From the ancient world to the contemporary, followers of Jesus Christ have encountered philosophies that often seek to compete or undermine the Christian faith and the Scriptures they are based on. The Apostle Paul, in writing a letter to the church at Colossae, exhorted to believers that they should ensure “no one takes [them] captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary” (Colossians 2:8). One of the most prevalent philosophies of the latter and current century’s is that of postmodernism. The informed prepper knows this.
Postmodernism is the philosophy that rejects absolutes, objectivity, and truth claims. This article will show that postmodernism fails in comparison with the teachings of Christianity when evaluated by objective criteria and fails to be consistent and competently respond to the questions of existence. This contention will be achieved by giving a summary of the worldview, an evaluation of its tenets, followed by a brief evaluation and defense of Christianity.
While postmodernism may have been a consequential response to the failure of modernism, it became a philosophy of skepticism, subjectivism, and shifting morality that Christianity not only rejects at its core, but provides meaningful answers and wisdom. It is imperative that Christian preppers understand the times, but also, the origins as to why there have been ideological shifts in society that impact our lives and how we prep. Above all, as a Christian prepper, one must unashamedly acknowledge God as Lord and Savior and that He alone will preserve us in the midst of tribulation.
Summary of Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a late twentieth-century philosophical worldview allegedly created by necessity rather than naturally. The ideology held by the postmodernist is indecisive about their own opinions and identity, that to claim certainty about anything is arrogant, that the basic principles of life may or may not exist, there are multiple ways of understanding, this world may be one or many, and that truth differs from person to person. Before exploring postmodernism, one must understand modernism.
Modernism emerged after the Enlightenment (the eighteenth-century movement that emerged in American and European philosophy) and can be seen in a variety of forums, from film and literature to architecture and ethics. It was a school of thought meant to be seen as the pinnacle of modern civilization, which having advanced technologically, intellectually, and supposedly had learned from the annals of history, was now prepared for the future. Religions, the most targeted being Christianity, was seen by many as an outdated ideology that no longer served a purpose other than a reminder of an archaic socio-cultural system and existed merely for ceremonial purposes.
In the wake of modernism, with its alleged failure to address problems and perceived wrongdoings in the twentieth century, a new worldview emerged, one lacking structure, order and stability. Postmodernism is “known for its loss of confidence in human reason… rejects the concept of universal, absolute truth… questions the ability of science, education, and technology to solve the major problems of the world… [and] is sometimes linked with religious pluralism”. Yet, while there “is hardly a single field of intellectual endeavour which has not been touched by… postmodern[ism]”, some remark that it “would be a futile and pointless exercise to offer any simple definition of the term itself; indeed, much argument arises over the question of precisely how the postmodern should be defined.” That is why some have stated that “it is far too premature to announce the demise of the postmodern condition while two of the primary forces behind that condition—the rise of neoliberal economics and the liquid realities of information—morph into ever-new guises.”
The ultimate reality in postmodernism, is the one that is created by the individual and can be identical, similar, or entirely different to another individual. It is not bound or founded by one particular source, but rather, reality is defined by one’s experience and does not contradict another as it is personal. This is not to say that there is not a cohesive or rational structure in postmodernism and that two things which are clearly opposite can be true at the same time, however, it does believe that individuals with differing realities can coexist in the same environment and space. Postmodernism “abandons the quest for a unified grasp of objective reality… [asserting] that the world has no center, only differing viewpoints and perspectives.” As such, there is a pluralism that extends through postmodernism as a whole.
In postmodernism, knowledge is gained through personal discovery of an individual. There are no distinctions. Knowledge is shaped by how one interprets the information and how it impacts them on a personal level. Regardless of context, original intentions, or even neutrality, the postmodern reader gains knowledge as they interpret it, based on their view of reality, humanity, and morality. As humanity is the focus of postmodernism and humans are everchanging and evolving, truth is relative (including morality). Facts are inconsistent with faith and matters of the supernatural are perceived as not real and merely opinion. Postmodern “thinkers view truth as something that is created / constructed by human beings, rather than something discovered that is (in some sense) already out there… [and] reject the idea that the human self is stable and continuous over time.” As such, anything that declares itself to be authoritative, inerrant, and infallible is flawed. The Scripture attests of these descriptors.
In postmodernism, the definition of human beings and humanity in general is dependent on the individual, due to their definitions of ultimate reality and authority. Humans are inherently social constructs, progress is illusionary, while pragmatism is idealized. Humanity determines its value and morality, if any, and are reflective of their environment and are free to act and react however they desire as they determine reality. As one postmodernist remarks, “the most urgent decision facing humanity today is that of moving to a postmodern world order, with a new security system, a new economic order, and a new relationship to nature… [as we] are being pushed into a postmodern age simply by the requirements for survival.” The social world is contingent and therefore, nothing is predestined, preserved, or predicted for the human.
Finally, in postmodernism, morality is relative and is often shaped by the culture around the individual and the popular movement in society. It is also known to shift because of the changing nature of society. What is evil one day, can be celebrated the next. The ultimate authority is self and knowledge is interpretive on the individual. There is no true concept as right and wrong inasmuch what has been determined by society and even then, as all individuals will never agree on the same tissue or topic, they cannot be considered absolutes. Morality is not drawn from texts or the belief in the supernatural. In fact, this “worldview, being naturalistic, provides no basis for an exclusivist view of revelation and salvation; truths and values in all spiritual traditions can be appreciated, perhaps appropriated.” Most importantly, how postmodernism condemns what an individual or group of individuals believe to be moralistic reveals that there is not one consistent or foundational approach or source to deal with matters of everyday life. As morality differs and shifts between groups and times, contextualism assists in moral direction.
Evaluation of Postmodernism
There are many means and ways of evaluating postmodernism, however, there are four that best determine the efficiency of the philosophical worldview: whether it explains what it ought to explain, its internal logical consistency, is there coherence, and does it have existential viability. In answering each of these, it will be made clear that an evaluation of postmodernism fails on all accounts. As one postmodernist candidly admits, it “is not particularly unified in doctrine, and even those who have most significantly contributed ideas to its manifestos sometimes indignantly deny membership.”
There are significant features of life or reality that postmodernism cannot explain. It cannot seek to explain or understand the supernatural realm or account for moral absolutes. It cannot explain God. It fails to explain the consistency of human nature over groups and time periods and cannot explain away timeless truths. There are shared emotions and experiences that are undeniable. While it is correct that every single individual does not share the same system of belief, it cannot explain evil in a way that is accurate, logical, and satisfying.
As attested by one postmodernist, on “the one hand, there is a fundamentalism that does not shy away from labeling the other “evil,” and therefore deserving of any violence that might come his or her way; and, on the other hand, there is a relativism that refrains from making any moral judgments whatsoever, either out of fear of offending someone (or anyone) our out of apathy, a kind of bland intolerance towards everything.” This has led some postmodernists to go so far as to suggest society should discard the word “evil”, yet to consider such a path, would reveal that postmodernism has “few resources with which to respond to the occurrence of evil.” Today, we see what has historically been and knowingly labeled evil, as now being labeled acceptable, good, loving, or even redefined. By doing so, the world (particularly in the West) has become progressively worse.
There are internal logical contradictions in postmodernism. There are absolutes and natural laws that individuals cannot deny, ignore, or reject, without it affecting them or there being consequences. What one believes often cannot be practiced or lived out. What postmodernists will say or think about any given issue or topic often cannot be reflected through actions and deeds; they exist in world among individuals that differ in such a fundamental way, that they can neither coexist or unify without comprising on their individualism.
The autonomous nature postmodernism appeals to, is not entirely free. It is bound by realities, whether agreed or disagreed on, acknowledged or ignored, that make their philosophy internally illogical. Either all things are (illogically) true at the same time or there is one truth that is true alongside countless lies. As such, it is easy to “dispute the postmodernists’ denial of absolute truth, their claim that no religion or ideology can ultimately be superior to any other, much less the “one true way,” their denial of any overarching meta-narrative (like the one portrayed in the Bible), and [their perception of the] inability of humans to transcended their cultural or linguistic conditioning.”
(To be concluded tomorrow, in Part 2.)