Christianity vs. postmodernism:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
no middle ground
 
By David R. Wills
© 2007 all rights reserved
 
 

 
Click on this link for Part I of this series.
 
 
 
Part II: Effects of the lie
 
Postmodernism denies there is truth, while insisting that its own claims are true.  It rejects all authority but its own.  It insists that words and propositions have no certain meaning, while using words and propositions to convey the meaning of postmodernism (and to attempt to overthrow the meaning of everything else).
 
Postmodernism is absurdity masquerading as enlightened intellectualism.  It is anarchy parading as liberal society.  It is disorder and confusion vaunting itself as a New Order.
 
Who was the father of postmodernism?  Was it Friedrich Nietzsche (d. 1900), whose model human, the "superman", despises morality (and reason) as weakness and whose unrestrained 'will to power' Nietzsche idolized?  Or, was it Charles Darwin (d. 1882), who not only 'discovered' mankind's origins slithering from some primordial mud hole but, in so doing, sought to obliterate all purpose and meaning related to human existence?  Was it, perhaps, Werner Heisenberg (d. 1976), whose "uncertainty principle" (in physics) was seen to have far-reaching implications for the supposed uncertainty of all knowledge?  How about Albert Einstein (d. 1955), whose "theory of relativity" seems to suggest there is no objective reality, but only relative, individual perception?
 
Each of those men and their ideas-and many others with them (especially, since about the mid-1800's)-has profoundly affected the way in which many people have come to view the world.
 
It is instructive to note, that postmodernism, which embodies various interrelated ideas, has many different sources; furthermore, that it is impossible to identify a specific point in time when those ideas began to congeal in such a way as to form the newly prevailing worldview of postmodernism.  It's as if postmodernism were a mighty river whose diverse tributaries-streams of thought, moved by some invisible power over an uncharted but certain course, rush to pour their respective contents into a now rushing torrent (postmodernism); which, by brute force of its momentum, sweeps away everything in its path that isn't firmly anchored-to truth.
 
Has that mighty river, postmodernism, no father, indeed?  What, then, is that unseen power that pulls men's thoughts always downward, away from loftier heights, and inexorably charts for them a course leading to grosser darkness and eventual destruction?
 

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (emphasis added).  John 8:44
 
There is a spirit animating and directing the course of postmodernism:
 

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. […]  They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.  We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.  Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error (emphasis added).
1 John 4:3,5,6
 
Satan is the father of postmodernism.  His bloodstained fingerprints are all over it.
 
EQUIVOCATION
Equivocal means "subject to two or more interpretations".[i]  One of postmodernism's leading lights, Jacques Derrida (d. 2004), forthrightly endorsed equivocation:
 
Jacques Derrida […] was an Algerian-born French philosopher, known as the founder of deconstruction.  […]
 
At its core, if it can be said to have one, deconstruction is an attempt to open a text (literary, philosophical, or otherwise) to several meanings and interpretations[ii] (emphasis added).
 
By denying the knowledge of objective truth and reality, postmodernists leave no other option to themselves but to insist that words must have no certain meaning.  Furthermore, since there is no objective truth and words have no certain meaning, the opinions of each and every individual must be equally valid.
 
Postmodernism means to be equi-vocal, to give 'equal voice'-not simply to everyone, but to everything everyone says.  There is another word for the practice of saying one thing but meaning something else: it's called
 
LYING
Someone wrote the following comment, to Part I of this series:
 
"So let me get this straight.  Understanding postmodernity is entirely dependent on determining what the meaning of 'is' is...right?"
 
Of course, that brings to mind the duplicitous conduct of former President Clinton, who attempted to use that very 'argument' in the hope of extricating himself from (what for many people would have been) humiliating circumstances.  Did he think that he was lying, or merely equivocating?  Or, was he simply availing himself of the newfound 'benefits' of postmodernism?
 
If postmodernism does not in every circumstance instigate lying, at least the pervasiveness of that philosophy has done much to assuage the sense of guilt associated with lying, as if the lie of postmodernism itself were a hot iron to "sear the consciences" of many.  Of course, the biggest lie of all is that 'there is no truth'-with its evil purpose to peremptorily absolve all liars.
 
Equivocation; duplicity; lying: already, the river is a raging torrent.
 
The foregoing ideas form the roots of
 
MORAL RELATIVISM
Moral relativism embodies the notion that, in the absence of a universal code of moral principles (having rejected the authority of God and his Word), one's decisions and conduct can only be perceived as being either 'good' or 'bad' (although, in fact, even those terms are meaningless) in the context of-what?-one's own temporal code of ethics; the quagmire of transient 'cultural norms'; or, one's fleeting and biased perceptions of momentary 'circumstances'?  In every case, however, judgments of morality belong exclusively to each individual, and are considered valid only with respect to one's own conduct.  Obviously, moral relativism annihilates all common and reasonable grounds for differentiating right from wrong, or good from evil.
 
Postmodernism has been called by many, "liberating".  It is liberating, in the same sense that licentiousness is liberating.  Postmodernism is not merely taken as a 'license' to do as one pleases, but in fact it is presented just for that purpose.  It is the philosophy of lawlessness: to deny truth and, in its place, allow that anything goes.[iii]
 
The pervasiveness of belief in moral relativism dulls-if it does not deaden-individuals' consciences regarding moral judgment.  Even the Church has not been unaffected by that belief.  Only a weakened faith in the supreme authority of God's Word can account for the widespread effects of moral relativism that are wreaking havoc among professing Christians; a point that will be more fully expounded in Part III of this series.
 
Moral relativism is seen by postmodernists not only as pertaining to the nature of things and, thus, to individuals' so-called 'human rights'.  Moral relativism is moreover being imposed upon whole societies, as that belief is increasingly codified and institutionalized under the banner of pluralism or, more specifically,
 
MULTICULTURALISM
If, as postmodernism claims, there is neither objective reality nor universal truth; and, if words that otherwise indicate moral judgments (right vs. wrong; or good vs. bad or evil) are now meaningless: then, there remain no substantive reasons why public policy should preferentially promote one 'culture' above another.  Much less should public policy be construed so as to suggest that any one culture is in some way better than others.
 
EXCEPT-and this exception must not be overlooked-that, because the dark 'logic' of postmodernism has evidently become the prevailing worldview which dominates the minds of those who shape public policy, especially amongst erstwhile Western societies, multiculturalism is now tacitly, if not explicitly touted as being a central doctrine to the new standard of acceptable belief and conduct.
 
The ideal of multiculturalism-irrational though it is-most likely comes closer (at least in the minds of postmodernists) than previous social experiments, to constituting the basis of a long dreamt of 'egalitarian (equality) Utopia (paradise-like)'.  Of course, postmodernists' Paradise of Equality can tolerate no 'intolerance', that is, it cannot tolerate threats either to the principles, or to the sovereignty, of its own repressive rule.
 
That fact does much to explain why, for example, Christian fundamentalists, who insist upon the veracity, the supreme authority, and the universality of God's Word, are increasingly vilified within predominantly postmodern cultures.  It furthermore explains why no real distinction today is made (notably, by Western nations' mainstream media-MSM) between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists, respectively.
 
The term fundamentalism was coined by Bible-believing Christians, in the early part of the twentieth century, to distinguish themselves from the swelling tide of apostates who pervert the meaning of Christianity even while professing their allegiance to it.  How, then, did the term fundamentalism come to be attributed as readily to radical Islamic terrorists, as to Bible-believing Christians?
 
When one considers that Christian fundamentalism represents the most powerful threat to the inconsistencies and irrationality of postmodernism-and thus to the ability of that philosophy to retain its privileged status in contemporary societies; and when one recognizes the angst that true Christianity provokes among postmodernists, whose ideas and beliefs are antithetical to Christianity; it is not difficult to understand why Christians in general, and Christian fundamentalists in particular, are openly assailed with a plethora of invectives including, but not limited to: intolerant, judgmental, arrogant, dogmatic, unintelligent, uncivil, extremists, radicals, fanatics, hate-mongers, intimidating, militant, threatening, and dangerous.  (Words really do have meaning to postmodernists-when it suits their purpose.  That is equivocation in action.)
 
Back to Utopia.  John Lennon wrote the well-known 'Utopia supranational anthem'.  Here's one verse from that song:
 
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace
 
Nothing to kill or die for (eliminate the causes of war), and no religion, too.  Well, not exactly.  For, many postmodernists consider themselves to be very 'spiritual' people.  Religion, as such, is not a bad thing.  In fact, there are prominent religious leaders-even so-called 'Christian' ones-who are self-proclaimed postmodernists.  No, it isn't religion that sticks in the craw of postmodernists: it's those, those-fundamentalists!
 

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness [religion], but denying the power thereof: from such turn away (emphasis added).  2 Timothy 3:1-5a
 
People who are only interested in human 'spirituality' don't foment religious strife.  Hey, you channel an Ascended Master?  Cool.  You believe you're a goddess with mystical powers?  How divine!
 
Everyone knows that religious strife is brought on by people who are dogmatic and intolerant in their beliefs.  Religious strife is occasioned by fundamentalists.  As proof of that, look at Al-Qaeda: aren't they often referred to as religious (Islamic) fundamentalists?  Of course, those guys have hijacked the Religion of Peace, so, Islam's not bad-only fundamentalists are bad, right?
 
If only fundamentalists could be marginalized or silenced altogether, there might then be "Nothing to kill or die for".  Then the whole world could hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the campfire, and revel in the "shared essentials" of their syncretist idolatry.  In that happy day, everyone would truly have an 'equal voice', at least where religion-and popular culture-are concerned.
 
How have Christians responded, in the face of often withering criticism and reproach?  When accused of being intolerant of others' beliefs, many followers of Jesus Christ-due to their ignorance concerning Christ's own teachings-acknowledge such accusations as being legitimate criticisms of their (Christians') cultural insensitivity, or of their naïve bigotry, or both.
 
Although this issue will also be further addressed in Part III, the point is that postmodernism is making targets of Christians as well as of Christianity; and the Church's response has largely failed to meet that challenge.
 
ANARCHY
By denying objective truth, postmodernism has not only given license to say whatever one pleases.  According to postmodern beliefs, it isn't that lying is O.K., but rather there is no such thing as lying, for there is no objective truth.
 
That same idea, that same principle, applies not just to lying but also to the remaining nine-of the Ten Commandments.  The only real reason not to steal is not because stealing is a violation of state or federal law.  Consider, for example, that homosexual acts used to be against the law; however, within but one generation, homosexuality has now come to be protected by law.
 
Nor is it meaningful-in the postmodern world-to argue that stealing is 'bad' for society.  What one person may perceive as bad (having one's money stolen), another may perceive as good (the thief can buy a new dress).  Perception is everything.  Objective reality and moral certitude are nothing.  "What?  Are you trying to impose your morality on me?  That may be true for you, but that's your opinion!"
 
Emboldened by the vicissitudes of law; supported by a philosophy that rejects objective truth and universal authority: that sounds like a prescription for anarchy.
 
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon is the first self-proclaimed anarchist, a label which he adopted in his 1840 treatise What is Property?  It is for this reason that some declare Proudhon the founder of modern anarchist theory.[]  He developed the theory of […] "positive anarchy" in which order arises from every individual "doing what he wishes and only what he wishes" [iv] (emphasis added).
 
Perhaps, Proudhon was also the first postmodernist.  It certainly is true that his ideas are yet another polluted stream swelling that filthy and turbulent river.
 
The real reason not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, etc., is because those things are objectively, universally forbidden-not by the law of man, which is ever subject to change, but by the law of God, which is eternal and immutable (unchangeable).
 

In its drive to obliterate belief in objective reality and universal truth, postmodernism seeks to destroy the ONE thing that has long stood to protect human society from self-destruction: faith in the Word of God.
 
Do postmodernists suppose that anarchy is preferable to civil society?  No doubt some postmodernist would answer, "That depends on what you mean by 'civil'".  (This line of inquiry, of course, hints at a wider critique of leftist ideologies; which, critique, would add much to prove the devil's influence on postmodernism, but is beyond the scope of this series.)
 
When, at length, society begins to dissolve into widespread anarchy (a process that is already advancing in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States and elsewhere), history shows there is a ready remedy: totalitarian dictatorship.  A thoughtful-that is, a rational analysis reveals that postmodernism is in essence a totalitarian philosophy.  Of course, no self-respecting postmodernist would agree with that statement.  It is a true statement, nevertheless.
 
CONCLUSION
The postmodern era can, of necessity, subsist for only a brief period of time.  Rather than serving to restrain the darker aspects of fallen human nature and, instead, inspire men and women to nobler attitudes and conduct, postmodernism propels fallen humanity headlong towards the rapidly approaching Apocalypse.  The self-destructiveness of postmodernism is inherently self-limiting; it cannot sustain human cohabitation, much less civil human society.  But that thought is of little comfort.  For, until its eventual demise, this ideology of madness no doubt will yet bring unspeakable suffering to mankind.
 
In the meantime, seeing that postmodernism is empowered by the spirit of antichrist and, therefore, it is the embodiment of a vital enmity against Christianity; that spirit has an agenda in advancing postmodernism:
 
Fragment; dis-integrate; commingle; weaken the bastions of Christianity and break up predominantly Christian cultures, by creating a true cultural 'melting pot'.  Turn the heat up on Bible-believing Christians, marginalize and intimidate them, in order to cow them.  Pretend that every cultural and religious idea is, or at least deserves to be, on equal footing (equivocate), while giving preferential access to anything but Christianity in public schools, public media, and other public forums.  Open wide the borders-spiritually as well as physically: "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses", but don't even think about exposing them to the Gospel, nor teach them classical Western idealism.  Overrun the ramparts of Christian teachings and history, with tens of millions of non-Christians whose beliefs and interests (postmodern propaganda says) Christianity narrow-mindedly obstructs.  At the very least, co-opt Christianity.  Make it into something that is less objectionable and less threatening to postmodernism.
 
If multiculturalism is not a weapon in the hands of postmodernists, to destroy Western (Christian) civilization; then, why is multiculturalism not similarly being force-fed to children in the public schools of Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or China, or Russia, or India, or Pakistan?  Why is multiculturalism not a hot item on those governments' agendas?  Why is multiculturalism essentially being crammed down the throats of Western (nominally Christian) nations, notably, America?
 
While children abroad are being trained by jihadists to be martyrs for the cause of Allah, children in the United States-untold millions of them-are being trained by postmodern multiculturalists to live and die for the cause of the New World Order.  And while Americans are fighting 'terrorism' across the sea, a less visible-but no less lethal-war is being waged on Main Street, USA: a spiritual war-foremost, for the meaning, as well as for the dissemination of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; which is a war for the soul of this nation, and for the souls of our children.
 
 
 

[i] Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.  Online at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/equivocal

[ii] "Jacques Derrida", Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.  Online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida , obtained March 22, 2007.

[iii] "Philosophical Objections to the Knowability of Truth: Answering Postmodernism", Quodlibet: online journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy.  Online at http://www.quodlibet.net/uduigwomen-postmodernism.shtml , obtained March 22, 2007.  The following quote, appearing in this article, is quoted from: Ozumba, G.O. "ISMS of Philosophy", in A Concise Introduction to Philosophy and Logic. 2nd Edition Edited by Uduigwomen, A.F. & Ozumba, G.O. Calabar: Centaur Press, 2002.
Finally, postmodernism is atheistic, anti-metaphysical, anti-status quo of objectivity, consensus and prescriptivism.  It is a deconstruction of all status-quos and standards in all realms of human endeavour [sic].  It is a philosophy of 'anything goes' (Ozumba,60).  (emphasis added)

[iv] "Anarchism", Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.  Online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism , obtained March 23, 2007.