c

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

POSTMODERNISM:
A WORLDVIEW WITHOUT ANSWERS
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

P000461942
Ruben Videira Soengas
Box # 308
Apologetics and Evangelism TH 701
December 8, 2010
c
c
c
c
c

CONTENTS

Why does it matter?..................................................................................................... 1c

How did it get here? .................................................................................................... 2c
The Pre-Modern Era ................................................................................................ 2c
The Modern Era ...................................................................................................... 4c
The Postmodern Era ................................................................................................ 7c
Postmodernism? ........................................................................................................ 12c
A vanishing dream .................................................................................................... 16c
The Impossibility of the Contrary .............................................................................. 18c
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 20c
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 21c

c
c

÷



A new day has dawned.A new post-generation has arrived²post-Enlightenment,

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

shifted from ³Does God exist?´ to ³There possibly is a godfor 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 V


,1Carl R. Truemanlists 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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
1
Trueman¶s article is a critique against John R. Franke¶s essay, 
  V
   
.
Franke proposes a reform of Reformed dogmaticsin the contemporary setting. Following the principle of

 
  
  
  (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 ³how do we know?´ Thereby many of the concerns of
postmodern theory can be appropriated and fruitfully developed in the context ofthe Christian doctrines of
creation and sin. This means that the present day mind ought to see creation and sin²origin of sin, total
depravity, etc.²through 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,"
V
   V     13, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 117-32.
2
Carl R.Trueman, "Responses It Ain¶t Necessarily So." 

      
(Westminster Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (2003): 309.

c
 ác

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 essay²to 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.

Ô  

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 theother. 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.4The pre-modern mixed bag of beliefs included

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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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, ³Postmodernism,"   

    (Baptist Bible College) 3,
no. 1 (Spring 1999): 17.
 ïc

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 worldviews²the 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, andin this respect, social relationships, personal

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
5
Gene EdwardVeith, 
  
 (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 29±31.
 Oc

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 dualisms²an 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   comes from the Latin word , meaning ³just 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.7The Modern era comprises the ³period, 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:

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
6
Robert C. Greer   
 
   

  
(Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2003), 218±22.
7
AlbertBorgmann, 

  
   (Chicago: Chicago Press, 1992), 20.
8
Thomas C. Oden, ³The Death of Modernity,´ in     

 
, ed. David S.
Dockery (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1995), 20.
 †c

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 limit.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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 existence²god, the world and self²and 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 ³I think God,´ instead of ³I 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 epistemology²asserting 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 thoughttogether. For more information
see       
on René Descartes,   
 
 
 ed. by John
Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Also, see Carl Ferdinand HowardHenry, 
V      vol. 1. 6 vols (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999), 301±307.
 2c

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

Descartes ³doubting 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 modern²the 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 equationanymore. 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

 
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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
11
James W. Sire,   
! "  (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), Kindle
Electronic Edition.: Chapter 9, Location 2109.
12
RenéDescartes,   
 
 
 (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 outbreakscan be seen. For more information see, Henry,
310±14, and JohnLocke, #

   $   
  (London, 1796).
14
Borgmann, 24±25.
 Kc

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 everythingstarted, 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 materialism²only 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 community²Communism.16

This cultural background set the stage for Postmodernism. The Enlightenment

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

Existentialism²both, 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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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.
 c

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

believe that God is identical to nature and to self²New 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 life²

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 began²radical doubt or % 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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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 #
   V
 and    &
  . In 1970 he first
published     # 
 '(  . In 1974 he wrote $)     * ? His
friend and colleague, H. R. Rookmaaker of the Free University of Amsterdam, wrote     
  
 in 1970 (Shrader, 21).
18
See Shrader, 21 and Veith, 35±38.
19
See Greer, 224±25.
 @c

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 origin²

for Existentialism the uninfluenced human mind² 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 firstsuggests that it ³follows modernism

chronologically as descriptive ofthe 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

datethough 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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
20
Veith, 38.
21
Michael Cox, "Signs and Significance: A Christian Analysis of Two Postmodern Perspectives,"
(Master's Thesis, Cincinnati Bible Seminary, 2002), 13.

c

literary criticism and philosophy, ³postmodern theory became interwoven with

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. ³The

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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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, 
 
 vol. 4, in  #  

 , 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 present²
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 ³etcetera,´ 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 ³always 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 indeterminate²and 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


c

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

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

factors have contributed to the development of the Postmodern worldview²Quantum

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

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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 ³rule´
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 Being²key
concept for Derrida²can be labeled with a word, but is not reducible to a word. Perhaps reality exists apart from
language. The use of the word ³dog´ or ³poodle´ does not determine the existence of a dog. You may call a
poodle ³dog´ or ³poodle´ 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;
MarikaEnwald, "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: ³In 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,
&, quoted in Ted Peters, "David Bohm, postmodernism, and the divine,´ + 20, no. 2 (June 1,
1985): 197.
27
See Peters, 193-217; and Veith, 41; and Steven Best, and Douglas Kellner,  
 
 (New York: The Guilford Press, 1997), 253±55.
28
Oden, 23±24.

ác

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

concludes:

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 ³truth is
what you want it to be´ mentality.29

  

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 nature²each 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 surpass²

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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
29
Shrader, 25.
30
³Apostmodernism´ 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 ³Apostmodernims´ would react against the only ³secure´ entity in the Postmodern worldview,
and that is ³human reason.´

ïc

Table 1. Postmodernism at the diachronic bar of history

  à
Y
Y  

 % --(( . % -/((  % -/(( . % -01(  % -01( .    

 Absolute and  Absolute and  Inmanent and  Denial of
universal truths universal truths cultural truths relative truths
sourced in divine sourced in sourced in and human
revelation human reason human reason reason?

Ihab Hassan offers a list of contrasts between Modernism and Postmodernism

shedding light on this issue:

Table 2. Differences between Modernism and Postmodernism

Y  

Purpose Play
Design Chance
Hierarchy Anarchy
Logos Silence
Art Object/Finished Work Process/Performance/Happening
Distance Participation on
Creation/Totalization Decreation/Deconstruction
Synthesis Antithesis
Presence Absence
Centering Dispersal
Genre/Boundary Text/Intertext
Selection Combination
Depth Surface
Interpretation/Reading Against Interpretation/Misreading
Signified Signifier
Narrative/Grande Histoire Anti-narrative/Petite Histoire
Master Code Idiolect
Symptom Desire
Type Mutant
Origin/Cause Difference /Trace
Metaphysics Irony
Determinancy Indeterminancy
Transcendence Immanence
 , data adapted from Ihab Hassan, "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism," in 

  , eds. Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon, (New York: State University
of New York, 1993), 280±81.

Oc

The preceding table highlights three key aspects to define Postmodernism²the

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

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 addedan additional factor²relativism. Jim Holt, in

a report that he wrote about the book 
 2 !

for the New York Times,

defines postmodern relativism as: ³the notion that physical reality is nothing but a social

construct and that science, despite its pretensions to truth, is just another µnarrative¶ 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 predecessor²Modernism²hence the difficulty to define it.

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

characterized by (1) the rejection of metanarratives²rules about how knowledge was to

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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 ³polylectic,´ 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 NickGravila, "The Postmodern Summer Session: A
Report on ISISSS '86, " in     2, 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 ³to 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 ³gnostic 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
JimHolt, "Is Paris Kidding?" ! ) 34 
, November 15, 1998, under "Books."
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/15/books/is-paris-kidding.html?ref=bookreviews (accessed November 15,
2010).

†c

be carried, who may speak, and who must listen² which results in multiple realities

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

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

they construct about themselves; (3) by the present-future historical perspective²the 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 socialisms 35 are (1) its communalism²emphasis on the community,

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

modernity; (2) its changeability²the 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 andfinally, (5) its optional   
, 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, ³deconstructionist literary criticism and relativistic nihilism.´37

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
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 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.

2c

à
 


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

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

environment. The non-sense of this claim is that Postmodernism is   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 ³if relativism is true,

it is impossible to make any kind of absolute statement about truth²even the statement

that relativism 
 .´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.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
39
Dan Story, 
    


, V
   5 

 



 
 4 
(Grand Rapids: Kregel publications, 1998), 29.
40
Ibid., 34.

c

In short, the four philosophical pillars for Postmodernism²rejection of

metanarratives, immanence, present-futuristic historical perspective and relativism²are

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.

|  
 




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 Christ²fully God and fully man²who 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  
     , 41 and its presupposition is that ³the 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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
41
Van Tildeveloped the transcendental argument with the purpose of challenging unbelieving
thought at its root. Van Til¶sthought was essentially this: given anything that is meaningful-indeed, given
anything at all²one 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 andwould 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 Seminary) 48, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 227-28; and Don Collet,
"Apologetics Van Til and Transcendental Argument," 

       (Westminster
Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 291±92.

@c

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

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

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
42
Cornelius Van Til,  


   (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1955), 396.
43
Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen et al.,   
 52 , V 
6

   
) 
     (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1854.
44
SeeHenry M. Morris, "Biblical Naturalism and Modern Science," 52    125, no.
428 (July 1968): 189.
 ác

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

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.



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 contrary²without 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!

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
45
Story, 32.
 c





Burnham, Frederic B., ed. 
   % 
      
 %
New York: HarperSan Francisco, 1989.

Bahnsen, Greg L. ) 
V % Edited by Robert R. Booth. Nacogdiches, TX: Covenant
Media Press, 2009.

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

Borgmann, Albert. 

  
   % Chicago: Chicago Press, 1992.

Cabal, Tes, Chad Owen Brand, and Ray E. Clendenen et at.   
 52 ,
V  6

   
) 
    % 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 Seminary) 65, no. 2 (Fall 2003):
287-306.

Edgard, William. "No News Is Good News: Modernity, The Postmodern, and
Apologetics." 

       (Westminster Theological
Seminary) 52, no. 2 (1995): 357-382.

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

of Tampere, 2004.

DeMar, Gary.   
  )
%Atlanta: American Vision, 1994.

Descartes, René.   
 
 
% Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision
Publications, 2007.

²²².   
 
 
% Edited by John Cottingham. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Dockery, David S., ed. 
 
%  #    #   % Wheaton:

BridgePoint Books, 1995.

Franke, John R. "Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics: Reformed Theology and the

Postmodern Turn." V
   V     13, no. 1 (Winter 2004):
117-32.

á
c
 c

Gravila, Nick. "The Postmodern Summer Session: A Report on ISISSS '86." In 

   2, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 687-96.
New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986.

Greer, Robert C.   
 
   


  
% Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Ingraffia, Brian D. 
     52   % New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1995.

Hassan, Ihab. "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism." In  
  , edited by

Joseph Natoli and Linda Hutcheon, 273-83. New York: State University of New
York, 1993.

Henry, Carl Ferdinand Howard.  V     % Vol. 1. 6 vols. Wheaton:
Crossway Books, 1999.

Holt, Jim. "Is Paris Kidding?" ! ) 34 
, 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 Seminary) 48, no. 2
(Fall 1986): 218-39.

Locke, John. #

   $   
 % London, 1796.

Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Naturalism and Modern Science ." 52    125, no.
428 (July 1968): 189-204.

Oden, Thomas C. "The Death of Modernity." In     


 
, edited
by David S. Dockery, 19-33. Wheaton: BridgePoint Books, 1995.

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

Phillips, Craig A. 
 
% Vol. 4, in  #  


 , by Erwin
Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, 296-305. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmands, 2005.

Sire, James W.   
! " % Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004. Kindle
Electronic Edition.

áác
 c

Shrader, Rick C. "Postmodernism."   


    (Baptist Bible
College) 3, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 17-25.

Story, Dan. 
    


, V
   5 

 




   4 
% Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Trueman, Carl R. "Responses It Ain¶t Necessarily So." 

      

(Westminster Theological Seminary) 65, no. 2 (2003): 309-25.

Van Til, Cornelious.  



  % Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1955.

Veith, Gene Edward. 
  
% Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994.

áïc