Anciently postmodern

Finally got round to writing something, and it's turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry...

When I studied postmodernism as part of my degree course at uni, the lecturers tried to make out that it was all clever and new. But various things that I've come across suggest that while the name might be new, the attitude (you can have your truth so long as it doesn't get in the way of mine) is very far from recent. You'd have though a history department might have been able to tell them that...

I read something today that struck me as a good summary with the problem of this kind of thinking for Christians. It's from a series of notes on the WordLive website (session date 29th April) about Paul's letter to the Galatians;
"There is a temptation in western cultures to relativise all religious truth-claims. We are quite happy to accept that particular religious beliefs are ‘true’ for those who hold them, but not ‘true’ for those who do not. ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ Postmodernity is willing to tolerate and celebrate all the various human traditions so long as they do not claim a relevance that transcends the group that affirm them. This is because, whilst postmoderns may think that the gospel, for instance, is ‘true’ for Christians, they do not believe that it is really grounded in a divine revelation from the one God. What postmoderns really think is that the gospel is a human creation. This allows them to be nice to Christians and let them affirm their ‘truth’. It also allows them not to have to worry that they do not live by this gospel."

Since part of the "truth" that I believe is that the gospel is relavent to and applies to everyone, not just those who believe it, then if someone says that the gospel can only apply to Christians they are denying that it is true in any sense. If we- Christians -are told that we can't believe what Christianity says about itself- (eg "I am the Light of the World") then we're effectively being told that we shouldn't believe it. Which isn't the same as ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ In effect, it seems to me that it's 'my truth is right, yours is wrong.' Which isn't very postmodern.

The article ends by saying, "Paul would not accept that approach to the authority of his message...If it is not public truth – true truth – then it is not true at all. This gospel might be true or it might be false, but it cannot be true for some people and not for others." I'd agree. But what do I know?

Whatever the truth (however you define it!) of all that, the same day's session goes on to talk about the power of people's personal stories or testimonies to demonstrate to people that beliefs are real. At the start of Galatians, Paul tells the story of his conversion and ministry to demonstrate his validity as a teacher and his trustworthiness to the Galatians. In a world where there are so many choices, how do we decide who or what to believe? Speaking to people who've made the choice to become Christians, you almost always find that it's because someone they knew and trusted- a Christian friend, family member, youth leader- demonstrated their faith and God's love for that person. Not by ramming Bible verses down their throat, but by just being there and being someone they knew they could trust. If we're not living out our faith, demonstrating that it's real and relavant to the world today, why should people decide to follow Christ rather than one of the myriad other philosophies? That's a challenge to think about over the bank holiday!