The “Freedom” of Postmodernism

Emergent guru, Tony Jones, claims that “Postmodern philosophy saved my faith.”

Postmodernism is the belief that all truth claims are subjective and are merely human creations. Here’s how Jones puts it:

• The slipperiness of meaning, the impossibility of objectivity, the incommensurability of truth claims — these themes of postmodernism appealed to me and gave my faith room to grow.

I wonder how Jones regards his own writings in light of his assertion of “the impossibility of objectivity.” I guess he has to admit that his own declarations are all merely subjective, and therefore pertain only to himself – his feelings and thoughts. However, I never have seen him appending his writings with the appropriate disclaimer:

• Everything you are now reading is totally subjective, since objectivity is impossible. Even though it might seem that I am trying to communicate something real to you, I should remind you that I am merely ranting.

How did this philosophy save his faith, giving it “room to grow?” Well, he doesn’t actually explain, leaving us to guess. So allow me to guess. Postmodernism offers “freedom.” Judging from the “born-again” testimonies of atheists and freewill-deniers, they too have achieved a degree of “freedom.”

How? They are now free from God - His moral requirements and judgments! The atheist merely banishes Him from their existence. The freewill-denier rejects any ability to respond freely to His requirements. Meanwhile, the postmodern denies that they can know if He exists, let alone His moral standards.

Each has thereby established himself as the master of his own life. No one can bring any charges against him. He can face his moral failings and say, “You are irrelevant to me. Go away and afflict someone else.” Some folks have even been honest enough to admit this to me.

I am going to ask Jones about his own “liberation” and how his postmodern thinking brought it about. However, I suspect that it is like the freedom of the goldfish who jumped out of his bowl wanting the freedom he perceived through his bowl. Some freedom!

Seeking the Truth while Denying its Reality

I participated in a discussion group on “Spiritual Practices.” It was enlightening. I discovered that for everyone there, spirituality was merely a matter of either discovering oneself or connecting to an impersonal force.

Although there were some differences expressed, they largely agreed that spirituality wasn’t a matter of objective knowledge/truth, but rather experience/feelings. Objective spiritual truth didn’t exist. It wasn’t like the external force gravity, which did have an independent existence. Instead, spiritual “truth” or awareness came from within and just pertained to oneself.

I asked the speaker, “If spiritual ‘truth’ only pertains to oneself, why are we even here discussing the subject? After all, what you discover about yourself will not pertain to anyone else.”

He admitted that this was a problem, but then re-asserted that he didn’t think that there was any “recipe for living.”

Another jumped to his defense: “There cannot be any timeless spiritual truths, since everything is in flux. Change is the only truth.”

I wanted to answer, “Well, if everything is in flux, wouldn’t this also include your statement? Wouldn’t this ‘truth’ of endless change mean that your statement will only pertain to this moment?” However, I didn’t want to be too confrontational. Most of these people were really very lovely and gentle souls, unlike the people I have encountered at atheist meetings. In comparison with then, I saw myself as harsh and pugnacious. I didn’t want them to think me overly offensive.

It struck me that their rejection of any objective, universal, and unchangeable spiritual truths was quite limiting and counter-intuitive. Most would have probably admitted to the existence of the laws of science, while denying any laws of the spirit or morality. However, it became clear why they had such a disdain for spiritual truths. To them, it represented doctrine or dogma – something coercive and highly offensive.

Anthropologist Karen Brown, who wrote about her full-body dive into the embrace of Voodoo, helps us to understand the aversion towards doctrines/beliefs:

• No Haitian — certainly not Alourdes [the Voodoo priestess] — has ever asked me if I “believe” in Voodoo or if I have set aside the religious commitments and understandings that come from my childhood and culture. Alourdes’s approach is, instead, pragmatic: “You just got to try. See if it works for you.” The choice of relinquishing my worldview or adopting another in its entirety has therefore never been at issue.” (“Mama Lola: A Voodoo Priestess in Brooklyn!”)

While experience is not threatening – it is me-centered – beliefs and doctrines are experienced as coercive and centered on objective truths outside of ourselves. They imply a moral obligation to live according to these truths.

The group expressed their disdain for outside authorities, organized religion, and the “us vs. them” inherent within organized religion, as they painted a picture of their spiritual life.

Meanwhile, I was waiting my turn. I would give my testimony. I wasn’t too worried about that. Instead, I was more concerned about my inner poverty. I wasn’t touched by their confusion, their lost-ness. (Lord, help me! Even though I am not worthy of Your slightest grace, You have placed your undying love upon me!)

They failed to see that by rejecting the fruits of the mind in their spiritual search, they were also rejecting all hope of finding. By rejecting the mind, they were limiting themselves to sensuality and experience, perhaps like a mere animal. However, to hide this fact, they talked about living in the “here and now” as their spiritual goal. But life consists of more than the “here and now!”

By turning off the mind, they make themselves vulnerable to every form of demonic deception and confusion. For them, spirituality is an attempt to accept the uncertainty and lack of any real answers.

However, we need answers! We make hundreds of moral decisions a day, each one requiring an answer. How then do they manage? They must put their flight control on “automatic,” because there is no pilot at the helm.

Without any expectation of finding moral or spiritual truth, they scale back their expectations, but call it “getting in touch with self or a universal consciousness.” But what can they learn from this contact, apart from experiencing self? There are no truths to learn. Nothing to take away from their experience apart from a “knowledge” of how to find this experience again, like a squirrel who rehearses where he has buried his acorns. How then can they raise children or provide guidance to a friend?

All were intent on finding happiness, but for them, it was merely a product of finding “our own spiritual voice,” through a sensual form of self-knowing. Nevertheless, some expressed the realization that our behavior will impact how we feel. However, even here, they were reluctant to associate peace with conforming to moral laws or principles. They were confused!

I was next and gave my testimony:

• Spiritual exercises never worked for me; neither did my five highly recommended psychologists. For decades, I had been severely depressed, and this was followed by panic attacks. I was devastated.

I then told them about my life-changing encounter with Christ. To my great surprise, they didn’t bark-me-down but asked probing questions. The inevitable question finally emerged:

• When you refer to “Christ,” you are merely referring to your own experience, right? You’re not suggesting that He’s the truth for everyone, are you?

I answered:

• I must believe that He is the Truth. That He really loves me, protects me, forgives me, and will bring me home to be with Him in paradise. If I didn’t believe that this is the truth, I could not live with any joy or confidence.

I was amazed that they didn’t start screaming at me, lunging at me with knives. Instead, they even thanked me for sharing. Please pray for these blind “seekers.”

A Letter to a Moral Relativist

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are correct that we Christians also place a very high regard on human “well-being,” but ultimately, because our Lord does. Yes, we too are wired for empathy, but we regard empathy, not as a freak of evolution, but as a gift that God has placed within us to guide us fruitfully in love. However, if we thought that empathy was nothing more than a bio-chemical reaction, we might be inclined to ignore it or drug it out.

However, you too seem to regard empathy as more than a chemical reaction. You seem to have established “well-being” as a non-negotiable objective absolute. We certainly do (with various qualifiers, of course). We embrace the golden rule as more than just a feeling or a reaction but as truth, God’s truth.

However, it puzzles me as to why you’d take this principle as objective truth, especially in light of many other alternatives that, without God, seem to be equally defensible:

1. Survival of the fittest – “I’m #1!”
2. The equal value of all living things, including roaches, viruses, the bubonic plague and bacteria.
3. Or suicide to rid the planet of our destructive influence.

You cannot disqualify these three other views without appealing to a higher absolute moral authority, which your atheism prevents you from doing. Instead, you have made “well-being” into your final authority without any rational or authoritative basis to do so. Without a higher authority – court of last resort - your position is merely a dogmatic one. Consequently, you can have nothing of any substance to say to a Hitler who feels that the greatest good is to genetically program the human race, eliminating those people regarded as sub-human.

Meanwhile, the Christian can make an authoritative case from conscience, because the conscience isn’t a biological accident but the wisdom of God. Admittedly, this case might not be persuasive to the atheist, but it is logically coherent.

This is more than just an academic question. At the heart of it lies our very rationale for being moral and living meaningfully. If your concept of “well-being” is no more than something that feels good to you and provides some pragmatic value, then you will find that there is no sufficient reason to live accordingly once your feelings change and you find it more pragmatic to cheat or join in with the gang.

Also, I think that you will find that history informs us that successful cultures have been those who have believed in a right and wrong that is embedded within the texture of reality and not just in our own feelings. Can you cite any such culture that has denied that transcendent truths are foundational to morality and yet has prospered?