columbian discovery of the New World ruptured the familiar and surveyable geography of the Middle Ages. The Copernican solar system decentered the earth from its privileged position in the universe. The Lutheran reformation, in making the Bible and the believer the final authorities of Christianity, fatally weakened the communal power of divinity.9

These blows resulted in the founding of Modernity in less than a generation. Francis

Bacon, along with René Descartes and John Locke laid the theoretical foundations for

Modernism.

Bacon was eager to recognize the need for a radically new start. He envisioned

the new scientific research. Descartes10 was a radical reconstructionist. His

epistemological approach is legendary. He wanted to be completely certain that what he

thought he knew was actually true. So he took the method of the doubt almost to the

9 Borgmann, 22.10 Descartes is the first of the modern philosophers. He sets the subject of innate ideas into a new

perspective. Not only is he philosophically disinterested in special revelation, but he is also ambiguous about the origin of innate ideas, and about their relation to the sphere of supernatural and ultimate Reason. He is in many ways radically inconsistent. For him the idea of God is detached from grace and personhood, becoming a mathematical inflexible idea. This view of God and religion led him to see the soul as merely a psychological entity of the self. The inner being of man is completely removed from the medieval religious sphere and its supernatural context. Hence, Descartes granted a real existence to matter and thought. Although he spoke of three realms of existence—god, the world and self—and on paper he asserted god’s existence, his functional philosophy was detached from supernaturalism. So, for Descartes, true knowledge is achieved in relation to soul and sensation. The problem is that if all that exists belongs to the three realms of self, matter and god, in order to truly know, then knowledge must flow from the three realms. Descartes did not include the divine idea as an axiom for his epistemology. His philosophy develops quite out of touch with divine revelation. This is significant because in light of the previous argument, Descartes does not present a rational perspective. In other words, if he was truly rational and consistent with his epistemology, his logic would be “I think God,” instead of “I think.” If Descartes asserted the perception of the infinite before that of the finite, that is, the perception of God before self, then the question is, why is Descartes’ philosophy and epistemology detached from the divine realm of existence? For Descartes, God was merely a force that bridged matter and mind together, a force that later was going to be defined by the evolutionary naturalist as simple energy. Two aspects of Descartes’ philosophy are crucial to understand postmodernism: first, his epistemology—asserting the existence of the divine realm he rejected divine revelation leaving the doors wide open for relativism, and second, his understanding of the divine as the bridge between the world of conciseness and the world of matter resulted in the denaturalization of God. His personhood became a mere force or energy that held matter and thought together. For more information see Second and Third Meditations on René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, ed. by John Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Also, see Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 1. 6 vols (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999), 301–307.

limit. In his studies he concluded that he could doubt everything except what he doubted.

For Descartes “doubting equaled thinking:”11

I do not now admit anything which is not necessarily true: to speak accurately, I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is to say a mind or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason, which are terms whose significance was formerly unknown to me. I am, however, a real thing and really exist; what thing? I have answered: a thing which thinks.12

This is the essence of the modern—the autonomy of human reason, which liberated the

modern mind from the authority of the ancients from the pre-Modern Era. Divine

revelation was not part of the equation anymore. Locke13 was concerned with recasting

political power by deriving it from its fundamental condition. This he found in the state

of nature, governed by reason. Once more, divine authority was casted out. Locke’s work

Treatise is a celebration of the individual, the unencumbered and autonomous human

being. The autonomy of the single self is the new authority of last appeal.14

11 James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), Kindle Electronic Edition.: Chapter 9, Location 2109.

12 René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications, 2007), 29.

13 If Descartes promotes innate ideas, Locke, bias of empiricist forces, denies all innate factors. He also emphasizes that the so-called eternal truths of religion and morality, and rational thought itself as well as conscience and all man’s noblest features, are products of development and individual acquisition due to environmental influences. In other words, the notion of innatism arises from an apparent universal consent which does not, in fact, exist. Some could argue that it exists, but if that was the case, then it should be accounted as an inference from experience. This is, man learns the words of morality and religion, even before he knows the ideas of the good and of God. What is at stake is the origin of knowledge and ideas, and Locke accounted for this in terms of sensation and reflection. In perception the mind is purely passive; all functions of the human mind belong to the lower animals. But man has the gift of abstraction that enables him to compose universal notions. Such perspective is crucial for the development of Postmodernism because it leads to agnosticism. Moreover, if the origin of knowledge is mere experience, then each individual’s knowledge is purely true since experience cannot contradict itself. This, logically, results in the lost of absolutes and the embracement of relatives. And finally, Locke’s view of environmental influences causes the individual to be detached from personal responsibility since he is the product of his environment. Already, postmodern outbreaks can be seen. For more information see, Henry, 310–14, and John Locke, Essay concerning Human Understanding (London, 1796).

14 Borgmann, 24–25.

This era of reason, scientific discovery and human autonomy is termed the

Enlightenment, which caused the Western world to be committed to this modern agenda.

The Enlightenment rejected Christianity and saw the whole universe as a close system of

cause and effect. During this time, British Deism15 claimed that the character of god was

only necessary to get everything started, but not for everyday life. Charles Darwin,

however, argued that God was not even necessary to explain the creation. Eventually

thinkers even discarded Enlightenment classicism. Rationalism was supplanted by

Empiricism, resulting in materialism—only that which is observable is real. During the

Enlightenment, tradition tried to find ways of doing without the supernatural. Also,

societies and economies were remade, for instance, Marx’s dialectical materialism

eradicated individual rights for the sake of the community—Communism.16

This cultural background set the stage for Postmodernism. The Enlightenment

sparked the reaction of Romanticism, and Materialism sparked the reaction of

Existentialism—both, the voices of dissent.

The Postmodern Era

Early nineteenth century compasses the transitional period. Romanticism turned

the rationalism of the Enlightenment upside down. Rather than seeing nature as a vast

machine, the romantics saw nature as a living organism. Also, in reaction to the anti-

spiritual and mathematical attitude of Enlightenment’s humanism, Romanticism brought

back an appreciation for the human and the spiritual. The romantics believed that God is

close at hand and intimately involved in the physical world. Some went so far as to

15 The Enlightenment thinkers sought to devise a rational religion, a faith that did not depend upon revelation. The result was Deism. According to Deism, the orderliness of nature proves the existence of a deity; however, god is no longer involved in the creation.

16 Veith, 33–35.

believe that God is identical to nature and to self—New Pantheism. Moreover,

Romanticism assumed that emotions are the essence of humanness. The romantics

exalted the individual over impersonal, abstract systems. Self-fulfillment was the basis

for morality; hence, its cultivation of subjectivism, irrationalism and intense

emotionalism. However, Darwin and his Evolution Theory challenged17 the romantic

idealized view of nature as the realm of harmony. For Darwin, nature is intrinsically

violent. A few decades later, Romanticism faded away paving the way for

Existentialism.18

Existentialism was the major philosophical system in the twentieth century that

seriously challenged Modernism. It attempted to define truth in a context where universal

and absolute truth was understood not to exist, meaning that there is no meaning in life—

an Existentialist life creates its own meaning through relativism. In some regards

Existentialism was similar to Modernism. For instance, both worldviews rejected the

input of culture and history in the shape of truth. In this sense, Existentialism began

where Descartes began—radical doubt or Cogito. The difference between these two is

that Existentialism insisted that from this starting point one could not reach absolute or

universal truth. Instead, all one could do was to experience the world as it is. Hence, right

or wrong were unknown notions for the existentialist mind, since such concepts require

the existence of universal truths.19 According to Veith, this philosophical system laid

17 Darwin’s theory was not the only serious challenge to Romanticism. Some evangelical believers challenged the romantic worldview, especially in the field of art and literature. Francis Schaeffer was the best known voice. In 1968 he wrote Escape From Reason and The God Who Is There. In 1970 he first published The Church at the End of the 20th Century. In 1974 he wrote How Should We Then Live? His friend and colleague, H. R. Rookmaaker of the Free University of Amsterdam, wrote Modern Art and the Death of a Culture in 1970 (Shrader, 21).

18 See Shrader, 21 and Veith, 35–38.19 See Greer, 224–25.

down the foundations for the postmodern worldview.20 A major criticism against

Existentialism is that it presupposes the possibility of a mindset not influenced by history

and culture. However, no individual can think from a blank slate. Such a statement is

already influenced by the baggage of culture and history. It is a contra-response to the

Modern worldview. Thus, the existential mind did not come to the presupposition of

thinking aculturally and ahistorically from a blank slate but as a result of its environment,

determined by its culture and its history. Moreover, a worldview is more than its origin—

for Existentialism the uninfluenced human mind— it is also language and epistemology.

Thus, consistency with the Existentialist’s presupposition requires to not only reject

history and culture, but any epistemological and linguistic historical baggage which even

the existentialist needs in order to formulate its presuppositions.

Romanticism, as well as Existentialism, depicted the voices of dissent that

opened the way for Postmodernism. This term first suggests that it “follows modernism

chronologically as descriptive of the predominant cultural mindset, and secondly its

ascendance marks, and may have hastened, the relative collapse of modernist

philosophy.”21 It has no simple history or genealogy. Its early usage was not uniform but

rather haphazard. The earliest references to postmodernism appear from the 1930s to the

1960s in discussions of literature and the visual arts. In fact, the 1960s is a catalysts date

though not the turning point itself. During those years, students began questioning the

fruits of modernism because social constructions had not brought internal happiness. In

the late 1970s and early 1980s, the term began to be used under the influence of French

literary criticism and philosophy, “postmodern theory became interwoven with

20 Veith, 38.21 Michael Cox, "Signs and Significance: A Christian Analysis of Two Postmodern Perspectives,"

(Master's Thesis, Cincinnati Bible Seminary, 2002), 13.

poststructuralist discourses, particularly that of deconstruction22. In the late 1980s

postmodernism also became associated with antifoundationalist philosophical discourse,

particularly within the field of epistemology.”23

By the mid 1980s postmodernism had become integrally connected with

poststructuralist textual practices and literary criticism. Postmodern theory began to

employ a great number of ideas and methods taken from French poststructuralism. “The

most influential poststructuralist discourses on the shape of emerging postmodern

writings were the literary-critical work of Roland Barthes (1915–80), the decentering (or

deconstructive) practices of Jacques Derrida24 (1930–2004), the genealogical criticism of

22 Postmodernism is divided into two major subcategories: constructionism and deconstructionism. Constructionism argues for the formation of systems of truth defined by the interaction of various cultures and language groups that make up the world. Ludwig Wittgenstein is often considered part of this version of Postmodernism. However, since the deconstructive perspective has been more crucial to shape Postmodernism, this paper would center only on deconstructionism (Greer, 227).

23 Craig A. Phillips, Postmodernism, vol. 4, in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, by Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmands, 2005), 298.

24 Jacques Derrida, an Algerian philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century, is widely considered one of the champions of deconstructionism. Derrida sought to deconstruct the binary and hierarchical oppositions within the Western philosophical tradition, including, for example, presence/absence, speech/writing, mind/body, and inside/outside. In other words, deconstructionism refers to a certain Western way of looking at entities, meaning, time and consciousness as present in the present—Being. According to Derrida, in the Western world consciousness is the primordial experience of Being. Thus the phenomenon constituted by observation and experience is perceived subjectively and idealistically and it is an intentional phenomenon. Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy challenges this perspective. He questions that subjective consciousness could be the grounds for transcendental knowledge. However, he does not offer a system, instead, his deconstructionism is an abyssal “etcetera,” which would threaten both identity and the very concept of the concept. Thus, Derrida describes it as a textual concept. The reader does not need to actively perform deconstructionism; rather it happens in the text itself, and in particular within the unique historical reading act. This is, the text is read with a self-awareness of the absence of the author’s intentions. In other words, according to Derrida, within individual systems of truth, modifications to definitions are “always already” taking place, preventing truth from stabilizing even within individual systems of thought. That is, even within individual systems, definitions are in a constant state of flux, deconstructing and reshaping their societally understood meanings on the fly. Hence, truth lacks definition even on a cultural level. Therefore all assertions are equally indeterminate—and equally respectable, which is the heart of the present postmodern culture. Notice briefly that Derrida’s characterization of deconstructionism is problematic since it does not give access to the original truth; it does not offer the final solution. Moreover, Derrida’s analysis of deconstructionism is so broad and open that it is hard to specifically define it. It makes one wonder if he truly and genuinely understood his own term borrowed from Heidegger. If the reader automatically deconstructs the text, why should one accept the false universalism hid behind Derrida’s deconstructionism? Why could one not detach the text from the author’s original intention and deny Derrida’s deconstructionist position? If every assertion is indeterminate; then, does Derrida really have the ultimate authority on this issue? Why is Derrida offering a “rule”

Michel Foucault (1926–84), the psychoanalytic work of Jacques Lacan (1901–81), and

the philosophical/sociological work of Jean-François Lyotard (1924–98).”25 Many other

factors have contributed to the development of the Postmodern worldview—Quantum

theory26, informatics, Albert Einstein and his relativity theory, arts, Nihilism, the Berlin

Wall’s fall, Pruitt-Igoe’s housing project, WWII, Vietnam War… etc.27

The development of Postmodernism shows how difficult it is to specify a date for

its birth. Some, like Thomas Oden, place the beginning of postmodernism at the fall of

Communism in 1989. He sees the life span of Modernism within the bounds of the

French Revolution and the end of the Russian Revolution. Modernism, emerged, gained

dominance, peaked and receded within 200 years. It fell with the fall of the German wall,

and a new Era emerged.28 Nonetheless, the date of its beginning may not be clear.

However, what is clear is that the Modern Era is over and today’s Western society dwells

in a vague, mutating, and unpredictable worldview known as Postmodernism. As Shrader

concludes:

automatically applied by the individual, if each example is different than the rule? That shows that there is not a rule of deconstructionism. Throughout this whole deconstruction process it is evident that a particular bias is present, which is the philosophy of idealism that suggests that all of reality is based upon words or ideas. But what if reality is more complex than Idealism suggests? What if processes also count? Perhaps Being—key concept for Derrida—can be labeled with a word, but is not reducible to a word. Perhaps reality exists apart from language. The use of the word “dog” or “poodle” does not determine the existence of a dog. You may call a poodle “dog” or “poodle” without changing the reality of the god’s existence. In short, Derrida’s deconstructionism does not change an Existentialist. For more information, see Phillips, 299; Greer, 227; Marika Enwald, "Displacements of Deconstruction," (Academic Dissertation, University of Tampere, 2004), 46–61.

25 Phillips, 299.26 Buckminster Fuller wonderfully expresses the impact of the Quantum Theory: “In short, physics

has discovered; That there are no solids; No continuous surfaces; No straight lines; Only waves; No things; Only energy event complexes; Only behaviors; Only verbs, Only relationships.... (Buckminster Fuller, Intuition, quoted in Ted Peters, "David Bohm, postmodernism, and the divine,” Zygon 20, no. 2 (June 1, 1985): 197.

27 See Peters, 193-217; and Veith, 41; and Steven Best, and Douglas Kellner, The Postmodern Turn (New York: The Guilford Press, 1997), 253–55.

28 Oden, 23–24.

Whatever time we set for the beginning of postmodernism, it is evident that we are living in a different world from modernism. All around we see the erosion of truth, morality, commitment, accountability and even realism. The arts have come to the point of the ridiculous; television deconstructs historical fact and then reconstructs it in the way we want it to be; music has become nonsensical and violent; science is no longer based on evidence but on fantasy; and worst of all, churches are capitulating to a market-driven mentality that mirrors the “truth is what you want it to be” mentality.29

Postmodernism?

At this point, the reader may question why a paper of apologetic nature contains

much historical background. This is because one of the problems of Postmodernism is its

interdisciplinary nature—each area of expertise distinctly defines Postmodernism. Thus,

it is necessary to define Postmodernism in light of its historical background common to

all disciplines.

Moreover, the term Postmodernism evokes what it wishes to surpass—

Modernism itself. Modernism and Postmodernism are not two unique and independent

categories but interwoven concepts. Hence, to better define the term it is necessary to

approach the issue synchronically and diachronically. So, in light of the flow of history,

and as a broad generalization, Postmodernism could be seen as follows:30

Table 1. Postmodernism at the diachronic bar of history

29 Shrader, 25.30 “Apostmodernism” is a term chosen by the writer of the present paper to express the possible

direction for Postmodernism. Since each main worldview is a contra-response to its predecessor, it is most likely that “Apostmodernims” would react against the only “secure” entity in the Postmodern worldview, and that is “human reason.”

Ihab Hassan offers a list of contrasts between Modernism and Postmodernism

shedding light on this issue:

Table 2. Differences between Modernism and Postmodernism

Modernism PostmodernismPurpose PlayDesign ChanceHierarchy AnarchyLogos SilenceArt Object/Finished Work Process/Performance/HappeningDistance Participation onCreation/Totalization Decreation/DeconstructionSynthesis AntithesisPresence AbsenceCentering DispersalGenre/Boundary Text/IntertextSelection CombinationDepth SurfaceInterpretation/Reading Against Interpretation/MisreadingSignified SignifierNarrative/Grande Histoire Anti-narrative/Petite HistoireMaster Code IdiolectSymptom DesireType MutantOrigin/Cause Difference /TraceMetaphysics IronyDeterminancy IndeterminancyTranscendence ImmanenceSource: data adapted from Ihab Hassan, "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism," in The Postmodern Turn, eds. Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon, (New York: State University of New York, 1993), 280–81.

The preceding table highlights three key aspects to define Postmodernism—the

first is diachronic and the two following are synchronic: (1) the fact that Modernism did

Pre-Modernism

c. 1100 - c. 1700Absolute and universal truths sourced in divine revelation

Modernism

c. 1700 - c. 1960Absolute and universal truths sourced in human reason

Post-modernism

c. 1960 - TodayInmanent and cultural truths sourced in human reason

A-post-modernism

FutureDenial of relative truths and human reason?

not suddenly cease to exist so that Postmodernism may begin, in fact, both still coexist;

(2) the tendency of Postmodernism to indetermanence;31 (3) and to immanence.32

Moreover, Postmodernism has added an additional factor—relativism. Jim Holt,

in a report that he wrote about the book Fashionable Nonsense for the New York Times,

defines postmodern relativism as: “the notion that physical reality is nothing but a social

construct and that science, despite its pretensions to truth, is just another ‘narrative’ that

encodes the dominant ideology of the culture that produced it.”33

In summary, Postmodernism is more than a worldview and less than a philosophy.

It is a social reaction to its predecessor—Modernism—hence the difficulty to define it.

As a social reaction, it encompasses philosophical ideas and socialisms. Its philosophy is

characterized by (1) the rejection of metanarratives—rules about how knowledge was to

be carried, who may speak, and who must listen— which results in multiple realities

created by individualistic perspectives and the lack of critical consensus (pluralism); (2)

31 This term refers to a complexity of items included in the Postmodern strain, such as: ambiguity, discontinuity, heterodoxy, pluralism, randomness, revolt, perversion, deformation, decreation, disintegration, deconstruction, decenterment, displacement, difference, discontinuity, disjunction, disappearance, decomposition, de-definition, demystification, detotalization, delegitimization, and it was coined by Ihab Hassan to designate two central, constitutive tendencies in postmodernism: one of indeterminacy, the other of immanence. The two tendencies are not dialectical for they are not exactly antithetical, nor do they lead to a synthesis. Each contains its own contradictions, and alludes to elements of the other. Their interplay suggests the action of a “polylectic,” pervading postmodernism. In other words, it characterizes a cultural situation in which a pluralism of critical discourses exists, yet there is no possibility of critical consensus among its many strains. See Nick Gravila, "The Postmodern Summer Session: A Report on ISISSS '86, " in The Semiotic Web, eds. Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok (New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986), 693; and Hassan, 282.

32 Hassan employs this term without religious echo “to designate the capacity of mind to generalize itself in symbols, intervene more and more into nature, act upon itself through its own abstractions and so become, increasingly, immediately, by its own environment.” This tendency refers to concepts such as diffusion, dissemination, pulsion, interplay, communication, and interdependence. These things are carried over from human beings as “gnostic creatures constituting themselves, and determinedly their universe, by symbols of their own making.” During this process history becomes derealized by media into a happening, science takes its own models as the only accessible reality, and technology projects people’s perceptions to the edge of the receding universe. See Hassan 282.

33 Jim Holt, "Is Paris Kidding?" New York Times, November 15, 1998, under "Books." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/15/books/is-paris-kidding.html?ref=bookreviews (accessed November 15, 2010).

by immanence, this is human beings make themselves who they are by the languages

they construct about themselves; (3) by the present-future historical perspective—the past

has become unknowable since language is meaningless, and finally, (4) by relativism or

chaos as the norm, which inevitably leads to open-endedness and deep skepticism about

classical values and definitions.34

Postmodern socialisms35 are (1) its communalism—emphasis on the community,

not as a way to deny the individuals but to protect them from the isolation that marked

modernity; (2) its changeability—the only truth is change; (3) its reactionary response

against anything or anyone who threatens freedom to react; (4) its lack of stable rules that

are continuously changing according to what society determines is safer and better for

itself and finally, (5) its optional mandatorism, a term used to express that plurality of

options are not choices anymore but mandates.36

Therefore, in light of its philosophical ideas and socialisms Postmodernism is, in

words of Oden, “deconstructionist literary criticism and relativistic nihilism.”37

34 See Harold Johnson, "The Research and Development of a Storying Model to Address The Postmodern Worldview with the Biblical Worldview," (Doctoral Thesis, New Orleans Baptist Seminary, March 2000), 6–7; William Edgard,"No News Is Good News: Modernity, The Postmodern, and Apologetics." Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theologicla Seminary) 52, no. 2 (1995): 371Sire, location 2076; and Shrader, 24.

35 This term is purposely chosen by the writer of this paper to refer to social responses to social standards.

36 Johnson, 6–12.37 Oden, 26.

A vanishing dream

Postmodernism is not more tangible and certain than a vanishing dream. As real

as the postmodern dream may feel, it is not more than a dream. The time to wake up has

arrived.38

Postmodernism’s rejection of metanarratives is based on the presupposition that

all linguistic utterances are power plays prejudicing all discourses. However, if all

discourses are prejudiced, why should the postmodern discourse be heard? It is another

linguistic utterance, which means that Postmodernism is an alternative power play.

Ironically, this is the very same reason why different metanarratives are discarded. Thus,

let the consistency of Postmodernism reject itself. Moreover, if Postmodernism argues

that not all linguistic utterances are power plays, then it is contradicting its own

foundation, proving that it is not a valid discourse. Then, Postmodernism must examine

which other discourse is not prejudiced.

Deconstructionism is the driving force of Postmodernism; however, it does not

only devour Western traditionalism but also postmodern immanence. It rejects the

substantial and the stability of constructs. Ironically, Postmodernism claims that human

beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves.

On the other hand its deconstructionism also claims that there is nothing else but the flow

of linguistic constructs. Therefore, all human constructions are a flux of indetermination,

denying access to the original truth about self. Then the postmodern human mind cannot

generalize itself. Thus, a human being cannot interplay or communicate with its

38 The following critique focuses on the four philosophical ideas given in the previous section which defines Postmodernism.

environment. The non-sense of this claim is that Postmodernism is communicating the

incommunicable.

Postmodernism holds a present-future historical perspective, that is, since the

language is in constant change it is not possible to know the past. In other words, it

asserts the impossibility of critical consensus of the past strain. However, as it has been

previously shown, incipient postmodern outbreaks were found as early as the 1930s.

Then the question arises, if language is in constant change, how is it that Postmodernism

today has continued asserting the same postmodern language of the past? How is that

possible if language changes causing the past to remain unknown?

The final philosophical aspect of Postmodernism is relativism, which teaches that

absolute truth, truth that is applicable to all people at all times, is non-existent.39 However

the rejection of absolute truth undermines the postmodern position. On what basis ought

the postmodern view be taken as true? How can Postmodernism claim to be the true

worldview when it denies the concept of truth? The paradox is that “if relativism is true,

it is impossible to make any kind of absolute statement about truth—even the statement

that relativism is true.”40 This proves that Postmodernism is an illogical fallacy. It

blatantly ignores the logical law of non-contradiction given to prove a rational system.

Moreover, it is inconsistent. People talk of relativism but they live the life of absolutism.

For instance, observe the field of ethics. People talk about relative ethics, but when they

get to an actual situation, they still make absolute ethical statements.

In short, the four philosophical pillars for Postmodernism—rejection of

metanarratives, immanence, present-futuristic historical perspective and relativism—are

39 Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids: Kregel publications, 1998), 29.

40 Ibid., 34.

unsustainable, inconsistent and irrational. Thus, the postmodern philosophy and its

socialisms have collapsed. Postmodernism is indeed a vanishing indefensible dream and

as such it must be rejected and refuted.

The Impossibility of the Contrary

Now, that Postmodernism has been demonstrated as irrational, it is necessary to

offer an alternative. Hence, the following discussion which aims to show that the only

valid and authentic worldview is the Christian worldview, as the one that accounts for the

witness of the Scriptures of the Triune God as the Creator and Redeemer, revealed in the

sinless person of Jesus Christ—fully God and fully man—who died on the Cross and rose

on the third day and will restore all things. The argument that is presented for this

purpose is the transcendental argument,41 and its presupposition is that “the best, the

only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be

presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very

foundation of the idea of proof itself.”42 In other words, Christianity is true because of the

impossibility of the contrary.

The postmodern worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of

nature and moral absolutes. Clearly, Postmodernism borrows these presuppositions from

41 Van Til developed the transcendental argument with the purpose of challenging unbelieving thought at its root. Van Til’s thought was essentially this: given anything that is meaningful-indeed, given anything at all—one can provide an account of the fact that it is possible only on the foundation of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ as witnessed by the Scriptures. What is (namely, being) possible only on the presupposition of a full-orbed Christian theism. Any other starting point is inadequate and would be unable to offer us a standpoint from which we can understand the world in its unity and diversity. It is clear that argument cannot proceed without predication, and predication necessarily presupposes the existence of God. See Robert D. Knudsen, "The Transcendental Perspective of Westminster's Apologetic," Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 48, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 227-28; and Don Collet, "Apologetics Van Til and Transcendental Argument," Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 291–92.

42 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 396.

the Christian worldview.

The three fundamental laws of logics are: the law of identity (P is P), the law of

non-contradiction (P is not non-P), and the law of excluded middle (either P or non-P).

These basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and are known to be true because

they are intuitively obvious and self-evident and because those who deny them, like

postmodern minds, use these principles in their denial, demonstrating that those laws are

unavoidable. These laws are not conventional or sociological but universal, thus,

Postmodernism cannot account for them, unlike the Christian worldview, which

presupposes that they are rooted in God’s own nature.43

The uniformity of nature presupposes that the laws of nature are universal and

timeless and that miracles are conceivable points of intersection between the supernatural

and the natural.44 According to the Christian worldview this is possible because the

Triune God is the Creator, unlike Postmodernism, which cannot explain universal

uniformity, since it cannot identically experience and know the entirety of the universe.

Thus, in a postmodern worldview science would be impossible. It is ironic that

Postmodernism, after reaching the conclusion that this world is irrational, relies on the

rationality and universal uniformity of the Christian worldview.

Finally, moral absolutes presuppose that there is a universal, worldwide moral

code governing the behavior of all peoples, regardless of their culture, religion, or the

period of history in which they existed.45 The Christian worldview asserts that human

beings are created into the likeness of God and as such there is in every person an innate

43 Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1854.

44 See Henry M. Morris, "Biblical Naturalism and Modern Science," Bibliotheca Sacra 125, no. 428 (July 1968): 189.

45 Story, 32.

sense of right and wrong that depicts God’s absolute morality. Postmodernism cannot

account for this. It may defend universal relativism, but it cannot live consistently with it.

For instance, why would a postmodern person call the police if somebody steals a car,

rapes a woman or kills a person? The criminal is acting freely according to his relativistic

moralism. Why is Nazism wrong? Why is it that all cultures and societies condemn

Hitler’s actions? If morals are relative, could it not be that he was acting morally right

according to his environment? If ethics are relative, as postmodernism presupposes, then

there would be no moral and philosophical grounds for the justice system. Only the

Christian worldview accounts for this.

Conclusion

In summary, it has been both demonstrated how each foundational postmodern

presupposition collapses within its own system and proved that the only true worldview

is the Christian worldview because of the impossibility of the contrary—without God’s

existence nothing can be proved. Hence, the message of the Gospel that the Christian

worldview accounts for is the only message that saves sinners. Thus, preach Christ!

Bibliography

Burnham, Frederic B., ed. Postmodern Theology. Christian Faith in a Pluralistic World. New York: HarperSan Francisco, 1989.

Bahnsen, Greg L. Always Ready. Edited by Robert R. Booth. Nacogdiches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2009.

Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner . The Postmodern Turn. New York: The Guilford Press, 1997.

Borgmann, Albert. Crossing the Postmodern Divide. Chicago: Chicago Press, 1992.

Cabal, Tes, Chad Owen Brand, and Ray E. Clendenen et at. The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.

Cox, Michael. "Signs and Significance: A Christian Analysis of Two Postmodern Perspectives." Master's Thesis, Cincinnati Bible Seminary, 2002.

Collet, Don. "Apologetics Van Til and Transcendental Argument." Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 287-306.

Edgard, William. "No News Is Good News: Modernity, The Postmodern, and Apologetics." Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 52, no. 2 (1995): 357-382.

Enwald, Marika. "Displacements of Deconstruction." Academic Dissertation, University of Tampere, 2004.

DeMar, Gary. War of the Worldviews. Atlanta: American Vision, 1994.

Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications, 2007.

———. Meditations on First Philosophy. Edited by John Cottingham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Dockery, David S., ed. Postmodernism. An Evangelical Engagement. Wheaton: BridgePoint Books, 1995.

Franke, John R. "Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics: Reformed Theology and the Postmodern Turn." Reformation and Revival Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 117-32.

21

Gravila, Nick. "The Postmodern Summer Session: A Report on ISISSS '86." In The Semiotic Web, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 687-96. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986.

Greer, Robert C. Mapping Postmodernism, a Survey of Christian Options. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Ingraffia, Brian D. Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Hassan, Ihab. "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism." In The Postmodern Turn, edited by Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon, 273-83. New York: State University of New York, 1993.

Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. 1. 6 vols. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999.

Holt, Jim. "Is Paris Kidding?" New York Times, November 15, 1998, under "Books." http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/15/books/is-paris-kidding.html?ref=bookreviews (accessed November 15, 2010).

Johnson, Harold. "The Research and Development of a Storying Model to Address The Postmodern Worldview with the Biblical Worldview." Doctoral Thesis, New Orleans Baptist Seminary, March 2000.

Knudsen, Robert D. "The Transcendental Perspective of Westminster's Apologetic." Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 48, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 218-39.

Locke, John. Essay concerning Human Understanding. London, 1796.

Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Naturalism and Modern Science ." Bibliotheca Sacra 125, no. 428 (July 1968): 189-204.

Oden, Thomas C. "The Death of Modernity." In The Challenge of Postmodernism, edited by David S. Dockery, 19-33. Wheaton: BridgePoint Books, 1995.

Peters, Ted. "David Bohm, postmodernism, and the divine." Zygon 20, no. 2 (June 1985): 193-217.

Phillips, Craig A. Postmodernism. Vol. 4, in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, by Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, 296-305. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmands, 2005.

Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004. Kindle Electronic Edition.

22

Shrader, Rick C. "Postmodernism." Journal of Ministry and Theology (Baptist Bible College) 3, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 17-25.

Story, Dan. Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Trueman, Carl R. "Responses It Ain’t Necessarily So." Westminster Theological Journal (Westminster Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (2003): 309-25.

Van Til, Cornelious. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955.

Veith, Gene Edward. Postmodern Times. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994.

23