Post-modernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Post-modernism has influenced many cultural fields, including literary criticism, sociology, linguistics, architecture, visual arts, and music.
So in our context, post-modernism is the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth (i.e. denial of Biblical truth). Rather, what is true for you may not be true for me. What works for you might not work for me. That truth is relative and that everyone's point of view are valid. I was brought up to believe that tolerance is good. In fact, I've found myself pretty upset when I encountered situations of blatant intolerance.
I've gotten into a few discussions regarding religion and belief systems before. It's been a lot of sharing of what one believes in...and usually left at that. The rallying cry (verse, rather) of the apologist would most likely be the one from 1 Peter:
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...
- 1 Peter 3.15So we're called to present our opinions, but to do so in a gentle and caring way. I wouldn't enjoy it very much if someone just came up to me and told me how dumb I am for being an engineer, being in academia or having Christian beliefs. I would assume that the same goes for others. Be firm, but be loving.
My search in finding more about this topic and these thoughts has led me to two people, William Lane Craig (Professor of Talbot School of Theology) and Tim Keller (Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian), both of whom can say this much better than I can. I'll share their thoughts first, and write more later.
Tim Keller
About every other week, I confront popular pluralist notions that have become a large part of the way Americans think. For example, pluralists contend that no one religion can know the fullness of spiritual truth, therefore all religions are valid. But while it is good to acknowledge our limitations, this statement is itself a strong assertion about the nature of spiritual truth.
A common analogy is often cited to get the point across which I am sure you have heard - several blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the tail and reports that an elephant is thin like a snake. Another feels a leg and claims it is thick like a tree. Another touches its side and reports the elephant is a wall. This is supposed to represent how the various religions only understand part of God, while no one can truly see the whole picture. To claim full knowledge of God, pluralists contend, is arrogance. When I occasionally describe this parable, and I can almost see the people nodding their heads in agreement.
But then I remind the hearers that the only way this parable makes any sense, however, is if the person telling the story has seen the whole elephant. Therefore, the minute one says, 'All religions only see part of the truth,' you are claiming the very knowledge you say no one else has. And they are demonstrating the same spiritual arrogance they so often accuse Christians of. In other words, to say all is relative, is itself a truth statement but dangerous because it uses smoke and mirrors to make itself sound more tolerant than the rest.
Most folks who hold this view think they are more enlightened than those who hold to absolutes when in fact they are really just as strong in their belief system as everyone else. I do not think most of these folks are purposefully using trickery or bad motives. This is because they seem to have even convinced themselves of the "truth" of their position, even though they claim "truth" does not exist or at least can't be known. Ironic isn't it? The position is intellectually inconsistent.
From: The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World (Desiring God Conference 2006)
(I actually copied this from another short article, found here, but Keller mentions this story, and most of the contents of the article I cited, in his Conference lecture)
William Lane Craig
Now I can imagine some of you thinking, “But don’t we live in a post-modern culture in which these appeals to traditional apologetic arguments are no longer effective? Since post-modernists reject the traditional canons of logic, rationality, and truth, rational arguments for the truth of Christianity no longer work. Rather in today’s culture we should simply share our narrative and invite people to participate in it.”
In my opinion this sort of thinking could not be more mistaken. The idea that we live in a post-modern culture is a myth. In fact a post-modern culture is an impossibility; it would be utterly unlivable. Nobody is a post-modernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison! You better believe that texts have objective meaning! People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, engineering, and technology; rather they are relativistic and pluralistic in matters of religion and ethics.
...
And as for the idea that people in our culture are no longer interested in nor responsive to rational argumentation and evidence for Christianity, nothing could be farther from the truth. If I might be permitted to speak from my own experience, for over twenty years I’ve been speaking evangelistically on university campuses in North America and Europe, sharing the Gospel in the context of presenting an intellectual defense of Christian truth claims. I always close my talks with a long time of Q & A. During all those years virtually no one has ever stood up and said something like, “Your argument is based on Western, chauvinistic standards of logic and rationality” or expressed some other post-modern sentiments. This just never happens. If you approach the questions on a rational level, people respond to them on a rational level. If you present scientific or historical evidence for a Christian truth claim, unbelieving students may argue with you about the facts - which is exactly what you want -, but they don’t attack the objectivity of science or history themselves. If you present a deductive argument for a Christian truth claim, unbelieving students may raise objections to your conclusion or premises - which is, again, precisely where the discussion should be -, but they don’t dispute your use of logic itself.
From: Christian Apologetics - Who needs it? (Reasonable Faith)
