BK>This had a dramatic effect
BK>upon the secularisation of western society, as Martin Robinson in his
BK>book "A World Apart" notes, "The process to which we refer, and which
BK>has represented the underlying cause of decline in religious
BK>commitment in Europe as a whole, is that of the gradual
BK>secularisation of society.  Strangely, the origins of secularism do
BK>not lie in the twentieth century or even in the nineteenth century
BK>but even earlier in what we have already referred to as the Age of
BK>Reason, sometimes known as the Enlightenment.  The twin emphases of
BK>the Enlightenment were the theories of empiricism, which became the
BK>basis of modern scientific method, and of rationalism, which became
BK>the basis of modern philosophy." (Robinson:1992:22)
And if modernism brought secularization to the mainline denominations, what 
will be the result of postmodernism which holds that even empiricism is 
irrelevant and ultimately relativistic?  While postmodernism may put a dent 
in the evolution/creation debate, it is ultimately a nihilistic and 
existentialistic worldview that will erode Christian values and the 
philosophy of the Christian religion.
BK>The question facing us today is in what direction is postmodernism
BK>leading society?  In an extract from his book "The Death of Truth",
BK>Dennis McCallum portrays postmodernism as a threat to Christianity
BK>that must be fought at all costs.  He sees postmodernism as an attack
BK>on absolute truth and hence the truth of the Bible.  McCallum is also
BK>highly critical of modernism, "Before now, the consensus in secular
BK>thought form has been called modernism.
Postmodernism, mark my words, will present an even greater threat to the 
Christian worldview than modernism did.  To dismiss its detrimental effects 
on society out of hand is to make oneself a sitting duck in the face of a 
demonic onslaught.
BK>Modernists view the world, including humans, as one big machine.  They
BK>have faith in rationality, in empiricism and in science."  Obviously
BK>McCallum views the influence of modernism as being highly destructive
BK>and sees postmodernism posing a similar threat, thus it is not
BK>surprising that he wishes to fight postmodernism.  "The postmodern
BK>revolution is still happening, and we, as Christians still have an
BK>opportunity to influence the outcome." (McCallum:1997:Chapter 1)
BK>I feel that those who think along the lines of McCallum are in serious
BK>danger of barking up the wrong tree.  Postmodernism, like modernism,
BK>is a way of thinking that is alien to the heart of the Gospel (as its
BK>absolute is not God), however we must accept that they represent ways
BK>in which people think, wether we like it or not.  It simply will not
BK>do to look at all societies problems and blame them on modernism or
BK>postmodernism.  Modernism and postmodernism are ways of processing
BK>ideas, they do not form the ideas themselves.
I am not sure what you mean by that last statement.  A worldview assumes a 
particular view of reality.  Postmodernism is a return to tribalism and 
self-contained communities.  In some ways it is a return to Lockian 
philosophy which makes reality completely dependent on the perception of it 
through the sense organs and the mind or brain.  However, it is more 
accurate to say that reality is objective in some sense, despite our 
subjectivistic processing of that reality.  Our perceptions may be limited 
and biased because of our modus operandi and our physical, mental, and 
sensory limitations, but ultimate reality exists outside of our perception 
of it.  When a person dies the universe does not cease to exist, rather 
that person is no longer active in the world.
BK>The problems come
BK>about in that when you put garbage in you get garbage out.  If a
BK>person has evil intent, it will not matter what thought process they
BK>go through, you will get evil coming out the other end. Our job as
BK>Christians is to ensure that the hearts and minds of people are fed
BK>with the truth rather than the staple diet of garbage that the modern
BK>world has thrown up.  Postmodernism provides us with this
BK>opportunity.
Postmodernism, as I said above, may provide opportunities for witness but 
ultimately it will prove even more challenging.  How do you reason with a 
Mormon whose experience confirms that Mormonism is ultimately true?  How do 
you reason with the anti-intellectualism of a Buddhist who says that good 
and evil are illusions and that truth and falsity are both right and both 
wrong?  How do you claim ultimate truth for the Christian presentation of 
the exclusive claims of the Gospel when those whom you are attempting to 
reach reject the very idea of the law of non-contradiction and the very 
existence of any exclusive truth claims of the Christian Gospel?
BK>Postmodernism provides for us as Christians an opportunity to present
BK>the Bible.  We are coming out of a time where modern thinking has
BK>dominated, and Christianity has been disregarded on the basis of not
BK>being able to prove God, and into a time where truth is seen as being
BK>in the eye of the beholder.
We may not be able to "absolutely" *prove* the existence of God; however, 
that is no reason to lay aside the discipline of *apologetics* in favor of 
a watered-down, existential, pietistic presentation of the Gospel.  As I 
said above, such a gospel is a different gospel from the Gospel that Paul 
preached.  Christians in the early church *died* rather than compromise the 
truth for the sake of evangelism.  In fact, Tertullian once said that the 
"seed bed of the church is the blood of the martyrs."  If truth is relative 
then there is no reason to remain a Christian, no reason to evangelize in 
the first place.
BK>This gives us an enormous opportunity to
BK>present the Gospel in terms of our own personal testimony.
Try that in the Holy_Smoke atheist echo, Brett.  They will laugh you to 
scorn.  No, we may not be able to reason people into the kingdom but we 
certainly can't lure them in with emotionalism and pietism.  There is no 
escaping the need for a rational defense of the Christian faith: 
*apologetics*.
BK>  It opens
BK>up evangelism to all Christians, not just the intellectuals among us.
BK>Unlike under the constraints of modernism, there is no need to
BK>rationally explain to the postmodernist why we believe what we
BK>believe, but rather we have the freedom to present what is truth to
BK>us.
If it is only true for us, why should they accept it?  If it is only true 
for us, why should they repent and change their sinful lifestyles?  All 
people reason on one level or another.  While they may not all be 
"intellectuals" they will recognize a good argument over against an 
emotional appeal.  They are used to being manipulated by commercials, 
salesmen, etc.  Why should they listen to one more manipulative salesman 
(read evangelist)?
BK>This of course points to the obvious danger of postmodernism in
BK>that people can, and are, being sucked into believing all sorts of
BK>weird ideas quite contrary to the Bible.  It is therefore crucial
BK>that we as Christians take up this opportunity to spread the Gospel,
BK>because we can be sure that the enemy will be spreading his gospel.
But you have no basis for making exclusive truth claims while at the same 
time embracing postmodern relativism.  On what authority will you tell a 
homosexual who thinks he is a Christian that his lifestyle will damn him to 
hell and an eternal separation from a loving and merciful God (who will 
also judge from a position of absolute justice and holiness)?
BK>It is important to note that a postmodernist is not the irrational
BK>creature that the modernists will portray, but rather their thinking
BK>is a rational process whereby what they believe is influenced by what
BK>they see and hear.  In this respect the postmodernist is no different
BK>to the modernist. It is the postmodernist who recognises the folly of
BK>the modernist's belief that they can objectively look at truth
BK>without subjectivity entering into the equation.  You only need look
BK>at what passes as science these days to see that something has gone
BK>seriously wrong with objectivity.  Truth cannot lie in a vacuum
BK>whereby it can be analysed in complete objectivity, the subjective
BK>gives meaning to the objective.
BK>All lines of thought have absolutes built into them, even
BK>postmodernism.  
Now you've said a mouthful.  YES!  Even postmodernism makes relativism a 
dogma which excludes those who believe there is an objective and ultimate 
reality which can be understood and interpreted on some rational, 
empirical level.  Christianity can harness an empirical worldview because 
Christian rationality gave birth to science and an investigation of nature 
as an expression of God's general revelation of Himself.  However, 
postmodernism denies that there is any ultimate reality.  It assumes out of 
hand that reality exists only in the mind and that all is subjective and 
relative to one's mental impression of "reality".
BK>Premodernism had as its absolute the church,
BK>modernism had science and reason, and postmodernism has self.  All
BK>these absolutes have flaws and it is in response to these flaws that
BK>the progression of thinking has developed.  Modernism came out of a
BK>rejection of the church as absolute, in which it was quite correct to
BK>do so as the church does not have all the answers.  Postmodernism has
BK>then come out of a rejection of science as an absolute, and likewise
BK>it is quite correct in doing so.  It does beg the question of what
BK>will follow postmodernism, if the absolute of postmodernism is self,
BK>could it not be that God has His hand in this progression?
NO.  While our knowledge and understanding of the world has been imperfect 
in the past, it would be suicidal to deny ultimate reality in spite of our 
imperfect understanding of it.  Absolute truth exists in spite of our 
sinful denial of the Absolute God whose very existence is truth, whose 
attributes are all dependent on truth and rational explications of that 
truth.  In other words, God IS truth and therefore operates out of logical 
principles which cannot be violated because to do so would violate who God 
is in and of Himself.  There are some things that God Himself cannot 
do--one of them is to sin or to do anything sinful or evil.  
Self always leads to sin.  "Did God really say....?"  (Genesis 3:1).
BK>Society is becoming more and more postmodern in its thinking, we
BK>cannot stop it as McCullum says we should attempt to do so, neither
BK>should we attempt to stop it.  If we were to fight against it are we
BK>to champion the modernism?  I think not.  Modernism or even
BK>premodernism are no closer to the Christian world view than is
BK>postmodernism.  Let us continue to proclaim the gospel, holding to
BK>our absolute being God, but at the same time recognise that the world
BK>does not hold the same absolute as us.  Whilst as Christians we
BK>cannot get away from the position that God is our absolute we do need
BK>to realise that in spreading the gospel it is our job to present the
BK>gospel in a language that those around us will understand.
What is the Christian worldview, Brett?  I would contend that the Christian 
worldview is *rational*, countercultural, supernatural, and devotional.  To 
compartmentalize any of these complementary elements of the Christian 
worldview is to destroy the very foundations of Christian faith.
Sincerely in Christ,
Charlie Ray, 
Chaplain
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do,
you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
chaplain@isgroup.net
---
 * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
---------------