Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Two:  What Is the Best Way to Initiate a Response to Skeptics and Other Critics?

 The task of Christian apologetics is to identify misbeliefs about Christianity and remove them as obstacles to faith in Jesus Christ. The goal is to compel unbelievers to reevaluate their anti-Christian worldview assumptions in light of the evidence for the veracity of Christianity. It works on the premise that the weight of the evidence will always support Christianity and always refute contradicting worldview beliefs.

There are two ways to identify and respond to false beliefs and irrational arguments against Christianity. The traditional approach, which I touched on in last week’s blog, is “defensive” apologetics, which entails confronting objections raised by unbelievers by providing reasoned arguments based on verifiable facts and other objective evidence.

Defensive apologetics is a valuable and long-standing apologetic approach, and it’s crucial to overcoming barriers that hinder unbelievers from considering Christianity as a world and life view. Like all apologetic methods, its intention—and it often succeeds—is to clear the road for a Gospel presentation.

But there is another apologetic strategy that I’ll examine in today’s blog and in the weeks ahead. It is best applied it at the beginning of an apologetic encounter, that is, when a non-Christian makes a challenging negative comment against Christianity and Christians themselves. Instead of defending our beliefs or ourselves, we challenge unbelievers to defend their beliefs. This is called “offensive” apologetics (based on the “Socratic Method”—see part one). I don’t mean offensive as in bad taste, but going on the offensive as in a football team. We become the aggressors in the sense that we challenge unbelievers to defend the assumptions triggering their attack. We challenge them to defend their religious, ethical, or other beliefs before we give our defense. In short, we take the burden of proof off ourselves and put it on non-Christian skeptics and other critics. The idea is when they are unable defend their views, they may be more willing to consider the Christian perspective on the issue at hand with a more open mind.

How do we do this? As Proverbs 18:17 instructs (see last week’s blog), we ask questions. First, we listen carefully to an unbeliever’s opinion on a particular issue and identify inaccurate data, inconsistencies, and, especially, hidden assumptions. We then politely point them out and ask the critic to account for their errors. This places the burden of proof on the unbeliever.

What kind of questions should we ask? In later blogs, I will provide numerous specific examples designed to respond to various common apologetic challenges in Scriptural, ethical, scientific, and other areas. But most of the questions will revolve around getting the unbeliever to explain and justify:

• What they believe?
• Why they believe it?
• How do they know it’s true?
• What difference does it make anyway?

Do you see how this works? It’s a shift in our apologetic technique from defensive to offensive. It’s approaching a religious or ethical discussion from an adversarial position (but in a good way) rather than defensive. Once this apologetic technique becomes part of your apologetic arsenal, once it becomes a natural response, you’ll automatically ask challenging questions as part of your apologetic strategies. ©

Next week we’ll see why apologetics going on the offensive—putting the burden of proof on the unbeliever—is such a successful tactic.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part One: Can Christians Go on the Offense without Being Offensive?

For several years I taught an apologetics course in Bible College. On the students’ final exam, I asked this question:  “What is the most important thing you learned in this class?” The majority of the students responded that the topic which benefited them most is what I will be sharing in this new blog series—how to put the burden of proof non-Christian who challenge Christianity.  In today’s blog post and continuing in the weeks ahead, I will explain what this tactic is and how to use it in witnessing and apologetic encounters. I believe it may be the most beneficial apologetic tactic readers can learn. Here’s why.

Too often in religious discussions, we Christians find ourselves pushed into a corner, with our arms folded, defending what we believe. But it shouldn’t be this way. Why? Because Christianity is the worldview with a grasp on what is real in religion, ethics, origins, and so on. Therefore, unbelievers should be the ones who defend what they believe—not us. In light of this, I believe our best apologetic strategy, at least initially, is to put the burden of proof on the unbeliever.

This entire tactic is summed up beautifully in Proverbs 18:17: “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him (NIV).”  The arguments and assumptions unbelievers use to challenge Christianity may sound convincing—until we pause a moment, think about what’s being said, and then question it. When we do this, almost every time, their arguments begin to fall apart.

Going on the Offensive

Usually, when apologetics is needed during a witnessing opportunity, most apologists rely on defensive tactics. We confront challenges raised by unbelievers with logical counterarguments supported by verifiable facts and other objective evidence. For example, if a skeptic declares that later editors corrupted the Bible, we can muster a considerable amount of evidence to prove him or her wrong. Similarly, if an unbeliever argues that pain and suffering disprove the existence of a loving, all-powerful God, we can challenge that view with compelling theological and philosophical arguments.

This same kind of defensive tactic can be applied to virtually every apologetic issue, including the existence of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the resurrection, divine creations, and so on.

In this new blog series, however, I will stress a second apologetic approach. It’s called the “Socratic Method” because it uses a teaching technique similar to that of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. By asking specific questions that challenged his students’ assumptions, Socrates led them into a kind of self-discovery, where they eventually concluded for themselves the error of their existing beliefs and went on to accept a new truth or a different conclusion.

In this series, I’ll apply the Socratic Method in Christian apologetics as a way to go on the offensive in encounters with skeptics and other critics. Our goal is the same as Socrates. In our case, help unbelievers “concluded for themselves the error of their existing beliefs” as well as their misbeliefs about Christianity. The goal is to encourage them to reconsider Christianity as a world and life view. ©

Next week’s blog post will look closely at how offensive apologetics work.

Note: This series is adapted from my book, Engaging the Closed Minded; Presenting Your Faith to the Confirmed Unbeliever, with a foreword by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (Kregel Publications, 1999). This book is out of print, although you may be able to find copies online (?).

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series. I do not share email addresses.

Part Twelve:  How Can We Evangelize without Saying a Word?

American evangelist, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, and author of dozens of books, the late Bill Bright, co-wrote two novels with Ted Dekker. Referring to them, Bright wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that a good novel on biblical themes can reach many more people than most theological works. God Himself, upon coming to earth in the form of Jesus of Nazareth, chose stories as His primary mode of communication. He used fiction. We call them parables, but they are stories either way (Blessed Child, 349).

It can be challenging to get non-Christians to read Christian books, especially theological or apologetic books that openly promote Christian values. However, during the past couple of decades, numerous Christian authors have written novels that are subtle in their presentation of the Christian worldview. Many of these novelists are every bit as skillful as popular secular authors in creating exciting, suspenseful plots built around interesting, real-life characters.

In a newsletter essay, the late Christian apologist Gretchen Passantino commented on “Discovering God through Stories” in Answers in Action.

Some of the most profound personal and spiritual insights I’ve ever experienced have grabbed me from the pages of a story. In exquisite story telling I see the creational image of God reflected in authors who created worlds of ideas never pondered before. As a spiritual novice and moral ingénue I encountered and came to understand faithfulness, integrity, courage, humility, and self-discipline through good characters; and betrayal, deceit, cowardice, pride, and self-indulgence through evil ones. I can’t count how often God has sneaked up on me in a powerful story, and taught me lessons I wouldn’t have willingly learned had he been so obvious as to challenge my stubbornness directly through a Bible study.

 Encourage your non-Christian friends, family, and coworkers to read novels that portray Christianity in a positive light. Start a book club that meets every week or two to discuss a particular book. The idea is to encourage non-Christians to consider aspects of the biblical worldview and compare them with secular and religious postmodernism. Which worldview best explains the human condition? Which one best accounts for people’s natural tendency to sin, to be self-focused, to be greedy, lustful, and so on? Which worldview best accounts for the intrinsic human craving for a relationship with God?

Most importantly, which worldview—Christian or postmodern—best explains life’s great mysteries: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Why is there evil and suffering in the World? Is there life after death?  How do I attain it? These topics arise in the plots of Christian novels, and all can be evangelistic or apologetic points of contact.

The goal is to help non-Christians understand that Christianity offers solutions to the issues secularism can’t solve. Christianity provides the joy, peace, moral guidelines, and intellectual gratification today’s society desperately needs. ©

Next week I’ll begin a news series that will explain how and why Christians should go on the offensive in apologetic encounters rather than just the defensive.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Eleven:  What Is the Best Apologetics for Closed-Minded Postmodernists and Other Skeptics?

Lifestyle Evangelism

Christian scholar and apologist Nancy Pearcey correctly observed that “it is all but impossible for people to accept new ideas purely in the abstract, without seeing a concrete illustration of what they look like when lived out in practice.” (Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, 354-355) We can provide concrete illustrations of Christianity “lived out in practice” through lifestyle evangelism. Living out our faith with love and service is a powerful testimony for the truth of Christianity—and it can also provide witnessing and apologetic opportunities. Non-Christians drawn to Christianity by our love for them and our lifestyles will be more willing to share their intellectual concerns with an open mind rather than with criticisms.

Lifestyle evangelism is a natural outgrowth of the love God gives us for other people. It has always been the Christian’s most successful evangelistic tool. How we live out our beliefs and faith before non-Christians demonstrates that Christianity is true at all levels. It gives meaning and purpose to our lives. It heals us. It changes our behaviors and transforms our minds. The sinful things we once loved to do we avoid doing. We’re the same people outwardly, but we are different on the inside because of God’s redemptive work.

Non-Christians notice how we respond to life’s challenges, how we talk and behave. Our lifestyle can make a tremendous impact on them. If we demonstrate that we possess an inner strength and peace the world can’t offer, Christianity can become extremely appealing to non-Christians—including those who have never been responsive to direct witnessing or apologetics.

When we become involved in people’s lives—reaching out to share in their suffering, coming alongside them during times of tragedy to comfort and encourage, taking time to listen to their worldviews and offer new directions of thoughts—we create an environment that sets the Holy Spirit free to soften people’s hearts and open their minds to Christ.

Personal Testimony

There is something in human nature that causes people to love to hear true-life stories. Thus, the popularity of reality television shows, celebrity magazines, and exposes.

As Christians, each of us has a story about how we came to faith in Jesus Christ. Our personal testimonies make the objective truths of our faith subjectively real. Sharing how Jesus healed our emotional wounds, delivered us from bondage to addictions, healed our marriages, brought us closer to our children, restored family relationships, and improved our standing among coworkers—all such personal encounters with the living Christ demonstrate the reality of Christianity and its transforming power in all areas of life. ©

Next week we’ll look at a third subjective avenue for engaging closed-minded postmodernists and other skeptics, and one probably most Christians never considered.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Ten:  What is “Subjective” Apologetics, and How and When Should It Be Applied? (Hard-Boiled vs. Soft-Boiled Postmodernists)

 In previous blog posts in this series, I focused primarily on “objective” apologetics when engaging both secular and religious postmodernism. By objective apologetics, I referred to verifiable facts, persuasive reasoning, logic, and plain common sense.  As a tactic for applying this approach in apologetic encounters, I suggested we first challenge postmodernists to justify their position on the issues under discussion. This is done by asking questions that require them to defend their views and think objectively about the reasons they believe them (see Parts Six and Seven).

As I emphasized throughout this series, however, the cardinal doctrine of postmodernism is that absolute truth does not exist in any area of knowledge. Thus, for hard-boiled postmodernists (unyielding dogmatists), “truth” so-called is relative, situational, and scripted by one’s personal experiences and cultural milieu. Despite this, the objective approach to apologetics, as examined in previous blogs in this series, can still be effective with many soft-boiled postmodernists. These individuals understand that all people must live in a world bound by the laws of logic. All of us necessarily make real-life decisions that depend on reasoning, factual evidence, and moral absolutes. For these less dogmatic postmodernists, the objective approach to apologetics is a matter of encouraging them to make religious and moral decisions the same way they make other crucial life decisions—reasoning based on the best evidence available. When they do this, they will see (whether accepted or not) that only the Christian worldview is legitimate and verifiable by objective evidence (see last week’s blog).

Subjective Apologetics

However, rational arguments and objective evidence do not always convince hard-boiled, dogmatic postmodernists. Most of them want nothing to do with appeals to facts, reasoning, evidence, or even commons sense. They tend to make decisions, both moral and religious, based on feelings rather than thinking. How do we engage these individuals and help them see that Christian moral and spiritual claims are a product of God-given absolutes? We turn to “Subjective” apologetic tactics.

Since hard-boiled postmodernists rely almost entirely on feelings and experiences, we must establish points of contact that reveal Christian truth claims subjectively. We must provide “evidence” that appeals more to their emotions and feelings than their intellect.

So, in the next two blog posts in this series—rather than appealing to verifiable facts, logic, and persuasive reasoning—we’ll look at the subjective side of Christianity. We’ll appeal more to the heart than to the brain. ©

Next week we’ll explore two avenues of subjective apologetics, and in the following week, a third.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Nine:  Why Is Postmodernism Consistently Inconsistent?

There are three essential ingredients necessary before any worldview can be considered legitimate: (1) It must be internally and externally consistent and coherent. (2) It must answer crucial questions about life that correspond to human nature and experience as universally understood and lived out. (3) It must be emotionally and spiritually satisfying. Christianity meets all these standards—but does secular or religious postmodernism? No! The fact is, postmodernism is consistently inconsistent.

As we saw throughout this series, the cardinal doctrine of postmodernism is relativism, in particular moral and religious relativism. However, regardless of how widespread relativism has become in Western culture, it is an unlivable philosophy. In day-to-day life, no one consistently follows the precepts of postmodern relativism. It’s easy to endorse it in the ivory tower of academia or other safe environments, where one does not have to commit to it. But bring this philosophy into the real world where it must be lived out—where it affects one’s personal life—and suddenly, commitment to relativism evaporates.

Here is where our apologetic response should focus: Ask postmodernists questions that demonstrate no one will live consistently with full-fledged postmodern relativism. In other words, we move the discussion out of a postmodernist’s moral comfort zone toward the hard choices a person would have to make to live consistently within such a relativistic worldview. As theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer suggested, “We ought not first try to move a man away from what he should deduce from his position but towards it. . . . We try to move him in the natural direction in which his presuppositions would take him. We are then pushing him towards the place where he ought to be, had he not stopped short.” (The God Who Is There). Here are a few examples of the kind of questions we can ask:

• “Do you have any doubt that rape is wrong?”
• “Is sexual relations with children okay?”
• “Is sacrificing babies for religious purposes acceptable?”
• “Should cannibalism and headhunting in the name of religion be acceptable?”
• “Is the degradation of women as promoted in some cultures as good for society as Christianity’s teaching on the equality of women?”

Not one person in ten million will endorse such behaviors, regardless of whether rejecting them violates the fundamental ideological precept of postmodern relativism (i.e., there are no absolute truths in any area of knowledge). There are limits to human conduct that virtually everyone recognizes. People may talk the talk of relativism, but in most areas of life, they live according to absolute standards. In the real world, no sane person will tolerate the ultimate consequences of moral or religious relativism carried to its logical conclusion. There are specific standards of ethical behavior all societies impose and demand that people obey. This is absolutism, not relativism! Bottom line: an inconsistent worldview is an unlivable and therefore false worldview. ©

Next week’s blog will change direction. Instead of focusing on objective apologetics, we’ll begin to explore what I call “subjective apologetics,” that is, appealing to the heart as well as the mind.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Postmodernists’ Irrational Dilemma: They Can’t Have It Both Ways!

In last week’s blog, we saw postmodernism is a self-contradicting worldview because how postmodernists reason and behave contradicts what they preach. Closely related to this is postmodernisms’ dismissal of the fundamental laws of logic

The first principle of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which is formally stated, ” ‘A’ cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ at the same time and in the same relationship.” For example, I’m married, or I’m not married. I can’t be married and unmarried at the same time. Likewise, two contradicting religions or moral claims cannot both be correct. It is logically impossible that “all religions are paths to God.” Either Christianity is true, or another religion is true. They may both be false, but both can’t be true.

Similarly, a fetus cannot be an unborn child in some cases and a soulless piece of tissue in another. Lawsuits have been won when an unborn child is killed in a criminal act. Yet 60,000,000 unborn American children have been murdered in abortions—and it’s perfectly legal!

Without the laws logic, it would be impossible to reason and behave consistently. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to bother many postmodernists. If one ignores the laws of logic, it becomes easy not to be influenced by arguments based on logic. Irrationality doesn’t bother many postmodernists.

Don’t let postmodernists’ dismissal of logic confuse you. They are merely voicing the same old relativistic nonsense I gave examples of in last week’s blog post. And our response should be the same as I explained then: Ask questions that challenge postmodernists to justify their illogical views. If they see for themselves they can’t justify their views, they may be willing to consider the Christian perspective.

Denial of logic is nonsensical and unlivable—people who attempt to do this endorse the very laws of logic they deny. Indeed, whatever getting beyond logic entails would require logical thinking to accomplish!  As philosopher Thomas Nagel pointed out, “Any challenge mounted against reasoning would have to involve reasoning of its own, and this can only be evaluated rationally” (The Last Word, 25).

The fact is, no postmodernists live consistently with this kind of illogical relativism. Since all humans are created in the image of God, the laws of logic are intuitive within all of us.

So, how do postmodernists function in their schizophrenic world? They don’t. Except when moral or religious fancy prompts them to pretend otherwise, they too live according to the laws of logic. In the real world of daily living, there is no way postmodern relativists can get around logic and reason, even if they try to dismiss them.©

Next week we’ll look at three ways postmodernism fails to fulfill the necessary requirements for a legitimate and livable world and life view.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Seven:  Postmodernism Is Self-contradicting, So Why Do People Believe It?

Postmodern relativists claim that absolute truth is a myth. They insist truth is relative, situational, and subject to redefinition and reinterpretation in virtually all areas of knowledge, including history, law, psychology, education, sociology, ethics, and religion. But can this worldview be justified? No, because it is a self-contradicting proposition; the assertion contradicts postmodernists’ actual beliefs and behaviors.

As I suggested in last week’s blog, the best way to counter postmodernism is to ask questions that challenge them to justify their assumptions. The idea is for them to see the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of their claims—and in today’s blog self-contradictions. Below are a few examples:

PM:  (postmodernist): “It’s wrong for you to impose your morals on other people!”

CA:  (Christian apologist): “Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing when you tell me that?”

 PM:  “No one’s beliefs are better than anyone else’s.

CA:  “Does this mean my beliefs are as valid as yours?”

PM   “People have a right to believe whatever they want.”

CA:   “Then why are you trying to convince me of your view?”

PM:   “There is no right or wrong.”

CA:   “What about that statement? Is it right or wrong?”

 PM:  “Nothing can be known for sure.”

CA:   “Does that include your statement?”

 PM:   “All religions are equally true!”

CA:   “If all religions are equally true, then Christianity is false because it claims to be the only true religion. And if Christianity is false, then it’s not true that all religions are equally true!”

PM:   ”There are no absolutes.”

CA:   “Are you absolutely certain there are no absolutes?”

When postmodernists make such statements as the above illustrate, they make absolute statements about truth—therefore contradicting themselves. They are merely endorsing a different set of absolutes they want to believe are true.

No one can affirm relativism without refuting it in the process. Indeed, to attempt to persuade someone that relativism is true is to become an absolutist. The late theologian and apologists, Dr. Norman Geisler, expressed this well:

Those who deny the absolute nature of truth do not believe their view is just another relative view. They claim, at least implicitly, that it is absolutely true. In short, total relativism is self-defeating. Relativism of truth cannot be affirmed as truth unless relativism is false, for it is self-defeating to affirm that it is objectively true for all that truth is not objectively true for all. Absolute truth, therefore, is literally undeniable. (Why I Am a Christian; Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, 45.)

In short, a self-contracting worldview is a false worldview. ©

Next week we’ll see that postmodernism violates the laws of logic—yet postmodernists continue to believe in it.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Six: Why Doesn’t Sincerely Believing in Something Make It True?

In last week’s blog post, we saw that secularism and postmodernism are destroying America’s moral fabric. Our second response to this ideology will show that believing something is true doesn’t automatically make it true. A person can sincerely believe in something and be sincerely wrong. Here are a few examples:

A common complaint among postmodernists is that Christians are intolerant of other religions. The postmodern party line is that any religion that meets people’s spiritual needs—that “feels” right to them—is just as legitimate as Christianity. But what if beliefs other than Christianity are false?  Someone may believe, for example, that all religions lead to salvation, but a little thoughtful reflection shows this is nonsense.

The fact is, virtually all religions have dramatically different views on the nature of God and how they perceive “salvation.” The impersonal, abstract, non-creating God of Hinduism is not compatible with the personal, sovereign, creator God of the Bible. They cannot be reduced to a common denominator. Any attempt to do so only succeeds if one distorts both religions. So how can they all be legitimate?

This same principle applies to ethical issues. The postmodern perspective on moral behavior has more to do with feelings than facts. But “feeling” that a particular behavior is morally acceptable doesn’t make it so—as last week’s blog demonstrated. Here are a few examples of common ethical and religious assumptions:

• “So what if I look at pornography? It’s not hurting anybody!”
• “I’m a good person; God will let me into Heaven!”
• “I think a woman has a right to have an abortion if she feels like it!”
• “All religions are paths to the same god!”

These beliefs are based on feelings that presuppose moral relativism or religious pluralism. That is, if something feels okay, it must be “true.” However, merely believing there is nothing immoral about specific behaviors or all religions are legitimate doesn’t mean they are.

Since it can be tough arguing a person out of such beliefs, the best way to counter them is to challenge non-Christian to justify their beliefs. For example, consider the following four questions that challenge the four assumptions above:

• “Since pornography can destroy marriages and lead to dangerous sexual behavior, why do you think it can’t hurt anybody?”
• “Since science has proven life begins at conception, why do you believe an unborn baby is not a person who deserves protection from being killed?
• “If God will not tolerate immoral behaviors, just how good would you have to be to get a free pass into Heaven?”
• “Why do you feel that all religions are paths to God when most contradict each other on the nature of God and way to achieve salvation?”

We want postmodern moral relativists and religious pluralists to recognize that beliefs based solely on feelings are usually contradictive, illogical, and outright false. Without objective justification, they are merely personal opinions based on emotions and unreliable avenues for discovering truth. Asking questions that require thoughtful reflection can lead to compelling apologetic opportunities. Once thoughtful unbelievers realize their moral and religious assumptions cannot be justified, they may be more willing to consider Christianity—a faith that rests on objective, verifiable facts. ©

Next week we’ll see that postmodern relativism is a self-refuting proposition, and therefore disqualified as leading to spiritual or moral truth.

Note: If you have not signed up to join my blog email list, please click on “contact” above and send me your name and email address. You will receive notices when I post a new blog and avoid missing future blog posts in this and other series.  I do not share email addresses.

Part Five:  Has Secular Postmodernism Benefited American Society or Destroying Its Moral Fabric?

As we saw in last week’s blog post, Christianity rests on a historical foundation of absolute facts that can be checked out and verified. In previous blogs, we also saw that secularism (a non-religious ideology) grew in dominance in the mid-20th century and gained even more acceptance in the 21^st century. It has also become increasingly postmodern in ideology. But has this worldview benefited societies?

The answer is no, and the remaining blogs in this series will demonstrate beyond doubt that not only has secular postmodernism not benefited American and other Western societies but as a worldview is destroying their moral fabric as well. (The topic of this week’s blog.)

Worldview: A philosophy of life and blueprint for living

All worldviews set the moral and social standards by which people in a culture think and behave. To survive, they must possess several necessary ingredients to sustain a healthy, civilized society. One of these is that they must promote moral virtues. History has shown that civilizations that degenerate morally ultimately collapse (see Part One in this series). Is today’s secular postmodern world healthy? No. Consider these statistics from William Bennett’s, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, which summarizes the degradation of American’s moral conscience between the 1960s and 2000.

Since 1960, our population has increased 48 percent. But since 1960, even taking into account recent improvements, we have seen a 467 percent increase in violent crime; a 463 percent increase in the numbers of state and federal prisoners; a 461 percent increase in out-of-wedlock births; more than a 200 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more than a doubling in the teenage suicide rate; a more than 150 percent increase in the number of Americans receiving welfare payments; an almost tenfold increase in the number of cohabiting couples; a doubling of the divorce rate; and a drop of almost 60 points on SAT scores. Since 1973, there have been more than 35 million abortions. (Today, that number has increased to 60,000,000!) (William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators; American Society at the end of the 20^th Century, 4)

These kinds of statistics give ample evidence that America’s moral health and stability under the flag of secular postmodernism has rapidly declined during the past few decades. It is no coincidence that during the same decades in which Christianity’s influence as the spiritual and moral standard-bearer in American culture declined, America’s moral health deteriorated. In other words, the moral decay in American culture parallels the diminishing influence of the Christian worldview. Remove God from the picture and put people in His place, as secular postmodernism does, and civilization begins to crumble.

There are other ways Christian apologists can demonstrate the irrationality, inconsistencies, and failure of secular postmodernism as a world and life view. We’ll look at five more in the blogs that follow in this series. ©

Next week we’ll see that although many postmodernists claim to be “spiritual,” their ideology—unlike Christianity—provides no legitimate foundation for verifiable religious beliefs.