Editor’s note: This article is part of a two-part series titled “How to Evangelize Postmodernists.” Part one is available here.

How Should We Evaluate Postmodern Beliefs from a Christian Perspective?

What is a faithful and biblical response to postmodernism? In this next section, we will overview some basic responses to postmodern beliefs. Then, in the final section, we will turn to consider how we can effectively evangelize postmodernists. It should be said that these responses are brief, and much more could be said. Indeed, whole books have been written on these topics.[1]

First, postmodernism’s belief about truth is self-defeating. They argue that truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Yet, they are affirming at least one absolute truth when they say that—namely, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. That is an absolute statement. So why do they get to affirm that absolute truth but no others? Additionally, how can they be absolutely certain that there are no absolute truths? Where do they base their certainty to make such a bold claim? Self-defeating arguments should be rejected. We must not forfeit objective truth. We cannot give into the postmodernists’ insistence that there is no such thing as truth in the objective sense. This means that we need to reframe the conversation and not let them set the agenda.

Second, postmodernism’s belief about the subjective nature of language and interpretation needs to be challenged as well. Because of their view of referentialism, which argues that there is no perfect correspondence between words and the meaning that they confer, understanding authorial intent is impossible. A couple of things can be said about this. First, from a more common-sense view, well of course, there is not perfect correspondence between words and the meaning that they confer. But does that really mean that it is impossible to truly understand what one intended by what they said or wrote? From a basic sense, that appears to be a dramatic overstatement. If I received a letter from the government telling me that I owe thousands of dollars in back taxes, I am can very well discern the government’s intention in that letter. In fact, if I ignore what they intended, I could well end up in jail!

Secondly, those who argue for this view expect that you will be able to track the words they use in the way they use them to rightly understand what they are saying. They cannot argue for this viewpoint any other way than by using language to communicate their intended meaning. As Norman Geisler said when he critiqued Derrida, “The sentences conveying his view would have no meaning on a conventionalist theory of meaning. In short, he appears to have left himself no ground to stand on–even to express his own view.”[2] To give a practical example of this, I want to cite a rather lengthy example from D. A. Carson’s life that he talks about in his book The Gagging of God. He says:

A few years ago, I was teaching an evening course on hermeneutics, a course jointly offered by several of the seminaries in the Chicago area. Not very successfully, I was trying to set out both what could be learned from the new hermeneutic, and where the discipline was likely to lead one astray. In particular, I was insisting that true knowledge is possible, even to finite, culture-bound creatures. A doctoral student from another seminary waited patiently through two or three hours of lectures, and then quietly protested that she did not think I was escaping from the dreaded positivism of the nineteenth century. Deeper appreciation for the ambiguities of language, the limits of our understanding, the uniqueness of each individual, and the social nature of knowledge would surely drive me to a more positive assessment of the new hermeneutic. I tried to defend my position, but I was quite unable to persuade her. Finally, in a moment of sheer intellectual perversity on my part, I joyfully exclaimed, “Ah, now I think I see what you are saying. You are using delicious irony to affirm the objectivity of truth.” The lady was not amused. “That is exactly what I am not saying,” she protested with some heat, and she laid out her position again. I clasped my hands in enthusiasm and told her how delighted I was to find someone using irony so cleverly in order to affirm the possibility of objective knowledge. Her answer was more heated, but along the same lines as her first reply. I believe she also accused me of twisting what she was saying. I told her I thought it was marvelous that she should add emotion to her irony all to the purpose of exposing the futility of extreme relativism, thereby affirming truths objectivity. Not surprisingly, she exploded in real anger, and accused me of a lot of unmentionable things. When she finally cooled down, I said, rather quietly, “But this is how I am reading you.” Of course, she saw what I was getting at immediately, and sputtered out like a spent candle. She simply did not know what to say. My example was artificial, of course, since I only pretended to read her in a certain way, but what I did was sufficient to prove the point I was trying to make to her. “You are a deconstructionist,” I told her, “but you expect me to interpret your words aright. More precisely, you are upset because I seem to be divorcing the meaning I claim to see in your words from your intent. Thus, implicitly you affirm the link between text and authorial intent. I have never read a deconstructionist who would be pleased if a reviewer misinterpreted his or her work: thus in practice deconstructionists implicitly link their own texts with their own intentions. I simply want the same courtesy extended to Paul.[3]

Third, we should push back on postmoderns’ insistence that all metanarratives are equal. Are they really? Think about it for a moment. Is a metanarrative that promotes human flourishing and human dignity really on par with one that dehumanizes some people and treats them harshly? Think about Nazi Germany, where the vast majority of Germans agreed with their wicked leaders about the triumph of the Aryan race. Is that metanarrative truly moral and “okay”? Many of those people believed what they were taught was their “truth.” Who are you to say that Hitler was actually evil? And on and on we could go pointing out the absurdity of this belief. No, there is an objective nature to how we evaluate cultures and beliefs, and it comes from God Himself and what He has revealed in His Word. Listen to the way that D. H. K. Hilborn describes this and even expands upon what I have said:

More fundamentally, of course, it is hard to see how orthodox Christian theology could disavow metanarrative as such, since this would seem to require the denial of a divine “author” or “creator” distinct from the world—a Word who gives ultimate meaning to our words. The gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ is in this sense surely the “story which explains our stories” (John 4:29). Then again, it is a story which subverts the claims of other “grand stories”, because far from representing a malign “bid for power”, it has as its heart an act of radical, loving renunciation…It is precisely in the metanarrative of his atoning death that Jesus challenges the necessary postmodern identification of “grand stories” with totalization and tyranny, for here the metanarrative turns on a divestment of power in which the Lord of heaven and earth comes “not to be served but to serve”, and in which the bringer of abundant life sacrifices his own life as a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).^[4]

In other words, most postmodernists disavow metanarratives because they think that they are power grabs that lead to oppression. Yet, in the true metanarrative from the Bible, the Lord of all humbles Himself and takes on humanity to redeem His people. As Paul so eloquently says of Jesus in Philippians 2:6–8, “who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead, he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross.”

Fourth, we should challenge some postmodernists’ desire to mix and match spiritual preferences. Granted, some postmodernists are atheistic, but others are open to a self-styled spirituality where they get to pick and choose what sounds good to them. Functionally, they create a God in their own image. They choose a little of this and a little of that. They like a little Jesus and a little Buddha as well. They like certain aspects of Hinduism with just a touch of Islam on top. But we must emphasize that this subjectivism has no authority behind it and is unfaithful to the religions from which it pulls. I would venture to guess that most postmodernists have not spent extensive time actually studying the religions they claim to pick and choose from. If they did, they would see that most of the major religions make exclusive truth claims about themselves. Meaning, they are not simply offering a way; they believe they are offering the way or the truth. As you know, this is certainly true for Christianity. So, we should emphasize what Jesus believed and said about Himself. For example, in John 14:6 He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Notice that this understanding contradicts Islam which says that Jesus is a mere prophet of Allah. Or how Judaism says that He was a false prophet. Or how Hinduism says that He is an avatar of Brahman. It makes no sense to try to combine these exclusive truth claims about Jesus. He cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. Thus, it is not intellectually honest to cherry-pick various aspects from multiple religions in order to form a spirituality that you are comfortable with. Additionally, postmodernist authors expect you to interpret their writings in a particular way as we saw above. Therefore, we should push them to show the same dignity and respect to other religious texts. They are not free to make them say what they want without respect to authorial intent. If they do, then they are intellectually dishonest and inconstant, and their position is self-defeating. Thus, it should not be respected as viable. We must push these postmodernists to see the self-contradictory nature of their spirituality and present them with the truth of what Jesus actually said about Himself.

Fifth and finally, we must challenge postmoderns on the issue of morality. Is morality really determined by one’s community? To return to Nazi Germany, was what they did in the Holocaust not truly evil because their entire community agreed to it? If it was evil, why so? On what grounds does a postmodernist have to declare what they did wrong? Furthermore, on what grounds does a postmodernist have to say anything is evil and anything is good? Listen to the way Groothuis describes this point: “If evil is deconstructed into incommensurate language games, perspectives and final vocabularies, no evil remains–but the evil of its attempted banishment and the haunting impression that something is deeply amiss.”[5] If it is solely determined by each community, then what happens when those communal beliefs conflict and contradict one another? What happens when those beliefs conflict in the same society? Say you have one community in the same country that believes one thing and another community that believes something contrary; who is to say which view is right morally speaking, especially when it affects the laws of the land? Who gets to make those decisions? This string of questions reveals that without an objective moral law giver (i.e., the Creator God), morality is subjective, and no one truly wants to live in a morally subjective universe. Not me and not the postmodernists either.

How Can We Effectively Evangelize Postmoderns?

Having learned about postmodernism, how can we effectively evangelize people who are beholden to the beliefs of postmodernity? In a humorous account, apologist Douglas Groothuis demonstrates how not to do it. He reimagines Paul’s Mars Hill encounter (Acts 17) to address postmodernists, when he writes:

People of Postmodernity, I can see you speak in many language games and are interested in diverse spiritualities. I have observed your pluralistic religious discourse and the fact that you use many final vocabularies. I have seen your celebration of the death of objective truth and the eclipse of metanarratives, and I declare to you that you are right. As one of your own has said, “We are suspicious of all metanarratives.” What you have already said, I will reaffirm to you with a slightly different spin.

We have left modernity behind as a bad dream. We deny its rationalism, objectivism and intellectual arrogance. Instead of this, we affirm the Christian community, which professes that God is the strand that unites our web of belief. We have our own manner of interpreting the world and using language that we call you to adopt for yourself. We give you no argument for the existence of God, since natural theology is simply rationalistic hubris. We are not interested in metaphysics but in discipleship.

For us, Jesus is Lord. That is how we speak. We act that way, too; it’s important to us. And although we cannot appeal to any evidence outside our own communal beliefs and tradition, we believe that God is in control of our narrative. We ask you to join our language game. Please. Since it is impossible to give you any independent evidence for our use of language, or to appeal to hard facts, we simply declare this to be our truth. It can become your truth as well, if you join up. Jesus does not call you to believe propositions but to follow him. You really can’t understand what we’re talking about until you join up. But after that, it will be much clearer. Trust us. In our way of speaking, God is calling everyone everywhere to change his or her language game, to appropriate a new discourse and to redescribe reality one more time. We speak such that the resurrection of Jesus is the crucial item in our final vocabulary. We hope you will learn to speak this way, as well.[6]

As I hope you might have anticipated, this will not do. But how can we effectively evangelize postmodernists? Here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, remember that postmodernists prize authenticity. The question for them is not “Is this true?” but rather, “How does this make you feel?” or “Does it really affect your life?” For us who are seeking to engage postmoderns, we must be careful not to be hypocrites. Hypocrisy will shut doors to the postmodern world. Because of this, cold-call evangelism can be harder with postmoderns. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do cold-call evangelism, but we should remember that relationships are vital to postmodernists. In their mind, it is only through a relationship that one can see that you are genuine and not a hypocrite who is simply seeking to control people by sharing your metanarrative. The more people can see your love and hospitality, the more they might be willing to hear you share the good news of Jesus Christ. Commenting on using hospitality as a means to open doors for evangelism with postmoderns, Sam Chan writes:

Hospitality is also a powerful apologetic tool. Often we have to defend questions such as, “Why are Christians so hypocritical?” or, “Why are Christians homophobic?” We can give good explanations for why Christians are (or are not) hypocritical. And we can try to give good examples for why Christians are not homophobic. But more often than not, our friends aren’t listening to our answers because their minds are already made up. But if we have them over to our homes, then it is hard for them to accuse Christians of being hypocritical when they’re enjoying a meal with us. And if we’re inviting our gay friends for dinner, then it’s hard for them to argue that we’re homophobic. We’re obviously not homophobic if we’re opening our homes to gays for a meal.[7]

Chan later describes how he thinks Christians can change their evangelistic strategy to postmoderns. For moderns, the logic typically goes:

“Truth, Believe, Praxis.

• This is true.
• If it’s true, then you must believe
• If you believe it, now you must live

But with postmoderns, I believe a better pedagogical sequence is:

Praxis, Belief, Truth

• The Christian life is livable.
• If it’s livable, then it’s also believable.
• If it’s believable, then it’s also true.”[8]

Whether or not you choose to adopt all that Chan says is up to you. But adjusting your strategy in light of what postmodernists believe could prove to be helpful.

Second, use your testimony in your Gospel presentation. As has been said, postmodernists are not as concerned with whether or not something is true. But they may be persuaded by the fact that the Gospel has changed your life. Once again, this might demonstrate to them that the Gospel works, i.e., it changed your life. Remember that postmoderns are fundamentally pragmatic. Because truth is not paramount to them, they primarily care about what works. To be clear, I am not equating your testimony with sharing the Gospel. Those are two different things. In fact, I’d encourage you to share the Gospel compellingly by using Scripture, and then get to your testimony and how Jesus has changed your life. But implementing your testimony in your evangelistic strategy to postmoderns is winsome.

Third, at the end of the day, don’t be intimidated by postmodernists. Yes, we should learn how to best evangelize them. Yes, we should learn what they believe so that we can have more fruitful interactions with them. Yes, we should think of creative ways to engage them. But, when all things are said and done, we must simply proclaim the Gospel. If you get overwhelmed with all the arguments about what they believe and how to best respond to them, you can almost never go wrong with just starting a simple conversation about who Jesus is and how He has changed your life. After all, it is the Gospel that is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16).

I want to leave you with Paul’s words from 1 Corinthians 1:18–24:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is the power of God to us who are being saved. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the intelligence of the intelligent. Where is the one who is wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

As you seek to engage postmodernists with the truth of Jesus Christ, trust that God is with you, and that He will use you to draw people to Himself. You don’t have to have everything figured out; all you have to do is be faithful.

__________

[1] See Gagging of God, Truth Decay, and Is There a Meaning in This Text.

[2] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 194.

[3] D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God, 102-103.

^[4] D. H. K. Hilborn, “Postmodernism,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, ed. Martin Davie et al. (London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016), 692–693.

[5] Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay, 171.

[6] Groothuis, Truth Decay, 161-162.

[7] Sam Chan, Evangelism in a Skeptical World, 118.

[8] Chan, Evangelism in a Skeptical World, 125.