Apologetics

---

Weathering the Postmodern Storm
(By David Yuen)

(Note: This work was originally published in the Sept/Oct 2003 edition of the "Spring of Life" newsletter)

Part II: Breaking Through the Rain

Since the rise of this secular storm, there has been a constant barrage of postmodern beliefs flooding the landscape of today’s society and culture. Each day, many believers find themselves caught up within this assault, in some form or another, and sometimes without any means of refuge. All in all, if Christians everywhere are to be the ones to stand for the truth, then one of the first things that they must learn to do is to defend it from everything that it’s not, namely from the postmodern onslaught. Listed below, in italics, are some of the primary tenets of postmodernism.1 Below each tenet are counter arguments that reveal the flaws and inconsistencies of each. By equipping ourselves with the proper knowledge and understanding, we, as believers, can face the challenge of postmodernism armed with some degree of security and discernment. This, by itself, becomes essential not only for the well being of a believer’s faith, but also for the survival of truth itself.

Countering the Postmodern Assertions
1.) Everyone’s a product of their own culture. No one has the ability to think or exist independently from the mentality of their society and upbringing. Therefore there is no way to see reality as it “really is”, since all things can only be seen through the lens of culture.

Although there may actually be a sliver of truth to this concept2 (that people are heavily influenced by their culture), but to make such an idea into an unyielding absolute would be far from being realistic.

If no one had the ability to think or exist independently from the mentality of their society, then how would it even be possible that people could be convinced, through rational evidence, into abandoning their own cultural outlook for a totally new one?3 There have been many instances where people have chosen, after being presented with enough rational evidence, to adapt an entirely different belief system that could be both contrary and contradictory to the one that they’ve been raised and educated in.

Though many postmodernists may argue that such shifts in worldviews are purely for pragmatic reasons or simply for the sake of making that person’s life “easier”, there are however numerous instances where that is hardly even the case.4

For instance, in certain countries all over the world, people would face the danger of violent persecution if it were ever known that they’ve converted to Christianity. If discovered, many would be tortured or thrown into prison, while some would even be put to death outright. Yet despite these dangers there are still many people, who have been raised and who are still living in such cultures, that have converted to Christianity and even willingly professed their faith in it. In the end, though practical evidence shows that people are heavily influenced by their culture, practical evidence also shows that culture is far from being the be all and end all of individual reasoning and choice as many postmodernists would like to believe.

2.) All truth is relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth (Relativism).

First of all, relativism is self-refuting. To say that all truth is relative and that there’s no such thing as absolute truth is to say something that’s meant to be taken as absolutely true.5 As a result, just by simply presenting itself as an argument, relativism inevitably brings about its own self-destruction!

Second of all, relativism is unlivable.6 Though many postmodernists would generally express relativism as putting truth as a matter of “opinion” (i.e. perspectivism), such as using expressions like “What’s true for you isn’t true for me,” or “That’s just your opinion”,7 relativism in its most basic form cannot be lived out.

If all truth was relative and simply a matter of opinion, then it shouldn’t really matter then if people stopped distinguishing between drinking milk and drinking cyanide,8 since the only differences between them would just be a matter of personal “taste”. If all truth is relative, then any difference between walking down a street and walking off a cliff wouldn’t matter, since there would be no absolutes to distinguish them by and since everything (including gravity) would just be a matter of your “opinion”. But as anyone can clearly see, in both cases and in any case, reality does not work that way!

Relativism does not correspond to the real world. Every person lives his or her life almost entirely on a nonrelativistic true-false and right-wrong basis.9 A person either drove to work or didn’t drive to work. A person either missed the train or didn’t miss the train. In both events, it could only be either one or the other, not both, even if a person may have preferred it that way.

Even on a philosophical level, relativism is unlivable. To claim to believe in relativism would ultimately require one to accept relativism as true and to accept non-relativism as false. In the end, one is only led back into basing their beliefs on an absolute true-false basis, which by itself contradicts the very nature of relativism as a whole.10

Thirdly and finally, relativism is morally impotent. If all things are relative, especially with regards to morality, then every act is ultimately justifiable, even the most horrendous ones. In order to distinguish right from wrong there would have to be an absolute standard to distinguish them by in the first place.11 But in relativism no absolutes are suppose to exist. Therefore such acts as genocide and rape cannot be condemned as wrong or evil in any objective way according to the argument of relativism. And though most adherents of relativism may attempt to argue that such deeds are wrong simply because they personally “feel” that they’re wrong, the perpetrators of those deeds could equally argue that what they did was right simply because they personally “felt” that it was right.12 Ultimately, in the face of reality, relativism becomes nothing more than a moral sieve that can’t even hold its own water.

3.) Any claims of objective truth always does violence by excluding or marginalizing other voices.

First of all, if people are suppose to take this statement as being true, then wouldn’t this claim also lead to the exclusion and marginalization of other voices too (namely to those who would disagree with it)? This claim essentially refutes itself.

In addition to this, throughout many cases in history, claims of objective truth have been shown to have ended acts of oppression and marginalization. Take for example, the abolitionist movement, along with the Civil Rights movement that followed later on. In both cases, the claim that “all men are created equal” became the cornerstone of both movements, which eventually led to public reform and, namely, to the end of such oppressive acts as slavery and segregation.

Whatever the case may be, absolute truth claims do not necessarily have to lead to the exclusion or marginalization of others. People can still oppress and marginalize other people without even needing to make any claims of truth. Likewise, a person can also claim to have the truth and still not have any intention or ability, for that matter, to marginalize or oppress anyone who just happens to disagree. The essence of it simply comes down to whoever has the most power to begin with and if one’s willing to abuse it. As a whole, oppression and marginalization unfortunately just boils down to the blunt issue of those who are in power versus those who are not, not necessarily on whether one makes any claims of objective truth.13

4.) To disagree with another person’s beliefs is to be both intolerant and arrogant.

If disagreeing with people is wrong, then wouldn’t it also be considered wrong to disagree with a person (by labeling them as “intolerant”), just for disagreeing with another?

If tolerance means that people can’t disagree with or offer criticism of other people’s beliefs, then criticizing people who would believe otherwise (or disagree) should then, by that logic, be considered intolerant.14 Therefore, based on the postmodernist’s own argument, criticizing a person by accusing them of intolerance, simply for disagreeing with another person’s beliefs, would then be just as intolerant! In the end, it just doesn’t add up.

Overall, the right to disagree with others is a right that belongs to everyone. To disagree with another person’s beliefs doesn’t mean that you’re being intolerant. But to disagree with another person’s beliefs and then to force them against their will to unconditionally accept your own, however, is. There’s a huge and obvious difference between the two.

5.) All beliefs and religions are equally true and valid (Philosophical Pluralism).

Overall, different manifestations of philosophical pluralism may also indirectly include such cliched phrases as, “All religions are essentially the same”, “All paths lead to the same God”, or “Every religion worships the same God.” But however the argument should present itself, in any case, the essence of its contradictory and superficial nature is nothing less than apparent.

For instance, according to Buddhism, there is no God. But according to Hinduism, there are at least 300,000 different gods (and goddesses).15 As for Islam, on the other hand, there is only one God and nothing else. In addition to this, Christianity holds that salvation after death can only be found in placing one’s complete faith in Jesus Christ alone. But in the case of some religions, such as the Jamaican based religion of Rastafarianism, salvation after death is completely irrelevant simply because it holds that there is no afterlife to begin with.16

All beliefs and religions are not equally true and valid simply because they can’t be. There will always be belief systems that inherently contradict each other, in some way or another, and to simultaneously believe in them all would be similar to saying that 1 + 1 = 2 or 75 or cow or whatever you like. Ultimately, to say that all beliefs and religions are equally true or essentially the same would be both extremely naïve and hopelessly self-contradictory.17


In this day an age, postmodern thinking and assumption has become a whirlwind that have led many into believing things that they don’t even know the slightest reasoning behind why they do. This applies to both Christians and non-Christians alike. But as anyone can see, when actually reasoned out, there is very little substance, if any at all, to the postmodern argument. Knowing this, as Christians, we are now faced not only with a means of further rooting ourselves in the truth against its assault, but also with a means of actually confronting it with much less fear. As in the words of the Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, “…We should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…But, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ”(Ephesians 4:14-15).

The fury of postmodernism is upon us, whether Christians like it or not, and believers must be willing to stand strong in order to fully engage against it—to understand it, to refute it, and to ultimately witness to those ensnared within it. Throughout today’s world, there are many who are constantly drifting, searching desperately for various “spiritualities” to fill themselves with just for a fleeting moment of peace and meaning. There are also many postmodernists who fervently lash out at Christianity simply for offering answers, when many of them don’t even understand what they are. In either case, believers, everywhere, are called to weather this storm of disbelief and to rescue those who are caught in its confusion. This duty, alone, isn’t one that is done merely out of necessity, but also for the truth—the absolute truth of God loving this world so much that He sent His only Son to die for it.



Notes
1Postmodern Tenets #1, 3, and 4 referenced from:
Jim Leffel, “Postmodernism: The ‘Spirit of the Age’”, http://xenos.org/essays/relrev2.htm (June 2003).
Postmodern Tenet #5 referenced from Leffel, “Spirit of the Age” and:
Philip Ryken, “How Can Jesus Be the Only Way?”, March/April 1998, Modern Reformation, Vol. 7, http://www.modernreformation.org/mr98/marapr/mr9802onlyway.html (August 2003).

2Bob Francis, “What is Postmodernism?”, 1999, http://www.wwcmagazine.org/1999/postmodern.html (June 2003).

3Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997) 69.

4Corduan, 69-70.

5Robert Morey, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1986) 166.

6Corduan, 37-38.

7Professor Timothy Yoder, e-mail correspondence, [email protected] (15 September 2003, 6 October 2003).

8Example taken from Corduan, 38.

9Corduan, 37.

10Corduan, 38.

11-12Morey, 63.

13Corduan, 260.

14Leffel, “Spirit of the Age”.

15Ryken, “Only Way”.

16Alan Kazlev, “Rastafarianism”, 1999, http://www.kheper.net/topics/religion/Rastafarianism.htm (September 2003).

17Ryken, “Only Way”.



Bibliography
1.) Corduan, Winfried. No Doubt About It: The Case for Christianity. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997.

2.) Crouch, Andy. “What Exactly Is Postmodernism?”. November 13, 2000. Christianity Today, Vol. 44, No. 13, Page 76. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/013/8.76.html. June 2003.

3.) Francis, Bob. “What is Postmodernism?”. 1999. http://www.wwcmagazine.org/1999/postmodern.html. June 2003.

4.) Groothuis, Douglas. “Apologetics for Postmoderns”. 2000. http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/groothuis/TDChapter.html. June 2003.

5.) Kazlev, Alan. “Rastafarianism”. 1999. http://www.kheper.net/topics/religion/Rastafarianism.htm. September 2003.

6.) Leffel, Jim. “Postmodernism: The ‘Spirit of the Age’”. http://xenos.org/essays/relrev2.htm. June 2003.

7.) Morey, Robert. The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1986.

8.) Ryken, Philip. “How Can Jesus Be the Only Way?”. March/April 1998. Modern Reformation, Vol. 7. http://www.modernreformation.org/mr98/marapr/mr9802onlyway.html. August 2003.

9.) Yoder, Tim ([email protected]). Personal electronic communication via e-mail. 15 September 2003, 6 October 2003.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE