apologetics in a postmodern era (part 2)

This is the second in a short series of articles on the subject of Christian apologetics in a postmodern world.

A Postmodern Apologetic

A postmodern apologetic is one that takes seriously the challenges and questions that are integral to today’s cultural environment. Though careful to guard against influences that might prove harmful, it is important to look with discerning eyes for indicators of God’s presence in this era. What current ideas and cultural inclinations are evidences of His presence? Where has He left His “finger prints” on this world? These and related questions demand that we consider afresh the manner in which we “give an answer for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15). We must begin, in other words, to envision a postmodern apologetic.

Postmodern Pause: Avoiding Naivete When Encountering Popular Ideas.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to mention a number of potentially harmful influences of postmodern thought. Some of the more virulent forms of postmodernism, reject anything like an all-encompassing universal standard in favor of local “truths”; what we are left with, in other words, is nothing but the opinions of individuals and communities.[7] Likewise, extreme versions of deconstructionism deny that words actually reflect, in any meaningful way, the genuine state of affairs to which they supposedly point. According to some, this renders impossible the discovery of anything (or Anyone) via written texts.[8] A related contention is that all truth claims are, at their heart, efforts to exert power and gain control. Whenever a person promulgates a belief system, his ultimate intent is to get others to fall under his sway. The name of the game is power and control.[9]

In seeking to counter extreme claims, the church must neither succumb to relativism nor exaggerate its own grasp of the truth. On the one hand, Christian presuppositions insist that truth is accessible through common and special revelation; in other words, God can indeed speak, and we are able–by his providence, gifts, and grace, and because we are made in His image–to hear Him. On the other hand, it is essential to acknowledge the inherent limitations in all human knowing; though God has spoken, we are apt–due to human limitations and divine transcendence–to miss what he has said. The quest for knowledge, therefore, must be tempered with humility, and boldness must be tempered by a recognition that the truths of which we speak are enveloped in great mystery.

In learning to deal with these issues, it is important not to over react or become condescending. Too many apologists have taken an overly critical stance toward postmoderns and, instead of attracting them to the faith, have actually driven postmoderns farther away. Dulles, in describing certain groups, refers to this as an “overanxious defensiveness”[10] As believers and apologists, we must remind ourselves that our responsibility is not simply to be right but to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians ). Likewise, and even more importantly, we must remain open the better postmodern themes, looking for God’s imprint in our world.

Notes

7. The problem with this type of pluralism, however, is that in the desire to accept all avenues to God it actually detracts from the significance of the unique One described as “the way” (John 14:6).

8. If, as some assert, no text (or spoken word) points to a reality beyond itself, if it is impossible to arrive at anything resembling objective reality, then radical postmoderns themselves are forced to allow their extreme views of deconstructionism to be deconstructed. Playing by their own rules, they must either admit the limitations of that which they proclaim with certainty (religious and philosophical pluralism, deconstructionism, etc.) or else allow for the possibility of objective truth claims. In other words, deconstructionists cannot actually live according to their own philosophy, since to do so would undermine the assumption that readers can actually understand their writings. Orthodox Christians, of course, affirm that language does refer to something, that the canonical Scriptures disclose truth, and that there is something (and Someone) behind the biblical texts. Indeed, believers have long declared that the biblical documents are intended to reveal their author.

9. In response to this contention, it would be foolish to deny the human tendency to seek mastery over others and to bolster one’s position and reputation; Christians have often been guilty of this very thing. Still, this need not deter those whose quest is to see things the way they really are. Though no creature knows truth perfectly, it is possible, by God’s enablement (Psalm 25:4-5, 8, 12), to know perfect truth adequately (John 8:31-32; 17:17). Furthermore, the fact remains that the allurement to power, though real and unavoidable, does not actually prohibit the acquisition of knowledge. Finally, it is important to recognize that the temptation to control is found among all human beings, including radical postmodernists. If their declarations are to be taken seriously, then the books they write and the lectures they deliver are likewise efforts to control. The irony is remarkable.

10. Avery Cardinal Dulles, A History of Apologetics (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999), 323).