August 4, 2004
“Christian World View” – Postmodernism (1)
The Reverend J.
Ligon Duncan III
If you have your Bibles, I’d invite you to turn with me to
Exodus, chapter three. We’re going to be looking at Postmodernism, which in
some ways is not even a worldview, but it is a pervasive influence on the
thinking of the world in which you live. We’ll be looking at it for two weeks.
Today we’ll look at Postmodernism; next week we’ll look at “Postmodernism Goes
to College.” And if you know folks who have children in college, who have
graduate students off in graduate or post-graduate education, perhaps that would
be a good session to invite them to, because I want to explore how this form of
thinking has massively impacted the entirety of our educational system for the
last thirty-five years or so. It may be the single most significant impact upon
the way education is done in the United States.
If you want to read up on this, by the way, in
preparation for that, I’d recommend two books. One is called, Chris Chrisman
Goes to College. It’s by James Sire, who wrote the wonderful book The
Universe Next Door, which we have sort of used as a guide to our study this
summer. And it’s a story account of a young evangelical Christian who leaves a
Bible church and goes off to a fictitious state university called Handsome State
University, which is a thinly veiled reference to the University of California
at Berkley, otherwise known as “the nut house.” And it’s a beautiful exercise
in what happens to a young evangelical in that kind of a hot-house environment,
and he explores some of the impacts of Postmodernism.
The second book I would recommend to you is a book I
haven’t mentioned before this summer is by Dinesh D’Souza. He was a policy
advisor for President Reagan, is now on the campus circuit speaking and writing
and such, and his book is Illiberal Education: The
Politics of Race & Sex on Campus. In
my view, no parent ought to send a child off to college or university without
having read Dinesh D’Souza’s, Illiberal Education, because it is a
classic exposй of the kind of stuff going on in the universities today. But at
any rate, we’ll do “Postmodernism Goes to College” next week.
I’m beginning with Genesis 3 tonight for a
very specific reason. It seems to me that as the children of Israel had been in
bondage for 400 years or more in Egypt, a land dominated by polytheism, and thus
by a pluralistic view of reality, that what God tells Moses to say to the
children of Israel about Him is very relevant to us in our setting.
People talk about Postmodernism having caused us to
lose two things: first, the center. We’ve lost the center in our culture.
There’s no common ground any more. You hear people talking about why politics
are so rancorous today, and the discussion is so bitter in politics. We’ve lost
the center. There’s no common point for a discourse which is genteel and
vigorous, to be sure, but nevertheless embracive of certain common ideals. That
center has been lost.
And also, the horizon has been lost. You hear
people talking about the center being lost, and the horizon being lost. There
are no boundaries any more. You know, everything’s been transgressed. For the
last forty years, if you’re really smart, and you’re part of the
intelligentsia–whether you’re in the media, whether you are making movies,
whether you are writing books, whether you’re teaching school–the thing that
this culture rewards you for is doing what? Transgressing every boundary you can
You know, if you had stood up at any political
convention in the 1960’s and said, “What you are talking about today is going to
directly lead to homosexual marriage,” you would have been derided as the most
mean-spirited, narrow-minded, fire-breathing, fundamentalist, totalitarian, you
know, fill in every other lousy word you can think of that had ever come along,
and you would have been excluded immediately from being considered seriously
about what you were saying. But where are we now? Almost to the point where if
you raise a question about that, that you are now excluded from the
Now what happened? This is forty years, folks! So
we have watched, for forty years, every boundary you can think of be
transgressed. You know, people today say, “Look, if you legalize same-sex
marriage, well, what about pedophilia?” And others would say, “No-o-o! We’re
not talking about that!!” Yeah? Well, you just wait about ten years. NAMBLA,
the National Man-Boy Love Association…I guarantee you, they’ll be coming
back. Look, if we can define marriage this way, why not a relationship between
a 43-year-old man and a twelve-year-old boy? Why not? What if they want to do
it? Why don’t we call it marriage? So we’ve watched every boundary that you
can transgress be transgressed. We’ve lost the center, we’ve lost the horizon.
And the children of Israel are in that kind of a
hot-house culture, themselves, their strong, biblical beliefs under assault from
Egyptian polytheism at every turn. And isn’t it interesting what happens when
God comes to Moses in Exodus 3:10-15. We tend to focus on the really funny
story of Moses finding all the excuses about why he shouldn’t be the guy to go
back to speak to the children of Israel. But, you know, the real story is what
God tells Moses to say to the children of Israel about Him. Listen to what the
Exodus 3:10 —
“Therefore, come now, and I will
send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of
Egypt.” But Moses said to God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that
I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” And He
[that is, God] said, “Certainly I will be
with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when
you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this
mountain. The Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and
I shall say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may
say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
[And it’s interesting, isn’t it, to look at what looks like Moses’ posturing and
trying to get out of this task that the Lord has assigned to him, but really,
the next statement is the most important statement of the whole passage. God
says, ‘this is what you tell them when you go back.’]
“And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO
I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me
to you.’ ”
Amen. Thus ends this reading of God’s holy word. May He
add His blessing to it.
It’s as if God says, ‘Go tell them that the center
of everything is who I am. I am the point from which everything else emanates.
I am the Being around whom the whole world revolves, and nothing else makes
sense apart from Me. You go tell them that’s who’s sending you to them.’ And
what a glorious message that is! That’s why we sang Jesus Shall Reign,
and we sang We Praise You, O God, Our Redeemer, Creator. That centering
truth enables us, in a crazy world, to make sense out of life.
We’re going to look at Postmodernism tonight. I
want to read you something written by that prophet of Postmodernism who lived in
the nineteenth century. Postmodernism is primarily a late-twentieth century,
and now twenty-first century phenomenon, but it had its roots in the same
philosopher who gave us Nihilism, Freiderich Nietzsche. And in his story The
Madman, he shares this dialogue:
“Whither is God?” the madman cried. “I shall tell
you. We have killed Him, you and I. All of us are His murderers.” “But how
have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the
sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? Are we not straying as through an
infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Do we not smell
anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God
remains dead, and we have killed Him. How shall we, the murderers of all
murderers, comfort ourselves?” “I come too early,” he said to them. “My time
has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering.
It has not yet reached the ears of man.”
Now, that’s a synopsis of a longer passage, but
here’s the framework. The madman comes and announces to the people that God is
dead. They look at him, and they call him a madman. He responds by saying,
“Ah, the news has not reached you yet. You’ll understand later.”
And it’s a prophetic picture. Nietzsche saw the end
of a philosophy that had already taken place in his own time, but the logical
end of that philosophy had not come home to most of the people who had already
embraced that philosophy in Nietzsche’s own time. And he knew that sooner or
later, people were going to figure out that by embracing what they had embraced,
they were then going to have to embrace the idea of a world without God. And
when that happened, he said, the greatest crisis that ever would face mankind
would occur. How would man live without God? How would he transcend that loss,
the loss of God? And the great adventure of humanity would be in transcending
that loss. Postmodernism is, in a real sense, the coalescence and the fruition
of this prophecy by Nietzsche.
Now, let me just pause right here, because you may
be saying, like perhaps you’ve been saying quietly to yourself all along, “Now,
how, exactly, does all this egg-headed stuff about Nietzsche and the madman and
Postmodernism help me in this life?” And that’s a fair question. I want to
say, my wife is really good about bringing me down to earth. Wives do that, you
I love the story that Haley Barbour tells. When he
was serving with President Reagan, one day they were on Air Force One, on the
way out west somewhere, and as they were crossing the Mississippi River way up
in the sky–25, 30, 35,40 thousand feet up in Air Force One–Haley Barbour was
with Ronald Reagan, and he said, “Would it be OK if I called Marsha?” And he
called Marsha from Air Force One, and with great pride and delight, 40,000 feet
in the air, he said to Marsha, “You’ll never guess where I am.” “Where are you,
Haley?” “I’m in Air Force One. I’m right above you. If I could see that far,
I could probably see Yazoo City.” She said, “Well, let me tell you where I am,
Haley. I’m in the laundry room, and the kids are sick on the stomach, and
they’ve thrown up on all the sheets, and the washing machine needs to be fixed,
and I’m here alone.” “OK, honey. Talk to you when I’m back!” Click!
I understand that it can be real nice to talk about
all this airy-fairy stuff, and you can wonder, “Yeah, but look, my wife’s died”;
or, “My children are really having trouble in school”; or, “I’ve got marital
problems”; or, “I’d like to really know how to be a better parent or a better
husband”; or ….you know. There are all sorts of practical problems that
crowd in. Why in the world would we want to spend time talking about
something like this?
Well, I think there are actually a lot of good
answers to that. Let me just give you two. One is this: if you don’t
understand Postmodernism, you don’t understand the times that you live in.
And presumably, that’s something that we would want to do. We would want to
understand the times that we live in. If we don’t understand those times, we’re
going to have a hard time understanding what people are saying to us, and
they’re going to have a hard time understanding what we’re saying to them. And
so, presumably, it would be a good thing to understand the times we live in.
The second reason is this: if a non-Christian
believes the things that Postmodernism assumes, it can inoculate you to the
gospel. What I mean by that is if you imbibe the myths of Postmodernism, it
can keep the gospel from getting through to you. It’s like an ingenious
strategy of Satan to keep you from listening to the gospel. And if you are a
Christian and you imbibe part of the truths of Postmodernism, it can cripple
your ability to live the Christian life, because Paul said in Romans 12:1,2 that
we are not to be conformed to this world, but we are to be transformed by the
renewing of our minds. And he meant transformed by the renewing of our minds in
accordance with His word, and not the opinions of the age. So for at least both
those reasons, I think it’s important for us to spend just a little bit of time
tonight on Postmodernism.
What is Postmodernism? I’ve already
suggested to you that in Postmodernism we have lost the center and the horizon
in our culture. When God is excluded from reality, both the substance and the
value of everything else goes with Him. So what do we mean by ‘Postmodernism’
beyond the idea of pluralism of perspectives and a bag full of different
philosophies of life? Well, Postmodernism is notoriously hard to define,
especially because one of the tenents of Postmodernism is that there is no
such thing as absolute truth. So how do you define something that says all
predication is invalid? You know, how do you predicate about it, if its
fundamental point is that all predication is invalid, that you can’t really say
anything true about anything? How can you say something true about a theory
that says you can’t say anything true about anything?
So, it’s hard to
define. But here’s a shorthand attempt. Postmodernism, just for historical
information, generally is thought to have arisen first as a term used in
reference to architecture, and it’s a term that was originally used to refer to
a tendency in architects to move away from the sort of simple, unadorned,
impersonal boxes of concrete that began to proliferate on the American culture
when the dominant…on the American landscape…when the dominant idea in
architecture was that form ought to follow function. Everything ought to be
functional, and therefore you got these huge square and triangular buildings of
glass and metal, and they were very big, very large, and they look like blocks
sort of stacked up on one another, and they weren’t very attractive. But they
were designed because of functional concerns. And Postmodernism came along and
attempted to personalize some of that impersonal ‘form follows function’ kind of
thinking. But what happened was, that term, Postmodernism, or Postmodern, was
picked up by sociologists and philosophers and used in another way.
And here’s how they used it. There was a French
Jean-Francoise Lyotard, who used the term to indicate a
shift in cultural legitimation. And he defined Postmodern as meaning ‘incredulity
toward metanarratives.’ That means that Postmodernism doesn’t like someone
to tell you a comprehensive, explanatory story for the totality of the world as
it is. In other words, Postmodernism doesn’t like a worldview. It doesn’t like
a comprehensive story that attempts to make sense of and explain everything
else, whether it’s Naturalism that says “Hey, there is no God, but this world is
a fine-oiled machine, and if you study your science and your math, you can
figure it out and have a wonderful life.” Postmodernism doesn’t like that.
Postmodernism doesn’t like Christianity. It doesn’t
like Christianity to predicate things about reality: that there’s a God, He
brought this world into being; he controls it under His Providence; one day He’s
going to bring it to an end and usher in the new heavens and the new earth.
They don’t like that, what they call a ‘metanarrative,’ a comprehensive story
that overarches everything else and makes sense out of everything that’s part of
it. So Postmodernism doesn’t like a single story, a worldview, or a
metanarrative that holds a culture together.
And so, with Postmodernism, no story can have any
more credibility than any other story. All stories are equally valid and
equally invalid. Perfectly fine for you to believe that story, as long as you
don’t impose it on anybody else.
Flashback: couple of
weeks ago, the Democratic National Convention. Ron Reagan, son of our former
President, saying it is fine for a very small minority of people to think that
it would be wrong to tamper with the basic elements of life in those cells in a
Petrie dish, but it would be wrong for them to impose that on the rest of us,
when there are cures to be found for Alzheimer’s etcetera, etcetera. Do you
see the idea? That metanarrative is fine for them to believe…that story is
fine, but if they want to look at life in that way, perfectly fine, free
country. We’re in favor of that. That just can have absolutely no impact on
anybody else. They cannot force that story on you and me and restrict our
freedom. There you have a classic example of Postmodernism.
III. The prime issue of
Thirdly, to identify the prime issue that
Postmodernism is trying to get at. Postmodernism is not concerned with what is
there, what is ultimate reality. It is not concerned with how we know ultimate
reality. It is concerned with how we construct meaning with language. It is
concerned with how we construct meaning with language. Postmodernism believes
that we know nothing about ultimate reality, and can know nothing about ultimate
reality; and that we construct our own meaning with language.
Let me give you three categories that we’ll come
back to over and over in the next fifteen minutes or so: Pre-Modern, Modern, and
Postmodern. Now, maybe this will give you a helpful grid to think about this.
The Pre-Modern thinker, for instance, looked
at the world and said, “It’s our job as humans to create a just society based on
a just God.”
The Modern thinker came along and said,
“No,no,no! We don’t need to have a just God to have a just society. What we
need is universal human reason, and that can create a just society. In fact, it
can create a more just society than those societies that people tried to base on
So the Pre-Modern thinker says, “Our job is to
create a just society based on a just God.” The Modern thinker says, “No,no,no!
Our job is to create a just society based on universal human reason.”
Then, the Postmodern thinker comes along, and
he says, “Justice? There is no justice. All you can do is speak justice into
being. You create justice out of your own head, and with your own words. What
Now, that’s exactly where we are today, folks. If
you go back to our founding fathers, they believed that you created a just
society based on a just God. Then, flip forward to the late nineteenth century,
Oliver Wendell Holmes said that you create a just society based on universal
human reason. And the Postmodernist comes along, and he says, “Look, why should
we think that universal human reason is able to create something so absolute as
a just society? All that we’re doing when we talk about just society is using
our words to talk about what we want. So there is no universal standard of
Now, let me just pause and give you a couple of
illustrations about how this plays out. A lot of times, perhaps, as you’ve
watched political coverage over the last couple of months, you’ve heard people
talking about why are things so nasty now in politics. Well, if you’re a student
of American politics, my guess is you can find some times that are just as nasty
as now. But let me suggest that there’s a reason why people are saying that
things are more nasty than they’ve ever been. And I think here’s the reason.
Because whereas, used to, just about everybody in American politics believed
that there was something that we could call transcendent truth, truth that is
outside of ourselves, that we didn’t invent ourselves. And now, most people in
American politics do not believe that. And one of the biggest divides in
American politics is between those who do believe that now and who don’t believe
that. And those who don’t believe that there is any ultimate reality believe
that politics itself creates reality, and, therefore, politics takes the place
that religion used to take.
Have you ever heard the phrase ‘the politics of
meaning’? The idea behind that phrase is that our politics create meaning.
Now, whereas two hundred years ago in America nobody would have said ‘politics
create meaning’–they would have said, “God creates meaning, transcendent truth
creates meaning; politics is our job of working out that truth in practical
ways, so that we can live in a just society.” Now the argument is, “No,no,no!
There is no absolute truth, there is no absolute meaning; but you can create it
yourself, and the way you do that is, politics.” And so politics becomes far
more cut-throat, even than it has been before, because it’s the whole shebang.
There is nothing beyond it, it is the big show. Lose this show, there’s no
chance for a reprise. OK? So I want to suggest that that’s one reason, one
example of how Postmodernism impacts us in our culture.
Here’s another example. I just got this about an
hour ago. It’s a statement by Robert Reich, the former Labor Secretary for
President Clinton. He’s just written:
“The great conflict of the 21st century may be
between the West and terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The
underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist
fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those
who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority;
between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that
human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between
those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious
dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic. Terrorism
will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism is not the only danger we face.”1
In other words, you are more dangerous to America
Now, two things about that statement: one is, first
of all, it ignores the reality which, thankfully, the 9/11 Commission brought
its attention to. Our battle today is not with terrorism, as if there’s some
abstract thing out there called ‘terrorism’: our battle is with Islamic
terrorists. So the idea that terrorism is a tactic, not a belief, is one of the
stupidest statements that you could ever make. Only a Western, pin-headed
liberal could look out and think that Muslims don’t care about what you
believe. Dr. Jones, do Muslims care about what people believe? They sure do!
Talk with Dr. Jones sometime, if you don’t believe Muslims care about what
people believe. It is very important. Those people are strapping bombs on
themselves because they care very much about what people believe, and they think
that we have misled the entire world, and they’re about the job of correcting
it. So, to think that these terrorists are using a tactic that has no belief
behind it is a bone-jarringly dumb move.
But the second thing about it is, notice how it
poses the battle as between those who believe in transcendent truth and those
who don’t. And who are the human liberators? The ones who don’t believe in
transcendent truth. Now you just watch that, when we move on here in just a
couple of seconds. I have five minutes and eight points. OK, here we go.
IV. We do not have access to
absolute truth — only stories.
Fourth point: Postmodernism argues that we do
not have access to absolute truth; the truth about reality is forever hidden
from us. All we can do is tell stories. Nietzsche put it this way:
“What, then, is truth? A mobile
army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms. In short, a sum of human
relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and
rhetorically, and which, after long use, seem firm, canonical and obligatory to
people. Truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is
what they are: metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power. Coins
which have lost their pictures now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.”
So, according to Postmodernism, nothing we think we
know can be checked against reality as such, and so all we have is stories.
That’s it. Just stories. Truth is whatever we can get our community to
agree on. And our story is as true as any other story will ever be. So the
only kind of truth there is, is pragmatic truth.
Now, it’s easy to see how this notion, when applied
to religious claims, triggers a radical relativism. The Pre-Modern man believed
that there was a metanarrative; there was a story, and it was true, and it was
given by God. Modern man says there is a metanarrative, but it’s figured out by
human reason, and it all makes sense. Postmodern man says truth is just
something that we invent with our words.
V. Language is a power play.
Now. That leads to my fifth point, which is that in
Postmodernism language is a power-play. Language is a power-play. All stories,
all narratives, all metanarratives, are just a mask for power; and any one
narrative used as a metanarrative (as a total explanation of the way things are)
is oppression. Francis Bacon once said “Knowledge is power.” The Postmodernist
says there is no such thing as knowledge; story is power. Language is power.
Do you ever wonder why we are arguing now about
gender-inclusive language? It’s because people have decided that language is
all there is–there’s no truth behind it–language is the way you impose your
worldview. They don’t like the old worldview, so they changed the language to
bring about a new worldview. That’s why we’re arguing, for instance, about
gender-inclusive language. With Postmodernism, there is no purely objective
knowledge, no truth of correspondence; only stories, stories which, when they
are believed, give the storyteller power over others.
The Premodern man says the story that explains life
was given to us by God, it was revealed in the Scripture. The Modern man comes
along and says no, the story of this world is revealed by universal reason
yielding truth about reality. The Postmodern man comes along and he says, nope,
every story that tries to explain this world is just a power-play by one person
trying to dominate other people. So, language is a power-play.
VI. Human beings are whatever we
say we are.
What about human beings? What are
human beings? Well, the Postmodernist says the human being is simply what we
construct about ourselves in language. We make ourselves by what we say about
ourselves. Humanity is nothing more than a fiction composed by modern human
sciences. The Premodern man said that human beings were created in the image of
God, and therefore, had a central dignity. The Modern man said no, human beings
are the product of their DNA template and unplanned sequences of evolution and
survival of the fittest. [Postmodern] man says, “No, no, no–it’s not that
glorious. We’re just self-constructed by the language we use to describe
VII. Ethics are simply a social
What about ethics? Well, you can imagine.
That’s my seventh point. In Postmodernism, ethics are simply a social
construct. Just like language, social good is whatever society takes it to be.
Truth is whatever we decide it is. Morality is whatever we decide it is. And
therefore, Postmodernism entails a radical ethical relativism. That’s why
Michael Foucault, the radical French philosopher, argued that law equals
repression. Why? Because it’s somebody imposing their ethical metanarrative on
somebody else. So what equals freedom? Decriminalization. The more you
decriminalize, the freer people are because law is simply the imposition of one
person’s idea on everybody else. And that is why Foucault–who by the way,
thought that the greatest good was the individual’s freedom to maximize his or
her own pleasure–because he believed that, he agonized for hours on questions
like whether rape should be regulated by law, because law is repression, and
decriminalization is freedom. Therefore, shouldn’t we get rid of rape laws?
Now, this guy sat around and thought about this! He was also a flaming
homosexual, I might add.
So the Premodern person says ethics is based on the
character of the transcendent God. The Modern person says, “No, you learn
what’s right and wrong from human reason and experience.” The Postmodern man
says, “Right and wrong? We make that up as we go along!”
VIII. Linguistic theory.
What is the cutting edge of Postmodernism?
Buckle your seatbelts. Linguistic theory. Yeah. This is the stuff that grew
out of English departments in the 1960’s. You know, in the Middle Ages it was
theology that was queen of the sciences. In the Enlightenment, it was
philosophy and the hard sciences–whether it be math or physics. For
Postmodernism, the queen of the sciences is literary theory. So the kings
of the hill are people like Jacques Derrida, and his deconstructionism; or
Stanley Fish and his reader response approach to literary theory. These are the
cutting edge of Postmodernism. It makes sense, doesn’t it? If it’s all just
about language, that’s where the cutting edge of culture is.
IX. Postmodernism’s impact on
What has been Postmodernism’s impact on history,
science, and theology? Since there’s no objective thing out there that you can
know, history no longer is the job of the historian to show you the past as
faithfully as he can, and to help you to appreciate it on its own terms. No.
History is to be managed by the historian in order to make the point that the
historian wants to make to the present day, whether his history actually relates
to the history of the past or not.
Do you remember the biography that came out–it’s
within the last seven years–of Ronald Reagan? It was called Dutch. Do
you remember that the man who wrote it put a story in it about his meeting with
President Reagan. He never met President Reagan. Now, this was given as a
serous work of history. What happened? Postmodernism says, “Who cares if you
make up stuff, because what’s the difference whether it happened or it didn’t?
It’s not reality. Reality is what we say it is.” And so Postmodernism radically
changes history. You can’t have a decent discussion now about what’s true and
false in history, because for the Postmodernist — “Ahh, who cares?” You see why
this is relevant to “Postmodernism Goes to College” next week.
Secondly, what kind of impact has Postmodernism
made on science itself? Well, you know, it’s hard to change 2 + 2 = 4. But
the philosophy of science has been profoundly impacted by Postmodernism.
Postmodernists have worked very hard to deny that there is any known or knowable
connection between what we think and say and what is actually out there in the
world. The Postmodernist says there is no proof that the rules of science are
good, other than the consensus extended to those rules by the experts. To which
one scientist has responded, “Fine. Step out that tenth story window and tell
me that when you hit the bottom! You know, you can’t ignore that law of
reality, but Postmodernism is even trying to change the way we do science
And perhaps you heard in the 1970’s, when people
were upset about the “new math.” Well, now you know there is a movement in
education to explain to teachers that if somebody says 2 + 2 = 5, it would be
terrible to tell them that they’re wrong, and that 2 + 2 = 4. Well, what’s
happening there? The influence of this kind of relativistic thinking?
Postmodernism has also impacted theology.
When you hear theologians talking about ‘story,’ that we need to think in terms
of ‘story’ today, they may well be buying into aspects of Postmodernism.
Well, I’m going to stop right there, and we’ll do
“Postmodernism Goes to College” next week, and see how this stuff is going to be
working out in the heads and hearts of your collegians. Let’s pray.
Heavenly Father, thank you for the patience of
these folks to listen and think through these things. We live in a crazy world.
When man rejects God, we’ll believe anything. And we see that happening all
around us. Help us to be aware of that; help us to be biblical in our response
to it; help us to think rigorously and biblically, according to your word, and
to faithfully proclaim the truth of Christ to a generation that has no center
and no horizon. We ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen.
Family Research Council.
© 2019 First Presbyterian Church.
This transcribed message has been lightly edited and formatted for the Web site. No attempt has been made, however, to alter the basic extemporaneous delivery style, or to produce a grammatically accurate, publication-ready manuscript conforming to an established style template.
Should there be questions regarding grammar or theological content, the reader should presume any website error to be with the webmaster/transcriber/editor rather than with the original speaker. For full copyright, reproduction and permission information, please visit the First Presbyterian Church Copyright, Reproduction & Permission statement.
To view recordings of our entire services, visit our Facebook page.