The modern mind might look at the tree and say the tree is firewood, and it could only ever be firewood. That is the only correct, absolute purpose for the tree, thinks the modern mind. The absolute truth is then found in the mechanical function of the tree. The search for truth becomes a quest for certitude. Truth becomes mathematical.

The postmodern mind considers multiple perspectives. One person might say the tree is the source of paper. Another might say the tree is to be a home for squirrels and birds. And another might ask What kind of tree is it? Another might examine the leaves on the tree and note the processes going on there. And another might dig up the tree to examine its roots. The postmodern mind is open to consider the value of multiple perspectives, all of which may yield a bigger picture of the absolute truth of the tree. The absolute truth is then found in the biological existence of the tree. The search for truth becomes perspectival.

I’m still processing all this. But two movies that helped me are the Croods and the Lego Movie.

The Lego Movie is a shining display of the transitions and connections between modern (rigid rules), postmodern (no rules) and metamodern(?) (rules that should be broken) thought and expression.

“Postmodern Christians do not maintain that they have no access to the truth, but merely that they do not have the kind of access to the truth that modernity had set forth as its model. Since postmodernism has yet to take its final form, at this point, the only characteristic that unites a vast variety of people who consider themselves postmodern is that they reject many of the principles upon which modernity was founded. Even today’s science, which has rejected many Enlightenment (modernist) beliefs and attitudes, is being referred to by some as postmodern to distinguish it from modern, Enlightenment science.” – Highlight Loc. 345-47

And Danaher ties postmodernism to predmodernism and Augustine:

“One of the primary reasons for the premodern, flexible interpretation of truth is that for many centuries Christians argued that Scripture—the root of all truth—did not have a single, univocal meaning. They interpreted the quest for truth as a process of unfolding the infinite, sometimes hidden, meaning of sacred Scripture. Saint Augustine (354–430 CE), for example, would have thought that mathematics and the science of modernity, with their certain and precise meanings, were poor models for understanding the truth of Scripture. Speaking of the creation account in the Book of Genesis, Augustine says: Although I hear people say “Moses meant this” or “Moses meant that,” I think it more truly religious to say “Why should he not have had both meanings in mind, if both are true? And if others see in the same words a third, or a fourth, or any number of true meanings, why should we not believe that Moses saw them all? There is only one God, who caused Moses to write the Holy Scripture in the way best suited to theminds of great numbers of men who would all see truths in them, though not the same truths in each case.” – Highlight Loc. 451-54

Forests, you have a strong negative reaction against this, and that’s okay. I would have had a similar reaction to this article 10 years ago. But I know from experience that when emotions run high, and when battle lines are quickly drawn, it becomes almost impossible for either side to accurately hear what the other side is even saying, let alone the intentions and thoughts that lie behind them. I fear that you have misunderstood me and are failing to see that we actually have large areas of agreement.

I will just respond to the first thing you said in your last comment. Please read my words carefully.

You wrote:

***
“Everything is relative,” someone will say.- and I say that they are wrong. – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2010/10/28/committed-to-absolute-truth/#comment-12502
***

In my experience, if someone says “everything is relative,” they are speaking hyperbolically. They don’t actually believe that, and their actions bear that out. In daily life, they order their physical behaviors in accordance with the laws of gravity which they treat as an absolute. They spend money knowing full well that their bank account balance is based on hard laws of addition and subtraction. And so on. You and I know that the statement is false. And at a very deep level, the person who said it knows it too.

Given that situation, how should we respond?

You said would respond by telling that person that he is wrong. Perhaps that will be an effective tool of communication and instruction if you are dealing with a very small child who looks up to you and is keenly aware of his or her ignorance.

But if I hear him say, “Everything is relative,” I would respond by asking, “What do you mean by that?” Because the fact is, I don’t really know what he means. Through dialogue, I would try to discern whether he means (a) there is no such thing as fact or reality, or (b) that our perceptions of reality are highly perspectival.

If he says (b), I would wholeheartedly agree with him, and we could share lots of interesting and humorous and heartbreaking examples of how that plays out in real life.

But if he says (a), I would ask him to clarify further, because I know that he cannot possibly believe that; he doesn’t order his life that way. So I would give him every opportunity to correct himself and construct a better and smarter way of talking about such things. In the conversation, I would not try to assume the position of smart guy. Rather, I would try to create the environment for him to show himself as a smart guy, so that he instinctively feels that I respect him as a person of great worth, one who is created in the image of God, one who is beloved by God even if his thinking is deeply flawed. And even if he persists in making statements that are easily shown to be full of holes, I would try not to take advantage of his ignorance or defeat him with my superior wit and knowledge, because I don’t think that’s what Jesus would do. I would hold back all my high powered intellectual weapons, just as Jesus refused to call on legions of angels at his disposal to assist him. I would stay with him and find whatever ways I could to affirm him, because even if he makes statements that are wrong, there will be elements of truth in his underlying sentiments and reasons for holding those positions. I would pray that through our interaction, he would sense the presence of Jesus who loves and affirms him as a person even when he is wrong. If I succeed in that, I have brought him far closer to the absolute Truth with a capital “T” than I would have if I had just focused on promoting the idea of absolute truth with a small “t”.

(In principle, that’s what I want to do. In real-life situations, I often fail to do that, and I often come off as a smart-ass. That’s one of my big character flaws.)

I am not an expert in postmodernism. But I know enough about it to see that it is a complex and rich set of ideas. Yes, it is negative in the sense that it deconstruct many of the basic assumptions of modernism. But it also has some constructive ideas as well. There are some very serious problems with modernism that it seeks to correct. If you completely reject postmodernism, what are you saying? That you want to go back to post-Enlightenment modernism? That you want to go back to some system of pre-modern thinking? That’s a serious question. What do you really want, and how are you going to get there?

This reminds me of a phrase I had heard and sometimes say to other Christians, “The only Bible some people will read is you.” It’s actually quite scary to consider that I, an obvious sinner, am to personify the Christ, the Spirit, and the God of the Bible.

The major problem with postmodern philosophy is it is primarily a negative philosophy. It leaves us with a definite image of what is bad, but no clue as to what is good. When Adam and Eve fell they gained knowledge of good and evil, but postmodernism causes us to fall again, but this time we lose knowledge of what is good as well. Our sin gives us definite images of what is evil, and postmodernism finds only death.

We should not stray from this idea; we have nothing if we do.

@Joe: Your article is actually dealing with one of my favorite topics these days!!! =) i had never fathomed that the claim that all truth is relative (which is obviously a self-defeating statement) should rather be interpreted as a statement concerning persons than as a statement concerning ultimate reality. But is makes sense to me. Thanks for your article! i again learned something new and helpful!