50
305
Appendix A: Modernism and Postmodernism
easy to believe that, even if truth were to be found somehow in the area of religion, it was
irrelevant to the core of knowledge with which we occupied ourselves day a晴er day.
And now I should circle back to an earlier point in time. I did hear about God from
another source. My parents went to a church where the Bible was taught, and from an
early age I learned about God and about the coming of Jesus Christ into the world to
save us from our rebellion against God. When I was nine years old, I recognized my need
for Christ, because I saw that I along with everyone else had been a rebel against God.
I was convinced that Christ was alive and that he offered me salvation and fellowship
with him. I made a public commitment to Christ at a church camp. I became a follower
of Christ from that time onward—or perhaps even earlier. I grew in knowing Christ
from that time onward.
For my college education I went to Caltech. Richard P. Feynman, Nobel laureate in
physics, was a famous and colorful figure on campus. In freshman and sophomore phys-
ics we studied Feynman’s physics textbook. I thought that his textbook was wonderful,
but I also knew that Feynman was well known on campus as an advocate of agnosti-
cism. On the side I read literature that was intended to develop the Christian thinking
of college students, and I began to see more potential areas of tension between what
the Bible taught and the mind-set of my environment. 周e typical Caltech student was
agnostic or atheistic, and thoroughly modernist. I was a minority, and I did not think
like everyone else.
I went to Harvard University for doctoral work in mathematics. At the time (1966–
1970) Harvard at the graduate level was just as modernist as Caltech. Again I was a
minority, and my sense of the distance between me and the surrounding culture con-
tinued to deepen. I need not go into details, but my reading from Abraham Kuyper,
Herman Dooyeweerd, Cornelius Van Til, Hendrik van Riessen, D. H. 周. Vollenhoven,
and Hendrik G. Stoker convinced me that the foundations of modernism rested on sand.
I still appreciated the things that I was learning in my modernist environment. But I did
not agree with the foundational assumptions—the worldview—that came along with
that environment.
周at time, during the la瑴er part of the 1960s, was also the time of the hippie counter-
culture, and of growing opposition to the Vietnam War. 周e antiwar movement eventually
spilled over into a political blowup at Harvard, when the antiwar activists took over an
administration building. I will not go into that story, except to say that it was a harbinger
of wider cultural changes in the coming decades.
In the 1990s my story repeated itself through my children, but in a different key. I was
now married, with two boys going to public school.
1
In our district the public school
teachers, with few exceptions, were kind, dedicated, and competent, as they had been
1. Advocates of home schooling and Christian schooling might well ask why my boys went
to public school with all its problems. It is a long story. From the standpoint of my principles, I
think that ideally a different kind of schooling would be be瑴er (see Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming
Science: A God-Centered Approach [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006], 66–67), but the realities of
various situations do not always conform to the ideal. In fact my wife and I used a combination
of resources—Christian schooling up through grade 4, and supplemental homeschooling in the
summer, and many dinner table conversations about the ideas being circulated in public school.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 305
5/14/09 4:46:47 PM
49
306
Interaction with Other Approaches to Language
in my generation. 周ey taught mathematics and science as bodies of knowledge. 周ey
were, in that respect, “modernist” about mathematics and science. But in humanities
there was a noteworthy shi晴, in a “postmodernist” direction.
What do I mean by postmodernism? Postmodernism is a diverse movement, with
many strands. I cannot hope to cover them all. So I will simplify, and choose one strand,
what might be called “relativist postmodernism.”
2
At my boys’ school the emphasis in the humanities was no longer on mastering a body
of knowledge but on developing your own ideas in interaction with a variety of other
people’s ideas. 周e focus was more on the process than on the conclusions.
And hovering over it all was an incessant drumbeat for “tolerance.” What did “tolerance”
mean? Classes paid much a瑴ention to cultural variations. People in different cultures had
different ideas and practices, and students were supposed to learn to respect the differ-
ences. Did tolerance merely mean respecting harmless variations in culture, as when the
Chinese eat with chopsticks and Americans with a fork? Did it mean dispensing with
the insidious pride that assumed that our own native culture was necessarily superior at
every point to all other cultures? Did it mean that we would be willing to revise our own
ideas if we learned something that showed we were mistaken at a particular point, or
that further advanced our insight? Did it mean respecting other human beings as human,
even when their ideas were erroneous or their morals were corrupt?
Or, more questionably, did it mean agreeing that everyone’s ideas about religion and
morality were equally valid? And if the last was meant, ought we to draw the natural
conclusion that such ideas are merely social preferences, and have nothing to do with the
truth? Would we then be le晴 with only one remaining moral principle, the principle of
tolerance itself? And would this one principle show its true power by being the standard
by which we condemn any deviation from its dictates?
Would “tolerance” also turn out to be a substitute religion? Does it command our
ultimate allegiance (because it is the one remaining principle)? Does it have its own
proposal for “salvation,” namely, that the inculcation and practice of tolerance is the great
way by which we will achieve peace among human beings?
In the school system no one consciously colluded to set up a new religion. 周e teachers
did not consciously propagandize the students. Many of them were thinking about racial
prejudice, or prejudice against foreigners, or the dangers of pushing around marginalized
I am here telling only the most simplified form of the story, in order to make a point about the
influence of enculturation.
2. A good introduction to postmodernism can be found in Heath White, Postmodernism
101: A First Course for the Curious Christian (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2006). 周e suggested
follow-up readings at the back of the book offer a good continuation.
I must ask readers with different perceptions of postmodernism to bear with me. I am aware
also that advocates of some varieties of relativist postmodernism might dispute the aptness of
the term “relativist,” because that term belongs to the older thinking of absolutism that they want
to redescribe (see, e.g., Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989], 75) . In that case, maybe “postmodern contextualism” would be be瑴er.
My references to postmodernism earlier in this book also have in mind primarily this strand of
postmodernism.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 306
5/14/09 4:46:47 PM
62
307
Appendix A: Modernism and Postmodernism
people. Or they were thinking about the cruelties that have been commi瑴ed in past cen-
turies by Europeans motivated by religious zeal. In other words, the teachers were trying
to a瑴ack real moral failures. As they saw it, they promoted only what was obviously true
and helpful for the students and for the future of society.
But in the process the school as a whole fell into a trap. It ended up promoting only one
moral value, namely, tolerance. Or at least that was the tendency of the school’s practice.
3
周e school could not promote other moral values without running into the problem of
disagreements over morality. 周e primary value, the value of tolerance, prescribed that the
school teach tolerance about disagreements over morality, and that meant not promot-
ing any particular morality (except, of course, tolerance itself). 周at le晴 tolerance as the
only moral value with any substance. Every other value was demoted and relativized in
relation to it. Many students may easily have taken away the message that morality was
indeed relative, and that they could make up their own moral standards (see chart A.1
for the contrast between this view and modernism).
Modernism
Postmodernism
science
science yields truth
science yields truth (or, more
radically, science is social opin-
ion of the scientific guild)
the humanities
the humanities contain fixed
truths
the humanities process opinion
human nature
humanity the same
humanity diverse
source of
knowledge
reason and experience
socialization
morals
assumed to be fixed by
human nature
variable by society
religion
not discussed in grade school variable by society and by indi-
vidual choice
C
hart
a.1
To put it another way, the students took away from the discussion more than the
teachers intended. 周e teachers did not really believe in moral relativism themselves, and
they did not directly a瑴ack any particular moral stand. (Such an a瑴ack, a晴er all, would
have been out of step with the principle of tolerance.) Like many postmodernists, the
teachers sought agreement on social issues through continuing discussion. 周ey hoped
that discussion—the process—would promote a gradual societal evolution of morality.
周is corporate morality would be what “we” together (in our admi瑴edly limited social
and geographical se瑴ing) see as appropriate in our society. 周e high school students who
were not completely bored were, I think, willing to begin participating in such discussion.
3. 周e school promoted the avoidance of illegal drugs and the avoidance of practices that
run a high risk of transmi瑴ing sexual diseases. But even there, the motivation that it gave was not
really moral, but pragmatic: “Avoid this because that way you will have a more comfortable life
in the long run.” 周e school also from time to time mentioned environmental conservation, but
again the ultimate motivation would have been pragmatic: not the comfort of the individual, in
this case, but the comfort of the society as a whole.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 307
5/14/09 4:46:47 PM
44
308
Interaction with Other Approaches to Language
But they knew that they also had a more private side to their lives. 周ey knew that in any
particular area where they had strong desires, they could freely withhold consenting to
others’ opinions, or could secretly make themselves an exception. Nothing was really
binding, and in that sense the whole was tainted with relativism.
So now, how could teachers motivate students who were selfish and who thought
they were free to make up their own morality? Particularly at the high school level, how
could teachers motivate students who no longer cared and who wondered what was the
point of studying? 周e student thought, “Why should I study if there is no inherent moral
obligation to do so, and if no one can say for sure what is the purpose of life?” Li瑴le was
le晴, because the school could not appeal to the morals and the human purposes that it had
relativized. In their desperate situation, the teachers found the obvious motivation:
Study this so that you will get good grades. 周en you will be able to go to a good college,
and from there get a good job paying lots of money. You can live in a big house with three
cars and a boat and a swimming pool and the latest electronic gadgets.
周e school had created a moral vacuum. 周e only remaining motivator was material success.
周e message that came out was that human life is about material success and pleasure. 周e
students were quite ready to accept this message, because it was reinforced by advertising.
And need I say that it was reinforced by some of the students’ own desires? 周ey
possessed desires toward selfishness, and these desires were nourished and fanned into
flame by the subliminal influence of advertising and peer pressure, which like waves of
the incoming sea beat ceaselessly against the wall of whatever moral standards they had
le晴 within them.
What Does It Mean to Listen?
Various cultures and various individuals may have various ideas about God, about re-
ligion, and about moral standards. 周at is true enough. But what kind of variation is
this? According to one form of postmodernism, we are so hemmed in by our cultural
environment that we can never find out the truth in an absolute sense, even if it exists.
Each culture may have its ideas, and each individual within the culture may have his.
But no one really knows.
周at is usually where the postmodernist stops his explanation, at the point where his
position has a strong appeal to people who value “tolerance.” It is not so common for a
postmodernist to spell out the logical conclusion. 周e conclusion is that, since no one
knows, we honestly need not bother. No one really needs to take the trouble to find out
in detail about anyone else’s views on such ma瑴ers, because in the end it is all merely
a ma瑴er of human opinion, not real knowledge of real, unchangeable truth. Oh, yes, a
postmodernist might still listen in a kind of semi-appreciative, selective, ironic way, and try
to recover useful insights here and there. But he knows beforehand that the actual views
on morality are mistaken, to the degree that they claim to be absolute and universal.
Well, this kind of postmodernism is one view. It is a view held by many. But it is not
the only view of the world and its meaning. Other people and other cultures have thought
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 308
5/14/09 4:46:47 PM
47
309
Appendix A: Modernism and Postmodernism
that they had the truth about God and the truth about morals. 周ink, for instance, of the
militant and violent forms of modern Islam or fascism or communism. Some people are
fanatically convinced that the acts of terrorism that they are planning are morally right.
周ey think that such acts further the cause of Allah, and contribute to bringing down
and destroying American and European “freedoms,” which in their sight are only a label
for moral corruption, decadence, and disobedience to Allah. Similarly, within Stalinism,
some people were fanatically convinced that the oppressive government apparatus was
a necessary stage for bringing in the society of communist abundance and peace, and
they were willing to sacrifice millions of lives for the sake of that future.
And for postmodernists, that is part of the point. Enormous human damage can be
caused by religious fanaticism and moral fanaticism. Not merely traditional religions,
but the atheistic fanaticism of communism can be a source of human damage. Fanatics
cannot easily be stopped. 周eir mistaken feeling of certainty drives them forward. And
their certainty blinds them to the viewpoints of the other human beings whom they
oppress. Postmodernists want us to learn to consider these other human beings sym-
pathetically, rather than with the hostility of fanaticism. One of the major challenges is
to enable people to cross cultural barriers and to consider with sympathy people within
other cultures and other thought pa瑴erns.
I believe there is much to be commended in these postmodernist desires. 周e Bible
itself says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14; Lev. 19:18). Loving
your neighbor includes loving the neighbor who is culturally different from you. Post-
modernists are made in the image of God, and so they, like all human beings, experience
in their hearts the force of the command to love. 周ey sense the moral rightness of love,
4
even if they do not read the Bible.
Moreover, postmodernism is fighting against powerful forces of selfishness and pride.
Most people, in most cultures, almost automatically assume that their own kind of people
and their own kind of culture are superior to everything else. Learning another culture
or another language can be frustrating and humiliating. It is easy to transform this frus-
tration into a prejudicial conviction that your own native culture and language always
do things “the right way.”
But I do not completely agree with the postmodernists about their principle of sympathy.
It depends on what “sympathy” means. Does it mean pu瑴ing away false pride about your
own native culture? Does it mean exercising patience in learning a new language or culture?
Or does it mean giving up on religion and morals altogether, because no one knows?
Postmodernism thinks it knows before it begins listening to these other cultures that
real listening to religious views is unnecessary. And why is it unnecessary? Because these
other cultures are mistaken. 周ey must be mistaken in the fundamental issue of how
they assess the status of their alleged knowledge of God and religion and morality. 周e
postmodernists know that others are mistaken because—well, because they have seen
the inevitability of the molding effects of culture on what people count as knowledge.
4. 周e Bible indicates that all human beings have a sense of right and wrong (Rom. 1:32).
But that sense is distorted by human sin (Eph. 4:17–19).
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 309
5/14/09 4:46:48 PM
39
310
Interaction with Other Approaches to Language
And is not postmodernism itself a “culture” that has molding effects? Postmodernists
might be happy with this. But would they also be happy with an outsider’s question? We
might ask from outside whether, in the end, postmodernists have “tolerance” only for
themselves. Every other culture must in the end submit to their particular vision of how
much cultures can actually know. Postmodernists are supremely arrogant, because their
postmodernist vision has relieved them of the responsibility really to listen to anyone
else.
5
周ey are “tolerant” of all cultures when all cultures submit to their hegemony.
Many postmodernists are concerned about tolerance toward diverse beliefs not merely
because of the beliefs in themselves but because of the impact that beliefs have on com-
munities. It is all too easy for a majority in a community or in a nation to impose their
beliefs on minorities, trying to force them into the majority mold, whether in the laws,
in business, in entertainment, or in education. Indeed it does happen. It has happened
over and over again, and history overflows with the disgraceful wreckage.
Postmodernism tries to address one aspect of this tragedy by encouraging human
sympathy. But does it go further than that? Does its idea of “tolerance” dissolve the sharp
differences in belief, by implying that they are all mere opinion? And if so, does this dis-
solution amount to an intolerance for any and every religious or moral absolute?
And so I come back to the question, “What is tolerance?” I wonder whether the term
is useful partly because it can mean different things to different people, and even different
things to the same person at different times. It allows us to think sloppily. Maybe it allows
us to approve what we are comfortable with already, and not to impose on ourselves any
onerous obligation. If no one really knows, then each person can do what is right in his
own eyes. At heart, we can be perfectly selfish. And we escape serious work.
周e Invitation to 周ink and to Listen
And so I invite my readers not simply to be tolerant, with the “easy” tolerance of modern
American civility. I invite them to think. I invite them to engage with my thinking, as someone
who belongs to another “culture,” namely, the “culture” that tries to follow Jesus Christ, and
listens to his instructions in the Bible. 周e Bible offers a different account, which takes its
start from God. “周e fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 111:10). If we follow
the Bible’s account, we take a different approach to language, as well as to other subjects.
5. On the godlike claims of this vision, see Vern S. Poythress, “周e Quest for Wisdom,” in
Resurrection and Eschatology: 周eology in Service of the Church, ed. Lane G. Tipton and Jeffrey C.
Waddington (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 109–111.
PoythressLanguageBook.indd 310
5/14/09 4:46:48 PM
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested
