The Truth War (5 page)

Those presuppositions gave birth to Darwinism, which in turn spawned a string of humanistic ideas and worldviews. Most prominent among them were several atheistic, rationalistic, utopian philosophies—including Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism, and theological liberalism.

Modernism's devastating repercussions were soon felt worldwide. Various struggles between those ideologies (and others like them) dominated the twentieth century. All failed. After two world wars, nonstop social revolutions, civil unrest, and a long ideological cold war, modernity was declared dead by most in the academic world. The symbolic death of the modern era was marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the more apt and imposing monuments to modern ideology. Because the wall was a concrete expression of modernity's misguided utopian worldview, its sudden demolition was also a perfect symbol for the collapse of modernity.

Most, if not all, of the major dogmas and worldviews from the modern era are now deemed completely outmoded and hopelessly discredited in virtually every corner of the intellectual and academic world. Even modernist religion's fascination with higher criticism has given way to abstract spirituality.

MODERNITY,
IN SIMPLE TERMS,
WAS CHARACTERIZED
BY THE BELIEF THAT
TRUTH EXISTS AND THAT
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
IS THE ONLY RELIABLE
WAY TO DETERMINE
THAT TRUTH.

The overconfident rationalism and human conceit that characterized the modern era has finally—and fittingly—had most of the wind taken out of its sails.

POSTMODERNISM

Accordingly, the new ways of thinking have been collectively nicknamed postmodern.

If you have been paying attention to the world around us, you have probably heard that expression a lot recently. The term
postmodernism
has been used increasingly since the 1980s to describe several popular trends in architecture, art, literature, history, culture, and religion. It is not an easy term to explain, because it describes a way of thinking that defies (and even rejects) any clear definition.

Postmodernism in general is marked by
a tendency to dismiss
the possibility of any sure and settled knowledge of the truth
. Post modernism suggests that if objective truth exists, it cannot be known objectively or with any degree of certainty. That is because (according to postmodernists), the subjectivity of the human mind makes knowledge of objective truth impossible. So it is useless to think of truth in objective terms. Objectivity is an illusion. Nothing is certain, and the thoughtful person will never speak with too much conviction about anything. Strong convictions about any point of truth are judged supremely arrogant and hopelessly naive. Everyone is entitled to his own truth.

Postmodernism therefore has no positive agenda to assert anything as true or good. Perhaps you have noticed that only the most heinous crimes are still seen as evil. (Actually, there are many today who are prepared to dispute whether
anything
is “evil,” so such language is fast disappearing from public discourse.) That is because the notion of evil itself does not fit in the postmodern scheme of things. If we can't really know anything for certain, how can we judge anything evil?

POSTMODERNISM SUGGESTS
THAT IF OBJECTIVE TRUTH
EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN
OBJECTIVELY OR WITH ANY
DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.
THAT IS BECAUSE (ACCORDING
TO POSTMODERNISTS),
THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THE
HUMAN MIND MAKES
KNOWLEDGE OF OBJECTIVE
TRUTH IMPOSSIBLE.

Therefore postmodernism's one goal and singular activity is the systematic deconstruction of every other truth claim. The chief tools being employed to accomplish this are relativism, subjectivism, the denial of every dogma, the dissection and annihilation of every clear definition, the relentless questioning of every axiom, the undue exaltation of mystery and paradox, the deliberate exaggeration of every ambiguity, and above all the cultivation of uncertainty about
everything
.

If you were to challenge me to boil down postmodern thought into its pure essence and identify the gist of it in one single, simple, central characteristic, I would say it is
the rejection of every expression
of certainty
. In the postmodern perspective, certainty is regarded as inherently arrogant, elitist, intolerant, oppressive—and therefore always wrong.

THE POSTMODERNIST
RECOILS FROM ABSOLUTES
AND DOES NOT WANT TO
CONCEDE ANY TRUTHS
THAT MIGHT SEEM
AXIOMATIC OR SELF-EVIDENT.
INSTEAD, TRUTH,
IF ACKNOWLEDGED AT ALL,
BECOMES SOMETHING
INFINITELY PLIABLE AND
ULTIMATELY UNKNOWABLE
IN ANY OBJECTIVE SENSE.

The demise of modernity and the resulting blow to rationalistic human arrogance is certainly something to celebrate. From a spiritual perspective, however, the rise of postmodernism has been anything but a positive development.

Postmodernism has resulted in a widespread rejection of truth and the enshrinement of skepticism. Postmodernists despise truth claims. They also spurn every attempt to construct a coherent worldview, labeling all comprehensive ideologies and belief systems “metanarratives,” or grand stories. Such “stories,” they say, can't possibly do justice to everyone's individual perspective, and therefore they are always inadequate.

Postmodernism's preference for subjectivity over objectivity makes it inherently relativistic. Naturally, the postmodernist recoils from absolutes and does not want to concede any truths that might seem axiomatic or self-evident. Instead, truth, if acknowledged at all, becomes something infinitely pliable and ultimately unknowable in any objective sense.

Postmodernism therefore signals a major triumph for relativism—the view that truth is not fixed and objective, but something individually determined by each person's unique, subjective perception. All this is ultimately a vain attempt to try to eliminate morality and guilt from human life.

GETTING PROPOSITIONS OFF THE PREMISES

One other extremely important point has to be mentioned with regard to postmodern notions of truth:
Postmodernists are generally
suspicious of rational and logical forms. They especially do
not like to discuss truth in plain propositional terms.

As we are seeing, postmodernism is largely a reaction against the unbridled rationalism of modernity. But many postmodernists' response to rationalism is a serious overreaction. Lots of postmodernists seem to entertain the notion that
ir
rationality is superior to rationalism.

Actually, both ways of thinking are dead wrong and equally hostile to authentic truth and biblical Christianity. One extreme is as deadly as the other.
Rationalism
needs to be rejected without abandoning
rationality
.

Rationality (the right use of sanctified reason through sound logic) is never condemned in Scripture. Faith is not irrational. Authentic biblical truth demands that we employ logic and clear, sensible thinking. Truth can always be analyzed and examined and compared under the bright light of other truth, and it does not melt into absurdity. Truth by definition is never self-contradictory or nonsensical. And contrary to popular thinking, it is not rationalism to insist that coherence is a necessary quality of all truth. Christ is truth incarnate, and He cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Self-denying truth is an absolute contradiction in terms. “No lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21).

Nor is logic a uniquely “Greek” category that is somehow hostile to the Hebrew context of Scripture. (That is a common myth and a gross oversimplification that is often set forth in support of postmodernism's flirtation with irrationality.) Scripture frequently employs logical devices, such as antithesis, if-then arguments, syllogisms, and propositions. These are all standard logical forms, and Scripture is full of them. (See, e.g., Paul's long string of deductive arguments about the importance of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12–19.)

Yet we often encounter people enthralled with postmodern ideas who argue vehemently that truth cannot be expressed in bare propositions like mathematical formulae. Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: “If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ, then the form of a proposition can't possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form—as a story—not as a set of propositions.”

The reason behind postmodernism's contempt for propositional truth is not difficult to understand. A proposition
is an idea framed
as a logical statement that affirms or denies something, and it is
expressed in such a way that it must be either true or false
. There is no third option between true and false. (This is the “excluded middle” in logic.) The whole point of a proposition is to boil a truth-statement down to such pristine clarity that it must be either affirmed or denied. In other words, propositions are the simplest expressions of truth value used to express the substance of what we believe. Postmodernism, frankly, cannot endure that kind of stark clarity.

In reality, however, postmodernism's rejection of the propositional form turns out to be totally untenable. It is impossible to discuss truth at all—or even tell a story—without resorting to the use of propositions. Until fairly recently, the validity and necessity of expressing truth in propositional form was considered self-evident by virtually everyone who ever studied logic, semantics, philosophy, or theology. Ironically, to make any cogent argument
against
the use of propositions, a person would have to employ propositional statements! So every argument against propositions is instantly self-defeating.

Let's be clear: truth certainly does entail more than bare propositions. There is without question a
personal
element to the truth. Jesus Himself made that point when He declared Himself truth incarnate. Scripture also teaches that faith means receiving Christ for all that He is—knowing Him in a real and personal sense and being indwelt by Him—not merely assenting to a short list of disembodied truths
about
Him (Matthew 7:21–23).

So it is quite true that faith cannot be reduced to mere assent to a finite set of propositions (James 2:19). I have made that point repeatedly in previous books. Saving faith is more than a merely intellectual nod of approval to the bare facts of a minimalist gospel outline. Authentic faith in Christ involves love for His person and willingness to surrender to His authority. The human heart, will, and intellect all consent in the act of faith. In that sense, it is certainly correct, even
necessary
, to acknowledge that mere propositions can't do full justice to all the dimensions of truth.

On the other hand, truth simply cannot survive if stripped of propositional content. While it is quite true that believing the truth entails more than the assent of the human intellect to certain propositions, it is equally true that authentic faith never involves anything less. To reject the propositional content of the gospel is to forfeit saving faith, period.

Postmodernists are uncomfortable with propositions for an obvious reason: they don't like the clarity and inflexibility required to deal with truth in propositional form. A proposition is the simplest form of any truth claim, and postmodernism's fundamental starting point is its contempt for all truth claims. The “fuzzy logic” of ideas told in “story” form sounds so much more elastic—even though it really is not. Propositions are necessary building blocks for every means of conveying truth—including stories.

But the attack on propositional expressions of truth is the natural and necessary outworking of postmodernism's general distrust of logic, distaste for certainty, and dislike for clarity. To maintain the ambiguity and pliability of “truth” necessary for the postmodern perspective, clear and definitive propositions must be discounted as a means of expressing truth. Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture.

UNCERTAINTY IS THE NEW TRUTH

Of course, postmodernism is considerably more complex than those few descriptive paragraphs can possibly relate, but that is a sufficient thumbnail sketch of what the expression signifies. We will delve into some of the major characteristics of the postmodern paradigm shift throughout the book. But to get us started, let's consider this notion that certainty about
anything
is inherently arrogant.

That view is wildly popular today. The belief that no one can really know anything for certain is emerging as virtually the one dogma postmodernists will tolerate. Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility. Right and wrong have been redefined in terms of subjective feelings and personal perspectives.

Those views are infiltrating the church too. In some circles within the visible church, cynicism is now virtually regarded as the most splendid of all virtues. I began this book with a prime example of that cynicism, as seen in the so-called Emerging Church movement. Arelentless tone of postmodern angst about
too much certainty
pervades that whole movement. No wonder: the Emerging Church began as a self-conscious effort to make Christianity more suitable to a postmodern culture. Emerging Christians are determined to adapt the Christian faith, the structure of the church, the language of faith, and even the gospel message itself to the ideas and rhetoric of postmodernism.

Postmodernity is a major theme in the literature of the Emerging Church movement. Several leading voices in the movement have suggested that postmodernism is something the church should embrace and adopt. Others might be more tentative about endorsing postmodernism entirely, but they insist that Christians at least need to start speaking the postmodern dialect if we want to reach a postmodern generation. That, they say, will require a retooling of the message we bring to the world, not to mention a revamping of the means by which we deliver it. Some in the movement have openly questioned whether there is even any legitimate role for preaching in a postmodern culture. “Dialogue” is the preferred method of communication. Accordingly, some Emerging-style congregations have done away with pastors altogether and replaced them with “narrators.” Others have replaced the sermon with a free-ranging dialogue in which no one takes any leading role. For obvious reasons, an authoritative “thus saith the Lord” is not welcome in such a setting.