In Search Of The Truth:

A Christian Response To Postmodernity

by Rev. Bryn MacPhail

How should the Church respond to postmodernism? Should we embrace it? Or should we run and
hide from it? This essay will argue that the first option of "embracing" postmodernity would be
extremely dangerous, but at the same time, "running and hiding" is not an option for the Church
either. Christians are called to be "lights" in the world, and this world is becoming increasingly
postmodern. The question then becomes, "How can our lives remain faithful to Scripture while
living in a postmodern context?".

Postmodernism is a metanarrative in its own right. It would never admit to that, of course--
postmodernism advocates the discarding of metanarratives! But it is true, postmodernism attempts
to get us to think in a certain way--like any metanarrative does. The Bible is also a metanarrative.
As metanarratives, both postmodernism and the Bible have something to say about how we should
think and live. These two metanarratives share some common ground, while in some other areas,
they go in opposite directions. While postmodernism would have us discard all metanarratives, it is
the thesis of this essay that the Bible needs to be our metanarrative--our sufficient guide for life.
This kind of statement leaves this essay open to the accusation of having a modernist agenda--of
propagating "the greatest show on earth". While reverting back to modernism would be a big
mistake, it would be untruthful for this author to deny that the Bible metanarrative is indeed "the
greatest story on earth". Our difficulty is, we have too often manipulated this blessed metanarrative
for our own selfish purposes and we have somehow managed "to make that story boring as
hell"(First Things May 1995).

Modernity and its Demise

One cannot even begin to understand what postmodernity is, and how we should respond to it,
unless we first understand what postmodernity is a response to--modernity.

Modernity is characterized as a movement that "delights in the natural" as opposed to the

supernatural(Middleton/Walsh 14). It is a movement that stresses the "individual" and the "power"
our minds have to attain truth(Middleton/Walsh 14). And it is a movement where progress is
measured by our ability to "subdue" the forces of nature and utilize them for our
benefit(Middleton/Walsh 14).

Middleton/Walsh go on to describe these characterizations of modernity in terms of "tiers". The first

tier, "scientism", provides humanity with authoritative knowledge. "Technicism", the second tier, is
about the effective translation of scientific knowledge into control of the creation. The third tier,
"economism", maintains that a increased standard of living is the pinnacle of human
life(Middleton/Walsh 22).

Stanley Grenz appropriately points to Star Trek 's Spock as someone who embodies this modern
mind set. Spock was completely rational, always using his "logic" to solve the problems
encountered by the crew of the Enterprise . The impression viewers would have surely got was that
"our problems can be solved by the application of rational expertise"(Grenz 5). In its most basic
form then, "the spirit of modernity" is equated with "a spirit of progress"(Middleton/Walsh 15).

The difficulty with modernity, Middleton/Walsh point out, is that this "progress myth is losing its
power"(Middleton/Walsh 20). Middleton/Walsh argue convincingly how the "myth of progress"
began to crumble with the first bombs of World War I, followed by the Great Depression of the
1930's(Middleton/Walsh 23).

How Do We Define Postmodernity?

Postmodernity is such a broad concept with a plethora characterizations that we will find it difficult
if we try to reduce postmodernity to a single "definition". The best we can do, therefore, is talk
about what "characterizes" postmodernity--as diverse as that discussion may be. Alan Padgett, for
instance, admits to being uncomfortable with the term "postmodernism". His reason is that
postmodernity "has no set of practices and beliefs that gives it the coherence of classical Marxism,
say, or logical positivism"(Christian Scholar's Review Winter 1996). That is our dilemma in this
essay. It is difficult to "pin down" exactly what postmodernity is. That being said, this is not an
exercise in futility. There are many repeated themes that one will find when sampling the writings
of those who have commented on postmodernity. Even Padgett is able to "pin down" some of those
themes when he talks about postmodernism in terms of being an "attitude"--an attitude that
"celebrates the demise of King Reason", the "Independent Ego", "Absolute Truth", and any
"totalizing metanarratives"(Christian Scholar's Review Winter 1996).

Postmodernity: A Reaction To Modernity

Steinar Kvale wonders if it is even appropriate to describe postmodernity as "a break with
modernity" or if it is more like its "continuation"(Anderson 19). Charles Jencks agrees in part with
this notion, describing postmodernism as "the eclectic mixture" of any tradition from the past which
characterizes it as "both the continuation of Modernism and its transcendence"(Anderson 27). While
Edgar McKnight would agree that postmodernity is the "transcendence" of modernity--he calls it,
"an advance beyond the modern"--he argues that this is not merely a succession, but a utilizing of
the "assumptions and strategies of the modern in order to challenge them"(McKnight 25). Stanley
Grenz agrees, describing postmodernism as "the quest to move beyond modernism". Grenz, at the
same time, asserts, much like McKnight, that postmodernism is "launched under the conditions of
modernity"(Grenz 2).

Characterizations Of Postmodernity: Pessimism

Continuing in the spirit of postmodernity being a reaction to modernity, Middleton/Walsh describe
the "onset of postmodernity" as a "loss of enthusiasm in the grounding convictions of
modernity"(Middleton/Walsh 11). James Fowler says much the same when he attributes the
emergence of postmodern thinking to "a loss of confidence in the foundational features of thought
established by the Enlightenment"(Fowler 179). Put quite simply, the postmodern consciousness has
abandoned the modern trust in inevitable progress(Grenz 13). In contrast to the optimism of
modernism, the spirit of postmodernity is one of "gnawing pessimism"(Grenz 7).

Characterizations Of Postmodernity: Multiple Voices

Kenneth Gergen describes postmodernity in terms of being "marked by a plurality of voices vying
for the right to reality"(Gergen 7). Much later in his book, The Saturated Self , Gergen goes on to
elaborate on this "plurality" when he describes postmoderns as having "a plethora of selves"(Gergen
174). To be postmodern is to receive "a chorus of invitations" of what "to be". And so with each
invitation "to be", one begins to doubt the "authenticity" of the other invitations(Gergen 174). Grenz
speaks of the plurality of voices in the postmodern world in terms of being "an arena of dueling
texts"(Grenz 7). Middleton/Walsh employ a very appropriate metaphor to help us understand
postmodernity when they assert that "postmodern life is like a carnival"--a carnival that offers a
myriad of "sideshows" calling for our "momentary attention"(Middleton/Walsh 42). This carnival,
Middleton/Walsh assert, is the antidote to modernity which hailed itself as the "greatest show on
earth"(Middleton/Walsh 42).

Characterizations Of Postmodernity: Denial Of Objective Truth

It is difficult to be governed by competing voices without, at the same time, losing a single,
authoritative voice. As Gergen pointed out, with each new voice we can't but help doubt the validity
of the other voices. While some postmodernists are reluctant to speak of this denial of the objective
as total relativism, it is difficult to see how that can be avoided. While postmodernists do their
linguistic gymnastics between absolute relativism and relativity, they are in agreement when they
doubt that any "objective truth" can be discovered(Anderson 19). Gergen talks about how
postmodernity is propagating "the full-scale abandonment of the concept of objective truth"(Gergen
82). Gergen theorizes that this may be, in part, a reaction against the modernist view that was
committed to "an objective and knowable world"(Gergen 83). Grenz goes on to elaborate on this
postmodernist rejection of knowledge as objective. Grenz claims that postmodernists argue this,
because the universe is not "mechanistic" and "dualistic", but "historical, relational, and
personal"(Grenz 7).

Disposing Of Metanarratives
The modernist notion of "greatest show on earth" is no longer believable, say the postmodernists.
"Plurality of voices", "a plethora of selves", "dueling texts", and "sideshows" is their preference. It
is their preference because they unashamedly deny the existence of objective truth(Anderson 19).
Postmodernists strongly resist any kind of "all-encompassing", "universal" explanations. Instead,
they celebrate the "local" and the "particular"(Grenz 12). Steinar Kvale talks about how, in
postmodernism, there is "a
continual change of perspectives, with no common frame of reference"(Anderson 21). Charles
Jencks describes the postmodern age as "a time of incessant choosing", where no orthodoxy can
prevail because "all traditions seem to have some validity"(Anderson 27).

Postmodernists insist that truth is relative to the community. And since there are a myriad of
communities, there are necessarily a myriad of truths. The postmodern abandonment of the belief in
universal truth and the advocacy of a myriad of truths necessarily entails a loss of a "final" criteria
with which to evaluate various interpretations of reality. This of course, makes postmodernity
somewhat safe from criticism. By eliminating any universal standard, there is no one left to judge
their own movement. Postmodernity's strength comes from disposing the metanarrative, their
greatest threat.

What's The Problem With Metanarratives?

Middleton/Walsh observe that, to most postmodernists, metanarratives are "mere human
constructs"(Middleton/Walsh 71). These "constructs", when deconstructed, are inferred by
postmodernists to be nothing more than a "legitimation of the vested interests of those who have the
power and authority to make such universal pronouncements"(Middleton/Walsh 71). The problem
with metanarratives then, postmodernists assert, is that they are often the cause of physical violence
against persons(Middleton/Walsh 72).

Middleton/Walsh assert that if the postmodernist is asked, "What's wrong?", the answer will be
"totalizing" systems and narratives(Middleton/Walsh 73). It follows then, if the postmodernist is
asked, "What's the remedy?", the answer will be to discard these metanarratives(Middleton/Walsh
73). The discarding of metanarratives is the logical conclusion when no metanarrative can be seen
as universally true. If no metanarrative is true, but all are "constructions", then no narrative should
be "privileged" over another(Middleton/Walsh 73). The postmodernists encourage then, only
"local", "multiple", and "marginal" narratives(Middleton/Walsh 73).

Middleton/Walsh rightly point out that some of this postmodern "suspicion" is justified. Many
metanarratives, and sadly many versions of the Christian metanarrative, have served selfish ends
"suppressing minority stories in the process"(Middleton/Walsh 75). Middleton/Walsh insist,
therefore, that we should be "sympathetic" to the postmodern diagnosis that metanarratives can, and
have, caused violence(Middleton/Walsh 75).

The main problem this essay has with the postmodern critique of metanarratives is not so much with
the diagnosis, as it has with the remedy. By discarding all metanarratives, postmodernists are guilty
of "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Is the metanarrative really to blame? Or is it the
travesty that has been made of a very useful and liberating metanarrative? This essay would argue
its the latter. Just as Paul insisted that we not cease to proclaim the Gospel because others are
proclaiming it "out of selfish ambition"(Phil.1:15-18), Christians must not discard our metanarrative
simply because some have been guilty of perverting it and oppressing others with it. The answer
lies, not in throwing out the metanarrative, but in reforming the metanarrative--getting the
metanarrative right . Now I realize this resolution plunges us neck-deep into a discussion on
absolute/objective truth. Is it possible to "get the metanarrative right "? We will visit this issue of
"truth" in the Bible a bit later on.

Middleton/Walsh point out other difficulties with the postmodern diagnosis and prescription. They
point to the "horrendous bloodshed" that has been motivated by a "local narrative"--a narrative that
makes no universal claims, but nevertheless legitimates war against a perceived
enemy(Middleton/Walsh 75). Another difficulty with postmodernism's diagnosis, Middleton/Walsh
point out, is that it fails to recognize its own character as a metanarrative(Middleton/Walsh 78).
Middleton/Walsh rightly conclude then, that metanarratives are not "the root of the
problem"(Middleton/Walsh 78). Instead, Middleton/Walsh go on to make the diagnosis that the root
of the problem("the ethical chaos" we live in) is "the violence of the human heart"(Middleton/Walsh
79).

Postmodernity's Challenges To Christianity: Throw Out Our Metanarrative?

Now what does all this have to do with Christianity? How are the views of Christianity challenged
by postmodernity? Quite simply, postmodernity desires to "deconstruct" our metanarrative. They
want to cut the Grand Story into a collection of snippets--snippets that can only be regarded as
authoritative when applied locally and pragmatically.

The Christian faith is grounded in the Scriptures--Scriptures which unmistakably form a

metanarrative and make "universal claims"(Middleton/Walsh 83). One cannot reduce the
presentation of creation or redemption to a "local tale"(Middleton/Walsh 83). Middleton/Walsh
accurately observe that "its difficult to find a grander narrative" anywhere!(Middleton/Walsh 83).
To be fair, Middleton/Walsh insist that we need to ask ourselves if the biblical metanarrative is
guilty of the charge of "totalizing violence"(Middleton/Walsh 83). This essay would argue that the
metanarrative is not guilty of anything, but we are. We are guilty of interpreting the "true
metanarrative" in such away that we confuse our "constructed metanarrative" with the real thing.
We sometimes talk about the infallibility of Scripture, but quite often what we
really mean is the infallibility of our own interpretation of Scripture. Our guilt stems from
universalizing our interpretation instead of the metanarrative.

Christians have been, and still are, guilty of misusing and misapplying the biblical metanarrative,
but that is not due to anything intrinsically oppressing in the Text. The postmodernists are partly
right. Christians have been, and are guilty of manipulating the metanarrative to assert power over
others. Middleton/Walsh also point out that the postmodernists are right in demanding that the
"voices of the marginalized" be heard. The problem, however, is not the metanarrative, but us.
Instead of discarding the metanarrative, as the postmodernists would have us do, we should attend
to the more pressing issue which Middleton/Walsh bring to our attention--the rooting out of the
"violence" within our heart. What the postmodernists need to understand is that the "voices of the
marginalized" are best heard and responded to when the metanarrative of Scripture is being lived
out as it was intended to. Discarding the metanarrative is not the answer. Allowing the
metanarrative of Scripture to shape us is the best resolution postmodernists could hope for.

Middleton/Walsh buttress this essay's claim, that there is nothing "intrinsically oppressing" in the
biblical metanarrative, when they insist that our metanarrative actually "works against
totalization"(Middleton/Walsh 87). Middleton/Walsh point to two "antitotalizing factors" that are
predominant in the Scriptures: Its "radical sensitivity to suffering", and its "overarching creational
intent"(Middleton/Walsh 87). God purposes are not totalizing or tyrannical, but are, as
Middleton/Walsh insist "purposes of shalom, compassion, and justice"(Middleton/Walsh 107).
Purposes of peace and justice, Middleton/Walsh remind us, are not automatic functions of the text,
but "depends on our response"(Middleton/Walsh 107). Since we have this preponderance to
misapply the text and build our own constructions, we must be "willing" to allow the biblical text to
"judge our constructions"(Middleton/Walsh 107).

One can always count on Stanley Hauerwas to provide a completely different perspective, and he
provides just that when he highlights the positive aspect of postmodernity's attack on our
metanarrative. Hauerwas observes how "most" Christians go to church "to be assured we have no
enemies"(First Things May 1995). The positive side of postmodernity then, Hauerwas argues, is
that it refutes the modernist notion that "conflict should not exist". Hauerwas' hope is that God is
"using" this time of postmodernity to "remind the Church that Christianity is unintelligible without
enemies"(First Things May 1995). Is Hauerwas advocating a metanarrative that does violence to
another? In a sense, yes. Not violence by the manipulation of power, or violence by oppression, but
the Gospel does its violence by confronting the ideologies(idols) of others. The Gospel embitters
enemies, not by oppressing them, but by calling them away from the god they want to
worship(themselves) to the God of the Universe revealed in Christ. Hauerwas warns, however, that
when the "truth" is preached it must be "robed in love"(First Things May 1995). Yet, at the same
time, Hauerwas insists that we should preach the metanarrative so "truthfully" that people should
call us "terrorists"(First Things May 1995).

Postmodernity's Challenges To Christianity: Pluralism

While it is true that religious pluralism has always existed, in some shape or form, its recent growth
in popularity can be attributed to the fuel it has received from postmodernity.

D.A. Carson describes two basic types of pluralism: "radical religious pluralism" and
"inclusivism"(Carson 26). The basic premise of radical religious pluralism is that no religion can
advance any legitimate claim to superiority over any other religion(Carson 26). Inclusivism, while
affirming the truth of fundamental Christian claims, nevertheless insists that God has revealed
Himself in "saving ways" in other religions(Carson 27). Carson goes on to describe the position of
"exclusivism" which opposes the other two. Exclusivism maintains that the central claims of
"biblically faithful Christianity" are true . Therefore, where the teachings of other religions conflict
with these claims, they must be "necessarily false"(Carson 27). It is important to note that Carson is
not saying that every religion is wrong in every respect. And by specifying "biblically faithful
Christianity", Carson means to point out that not all Christians who claim to be Christians "are
saved", and not all Christians who make claims from the Bible are "right"(Carson 27).

Carson observes how "all the challenges" arising from postmodernity are connected in some way to
hermeneutics(Carson 57). One of postmodernity's main arguments is for the "limitations on the
power of interpretation"(Carson 57). Since interpretation is nothing more than my interpretation, no
purely objective stance is possible(Carson 57). One of the main advocates for this circular
hermeneutic is Jacques Derrida. Derrida's name is most commonly linked to the type of
postmodernism termed, "deconstructive"(Carson 73). Since all meaning is bound up irretrievably
with the knower rather than the text, the words never have a referent other than words. Words then,
can only refer to other words and not to any "objective reality"(Carson 73). Applied to the Bible,
"texts" refer only to other "texts", and these too are in the hands of "interpreters"(Carson 74). Taken
to the extreme this can mean that there are as many meanings as there are interpreters leading to the
natural conclusion that a text may equally support two mutually incompatible
interpretations(Carson 75).

Michel Foucault gives a different slant on interpretation when he argues that all interpretations
advanced to others are in part an exercise in power(Carson 101). For this reason, Carson argues that
Christians should examine themselves by this postmodern principle to ensure that they are not
guilty of "trying to manipulate people into the kingdom"(Carson 102).

While Stanley Grenz is willing to concede that all interpretations are in some sense invalid, "they
cannot be equally invalid"(Grenz 165). Grenz goes on to insist that "we simply cannot allow
Christianity to be relegated to the status of one faith among others"(Grenz 165). Diogenes Allen
illustrates how postmodernity relegates religion to "flavours of ice cream". Just as one person may
prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry, one may also prefer Christianity to Buddhism. Allen
objects to this, however, arguing that Christianity's claims "are so serious and so demanding
personally that adherence to them cannot be properly described as merely a matter of personal
taste(Allen 1).

It is a questionable "leap" that postmodernists make believing that a "plurality of truths can exist
alongside one another"(Grenz 14). Although postmodernists will not readily admit it, the result of
this type of thinking inevitably entails "a radical form of relativism and pluralism"(Grenz 14).

While we rejoice with postmodernists in the demise of "King Reason" of modernity,Christians

should be unnerved by the refusal to accept any "absolute truth" or "unifying metanarrative".

Postmodernity's Challenges To Christianity: No Objective Truth?

With the growth of postmodernity comes another distinctive and formidable challenge for
Christianity--a challenge against the notion that, in Scripture, we have absolute or objective truth.
This is the crux of the debate. Can we know truth? And is that truth available in the Scriptures?

Before beginning his defense for the accessibility of biblical truth, Carson asks an appropriate
question, "If uncovering objective truth is well-nigh impossible, how can one speak of an eternal
gospel that was once and for all entrusted to the saints?"(Jude 3; Carson 92). At the same time,
Carson balances his view with the preface that "all of us see things only in part"(Carson 97). Carson
does not want us to confuse "seeing in part", however, with absolute relativism--he simply
recognizes that all of us are "finite" and our beliefs are shaped in part by our culture(Carson 97).
Carson points out how Christians, in a sense, go a step farther than postmodernists. Not only do we
insist on human finiteness, but we also insist on the thoroughness of human sinfulness(Carson 98).

Reluctant, sometimes, to use the word "objective", Carson maintains that "true knowledge" is
possible, "even to finite, culture-bound creatures"(Carson 102). This view is born out of Carson's
conviction that people "say more or less what they mean"(Carson 103). Now our understanding,
Carson concedes, is never exhaustive or perfect, but we can nonetheless gain "true
knowledge"(Carson 103). Carson does, however, define objective truth: something that is true
"regardless of whether anyone happens to accept it as truth"(Carson 120).

How is it that "truth" is found in the Scriptures? Because God is not merely sovereign and
transcendent, but He is also "a talking God"(McGrath 19). The Reformers described this in their
doctrine of "accommodation"--God chooses to communicate with finite mortals in their
languages(Carson 130). That being said, God cannot possibly communicate all that He is and
knows. Carson suggests, however, this need not be a barrier to His communicating some true
elements of what He is and knows(Carson 130). Admittedly, we will misunderstand this
communication and even distort it, due to our finiteness and our sinfulness. This of course, does not
change the content. The content may still be objectively true--not exhaustively true, but true
nonetheless-- "a subset of what Omniscience knows, and cast in culture-laden forms"(Carson 130).
Christians should most definitely wake-up and recognize the culture-relatedness of all truth. At the
same time, we should not feel that we have to abandon the belief in the objectivity of the revelation
in the Bible to do this.

It is also important to note, that understanding the content of Scripture to be "objectively true"
should not necessarily be confused with the argument for "dictation". As Carson points out, this
term "is accepted by no responsible conservative today"(Carson 152).

Since God's self-disclosure is found in the Scriptures, the canon must be understood as establishing
a principle of authority(Carson 131). As a an authoritative canon then, the Bible is an authoritative
metanarrative . Walter Brueggemann reflects a postmodern approach to Scripture when he argues
that the focus of biblical studies "is the specific text, without any necessary relation to other texts or
any coherent pattern read out or into the text"(Brueggemann 58). This approach, typical to
postmodernists, focuses on "little stories" as opposed to the "great story"(Carson 131).

While this essay argues that God's self-disclosure is reliable and true, it must be reiterated that this
does not mean that our doctrine will be equally reliable and true. While we insist, on the one hand,
that there is such a thing as "true knowledge", we confess openly that all grasping of that truth is
"necessarily interpretive"(Carson 133). Postmodernists may have accurately pinpointed how the
biblical metanarrative gets misinterpreted and misapplied, but their argument for the intrinsic
unreliability of the metanarrative is not yet convincing. Objective truth may be difficult to perceive
and interpret, but as "objective" truth, it is true whether we perceive it or interpret it correctly.

So is there hope for us? Since we are admittedly finite and sinful, won't we always distort and
misinterpret the Bible even if its contents are true? While it is true that "cultural baggage shapes our
perceptions and categories" we do have the ability to "transcend those categories"(Carson 349). And
while Christians add "sin" to "finitude" when giving reasons for our misinterpreting the truth of
Scripture, we must not forget one factor. God's grace . By grace, the Holy Spirit works in our hearts
and minds in order to transform our understanding. The same Spirit that penned the Scriptures is
accessible to us. This Spirit has the power to "remove our willful incapacity to believe and
recognize the truth"(Carson 188). Grace enables us to discern truth.

The Alternative To Objective Truth

D.A. Carson reminds us of the dreadful alternative to objective truth when he writes, "If there is no
objective truth that binds all cultures together and evaluates them, then epistemologically, there is
only truth for the individual, or for the individual culture, or for the diverse interpreting
communities found within each culture"(Carson 541).

Alister McGrath, in attempting to highlight postmodernity's skewed approach to truth, writes:

To the postmodern suggestion that something can be "true for me" but not "true" the following reply
might be made. Is fascism as equally true as democratic libertarianism? Consider the person who
believes, passionately and sincerely, that it is an excellent thing to place millions of Jews in gas
chambers. That is certainly "true for him". But can it be allowed to pass unchallenged? Is it as
equally true as the belief that one ought to live in peace and tolerance with one's neighbours,
including Jews?(Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35, 1992).

The postmodernists are wise to question the the modernist arrogance regarding truth, but at the
same time, it would be foolish to say objective truth doesn't exist or can't be perceived. The
balanced approach would suggest that any "claims" on truth be done humbly and with little sense of
finality, allowing that "truth" to be constantly polished and reevaluated. Truth should constantly be
polished and reevaluated in light of the fact that human understanding of truth, though potentially
accurate, is never exhaustive or absolute.

Carson also reminds us that "not all of God's truth is vouchsafed to one particular interpretive
community", such as, a particular denomination(Carson 552). For this reason, we must be eager to
learn from one another while, at the same time, submitting to God's self-disclosure in Christ and in
the Scriptures(Carson 552).

Evangelism In A Postmodern World

The question needs to be asked, does a society's basic worldview affect how we evangelize? Should
Christians be evangelizing differently in the postmodern age than they did in the modern age? The
simple answer is, yes.

Take, for example, the "Four Spiritual Laws" of Campus Crusade for Christ. There is nothing
intrinsically wrong with this approach as long as the "targeted" person has already bought into the
Judeo-Christian heritage(Carson 501). There was a time when most people had a basic
understanding of creation/fall, sin, and Christ, but that is no longer the case. Carson poses a
question to those who would continue to use these "modern" approaches to evangelism: If we
continue to use these methods on people "who no nothing about the Bible's plotline . . . how will
they hear you?"(Carson 502). We must be sensitive to our context if we want our evangelism to be
coherent. We must engage postmodernism to discern how best to articulate our faith in the world--a
world that is increasingly postmodern in its thinking(Grenz 174). Carson goes on to insist that the
gospel "is virtually incoherent unless it is securely set into a biblical worldview"(Carson 502). Our
task then, is to proclaim the "never-changing" gospel in a
manner that our postmodern generation can understand(Grenz 174).

The Positive Influence Of Postmodernity

Up to this point, this essay has been quite critical of postmodernity--critical of its attack on
metanarratives and objective truth, and of its advocacy and facilitating of pluralism. There are,
however, some positive aspects of postmodernity that we must make mention of.

While being hard on postmodernity on one front, Carson insists that there is "a large measure of
truth in postmodernity", specifically in its critique of modernity(Carson 91). For some,
postmodernity is a helpful pendulum swing away from the "unnecessary dogmatisms and legalism
of a previous generation"(Carson 91). Postmodernity is waking us up to the fact that we have been
canonizing our own interpretations for far too long. Carson observes how postmodernism "is
proving rather successful at undermining the extraordinary hubris of modernism" and concludes
that "no thoughtful Christian can be sad about that"(Carson 10).

The postmodernist approach will also benefit to Christians by freeing us us of the modern emphasis
on Christian apologetics--having to provide verifiable evidence for every faith stance. It may allow
Christians to once again "speak about God without defensiveness or self-consciousness"(Bottum
32).

Conclusion: Our Response To Postmodernity

J. Bottum correctly points out that what Christians have in common with postmodernists is "a
distrust of modern claims to knowledge"(Bottum 31). On the other hand, when Christians
understand the implications for their faith when confronted by postmodern deconstructionists, they
might be tempted to argue in support of modernity. We might be tempted to do this, Bottum claims,
because we share in common with the modernists "a trust in the reality of truth"(Bottum 32). Brian
Walsh warns, however, that "any notion of truth as arrival" should be abandoned(Taken from an
InterVarsity Press "Author Interview", 1997). If by "truth as arrival" Walsh means an uncritical
propagation of truth, this essay concurs. The answer to postmodernity is not a reversion back to
modernity, but neither is it a "myopic conservative retrenchment"(Middleton/Walsh 173).

D.A. Carson perceptively cites "biblical illiteracy" as one of the main contributors to the growth of
pluralism(Carson 37). With this being the case, Middleton/Walsh accurately insist that "without a
renewed rooting in the Scriptures Christians will have nothing to say to
postmodernity"(Middleton/Walsh 173). This makes perfect sense. If one of our primary errors is
misinterpreting our metanarrative, and if one of our resolutions to this error is to allow Scripture to
"judge our constructs", it is only appropriate for Christians resolve to humbly immerse themselves
in Scripture allowing It to topple our idolatries.

Christianity cannot embrace postmodernity, yet we must not retreat to the hills either. There are
certain lessons we must learn from postmodernity. Postmodernity reminds us to abandon "truth as
arrival", yet we must humbly affirm that truth is nonetheless available. Postmodernity rightly warns
us of misuse of the biblical metanarrative, yet we must resist the temptation to discard or water-
down the metanarrative. Instead, we must endeavour to sensitively, but authoritatively, apply the
biblical metanarrative to our lives and to our community. Postmodernity awakens us to the need of
understanding our context--how it affects our interpretation and our understanding. At the same
time, we must not forget the opportunity we have to transcend our context by the grace of God, and
the power of the Holy Spirit.

D.A. Carson best summarizes the Christian response to postmodernity when he insists that we must
recognize "certain truths in postmodernity, without getting snookered by the entire package"(Carson
136). So let us resolve to stand firm against the negative currents of postmodernity, but let us do so
humbly .

Bibliography

Allen, Diogenes. Christian Belief in a Postmodern World. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1989.

Anderson, Walter Truett ed. The Truth About Truth: De-Confusing and Re-Constructing the
Postmodern World. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1995.

Brueggemann, Walter. Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Bottum, J. "Christians and Postmoderns". First Things . February, 1994.

Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1996.

Fowler, James W. Faithful Change: The Personal and Public Challenges of Postmodern Life.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York:
Basic Books, 1991.

Grenz, Stanley. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1996.

Hauerwas, Stanley. "Preaching As Though We Had Enemies". First Things . May, 1995.

McGrath, Alister. Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

McGrath, Alister. "The Challenge of Pluralism for the Contemporary Church". Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society , 35(1992).

McKnight, Edgar. Post-Modern Use Of The Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988.

Middleton, Richard J. and Brian Walsh. Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be: Biblical Faith in a
Postmodern Age. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1995.

Oden, Thomas. Two Worlds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Padgett, Alan. "Christianity and Postmodernity". Christian Scholar's Review . Vol.XXVI, Number
2(Winter 1996).