Sermon Tone Analysis

You Can't Handle the Truth: \\ Addressing the Tolerance of Postmodernism

Phil Johnson \\ Executive Director, Grace to You

 

What I have been asked to do in this hour is explain the concept of /postmodernism/ as simply as possible and explore the question of whether postmodernism is compatible with biblical Christianity.

Let me cut to the chase by addressing the second part of my assignment as clearly and as straightforwardly as possible right at the outset.

Ill tell you plainly: I'm convinced that postmodernism is inherently /in/compatible with biblical Christianity.

In fact, the most essential elements of the postmodernist perspective are hostile to the fundamental truth-claims of Scripture, and for that reason, I would argue that a postmodernist mind-set involves some positively sinful ways of thinking.

Now, I realize there are many people (and there may even be some here today) who think the church needs to adapt to postmodernism, and embrace postmodernism, in order to reach a postmodern society.

But the error in that approach is no different from the error of people a hundred years ago who tried to devise a modernist brand of Christianity in order to reach a /modern/ world.

The heart of biblical and Christian truth is destroyed in the process.

You understand, I think, that modernism was inherently anti-Christian.

It represented a wholesale rejection of some vital biblical truths.

And therefore it proved to be impossible to blend modernism with Christianity.

Most of us can see /that/ clearly enough these days, and that's why the movements most of us belong to today remained evangelical, when the mainline denominations embraced modernism.

Our spiritual forefathers were a handful of leaders in the church who saw clearly that modernism was incompatible with biblical truth, and they were willing to /fight/ the modernist trend.

But in precisely the same way, the postmodernist's way of looking at the world is fundamentally anti-Christian.

/Both/ modernism and postmodernism are exactly the kinds of evil ideology the apostle Paul described in 2 Corinthians 10:4–5, where he spoke of our spiritual warfare this way: “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing [or “pretension”] that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”

Paul was saying that spiritual warfare is an /ideological/ battle.

Yes, our main enemies are demonic “principalities . . .

powers . . . the rulers of the darkness of this world, [and purveyors of] spiritual wickedness in high places.”

But the battle is an ideological one, not a mystical one.

That's why “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.”

We don't fight with swords and guns, but with /truth/— and specifically, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Spiritual warfare is not waged by shouting verbal rebukes at evil spirits, by using spoken incantations that invoke the blood of Christ—or by any other magical or superstitious nonsense.

(Demons aren't like vampires, who can be chased away with the sign of the cross.)

But /real/ spiritual warfare requires us to refute false ideas with the truth.

True spiritual warfare (according to this passage in 2 Corinthians 10) involves tearing down the ideological strongholds of false belief systems.

What I want to show you in this hour is that postmodernism is based on an erroneous set of unbiblical beliefs, and we need to oppose it with the clear and careful application of biblical truth.

I think my reasons for saying that will become crystal clear as we go.

So let's start with some broad definitions.

Let me say up front that because of the constraints of time and the nature of my assignment there is no possibility of treating this subject in a

comprehensive way, and that is not even what I am trying to do.

My goal will be to simplify—to try to reduce the complexity of what we are dealing with— and that means I am going to /paraphrase/, paint the picture for you in broad strokes, and streamline my description of postmodernism as much as possible.

I don't pretend to be giving you a detailed or finely-nuanced presentation of all the flavors of postmodernism; I'm just trying to give you a broad survey of the postmodern panorama so that you can have a working picture of what this perspective looks like and recognize it when you see it.

Now, what is postmodernism?

It seems like we hear that word all the time.

It came into vogue in the mid-1980s, and the term gets thrown around a lot these days.

You may have the vague notion that postmodernism involves a denial that absolute truth may be objectively known.

And that /is/ the central idea that gave rise to postmodernism.

According to the typical postmodernist, Reality itself is not objective; it is an individual concept constructed by the subjective mind.

According to postmodernism, the subjectivity of the human mind makes it impossible to discover objective truth.

Objectivity is an illusion.

Perhaps when you think of postmodernism, you also think of /tolerance/ and /diversity,/ because those are the primary virtues postmodernism has elevated above every other kind of moral value.

That's another hallmark of postmodern thinking.

Another one of postmodernism's other outstanding features is its suspicion of (bordering on utter contempt for) any claim that is made with certainty or authority.

I'll have much more to say about that as we go.

But all of those things are classic characteristics of postmodern thought.

Here are some more:

Postmodernism generally prefers /subjectivity/ to /objectivity/ and ambiguity to clarity.

Postmodernists are skeptical of logic, and they also distrust history.

They question every form of dogmatism.

Postmodernists don't like authoritative definitions.

Try to define something clearly, and they will nitpick endlessly over every ambiguity, every exception to the rule, and every supposed paradox that challenges your definition.

They will exploit every generalization to try to make it appear absurd.

They like to blur the line in every dichotomy.

All of that is how postmodernism's essential relativism plays out in practical terms.

But most important, postmodernism is generally hostile to every worldview that makes any universal truth-claim.

In fact, it's fair to say that the whole idea of a /“worldview”/—or a comprehensive philosophy of life—is about as /un/­postmodern as possible.

Postmodernism might be defined in a nutshell as the belief that no single worldview offers a universally and objectively true perspective on life and reality.

So postmodernism is a kind of systematic skepticism.

It is not a constructive way of thinking; it is always deconstructive.

And, in fact, the postmodern hermeneutic on all of life and literature is known by that technical name: /deconstructionism./

If you have taken a college course in literature at any point since 1985, you are probably familiar with that term, /deconstructionism./

It speaks of an approach to handling texts that aims at unravelling their objective meaning by exposing unquestioned assumptions, attacking inconsistencies, exploiting ambiguities, and whatnot.

But in the process of deconstruction, the postmodernist isn't trying to express any clear viewpoint of his own.

Nothing is ultimately denied or affirmed.

No true postmodernist would ever deliberately argue that a given proposition is right or wrong.

That's not the point of the exercise.

The only goals are to eliminate certainty, question authority, obliterate clarity, and undermine the very notion of objectivity.

That, you could say, is the postmodernist agenda.

We'll try to unpack all of that as we go.

Now you might think, /OK, if postmodernism canonizes tolerance above all //other virtues and they resist saying anything is wrong or right, how might a postmodernist make a negative critique of Phil Johnson's critique of postmodernism?/

And obviously, here is the answer: They would use the classic deconstructive technique.

They would probably call me irresponsible for even trying to simplify and explain something as complex as postmodernism.

Then they

would quibble about every sweeping statement I might make.

They would use pettifogging arguments to try to overthrow every definition I give and every dichotomy I make.

And they would call me naive for even attempting to clarify what they insist cannot be objectively explained or understood.

In all likelihood, an experienced postmodernist would not come out and say I am wrong (unless he /really/ lost his temper with me).

Obviously, if truth cannot be objectively known for certain; if reality and truth are whatever an individual imagines them to be; if each person determines subjectively what is “true” for himself; and if reality is merely a construct of the human mind—then one person's perspective of truth is ultimately just as good as another's.

So they can't really say I am “wrong.”

In fact, they would probably claim that the only reason /I/ can say /they/ are wrong is because I'm just an intolerant person clinging to outmoded “modern” ideas.

But their own postmodern /tolerance/ makes it distasteful for them to have any kind of dialogue about who is right and who is wrong.

So even if they hated my critique of their philosophy, they probably wouldn't say my view is wrong.

Instead, they might say it's “arrogant,” “naive,” “outmoded,” “xenophobic,” “culturally biased”; “it marginalizes others”; “it's judgmental”; I'm “using obsolete paradigms”; or whatever.

I'm sure you have heard all those things—or perhaps adjectives like those have even been applied to your sermons when you preach.

Don't be intimidated by that kind of rhetoric, especially when it is utterly divorced from any rational justification.

(In fact, one of my greatest concerns about the brands of postmodernism that have infiltrated the evangelical movement is the way postmodernism undermines the authority and clarity of evangelical preaching.

You can probably already see why that would be the case.)

Perhaps you recognize some of the typical dialogue of the postmodern culture in those expressions (“marginalized people,” “naive judgmentalism,” “faulty paradigms,” and so forth).

What you're hearing is an echo of postmodern thinking.

Postmodernism has become the dominant factor in the culture and the public discourse of our generation.

It might help us to understand postmodernism by seeing how it arose.

It's possible to break down the course of Western thought, literature, and art into three broad periods.

Let me help you make a chart you can take with you to show some of the things we are going to be talking about.

We need a grid with nine slots in it, so draw a tic-tac-toe grid on your paper, and be sure to make it big enough to write in each box.

So you have nine boxes—three columns with three rows.

Each of the columns will represent one of the three periods of Western thought.

The first we'll call /premodern./

(Write that above the leftmost column on your grid to label that column “Premodern.”)

This era would extend from the birth of science and philosophy in the Greek culture until the age of the enlightenment (roughly from the time of Thales to the French Revolution).