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 Four: The Historical Foundation for Christian Apologetics and Two Principles That Summarize Why Apologetics Is Successful

 Christianity is a history-based religion grounded on specific historical events. These events were observed and recorded by eyewitnesses (E.g., 1 John 1:1-4; cf., 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) and are crucial to establishing the truth and reliability of Scripture—and therefore the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. For example, one cannot separate the first coming of Jesus Christ, the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2, Jesus’ resurrection, and other historical events from the spiritual truths that flow out of them. This historical “rootedness” separates Christianity from all other religions. If we can’t demonstrate that the Bible reveals genuine knowledge, wisdom, and absolute truth, Christianity becomes just one more dish in the smorgasbord of available religions.

Understanding and applying this can be crucial for effective apologetics and evangelism in today’s increasingly secular postmodern culture. In the remaining eight blogs in this series, I will suggest six apologetic responses to postmodernism. Each will employ sound logic, demonstrate that absolute truth exists, and emphasize, directly or indirectly, that all postmodernists rely on absolute truth in virtually all areas of their lives—despite claiming otherwise. Together, these eight posts will demonstrate the inconsistencies, deceptive nature, and irrationality of postmodernism. To begin in this blog, however, I want to suggest two guiding principles in apologetics that are valid because Christianity is a historical, fact-based religion:

Two Apologetic Principles Based on Scripture’s Historical Facts

The following two foundation principles are natural conclusions based on Christianity’s historical roots. They show why apologetics is successful at demonstrating the truth and reliability of Scripture and therefore successful at rebutting religious and secular postmodernism: 

1. Since the Bible is truthful and reliable everywhere it can be verified by objective, confirming historical and other evidence, we are justified to conclude it will be equally truthful and reliable in its non-testable, spiritual truth-claims. This includes salvation through Jesus Christ alone, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and eternal life in Heaven for God’s people. In other words, the Bible’s spiritual truths rest on a solid foundation of verifiable facts. Christianity alone among the world’s religions attains the highest level of certainty available in the area of religious knowledge. Thus, Christianity is religious Truth.

2. In light of the first principle, if people are intellectually honest and choose a religion based solely on objective evidence instead of personal feelings, they will choose Christianity and reject all other religions. (I’m not ruling out the work of the Holy Spirit in this—which is self-evident to Christians.) This conclusion is confirmed subjectively by personal experiences when the Bible’s spiritual truth claims are accepted and applied. Through the power of God, they transform people’s lives. We can legitimately conclude from objective and subjective evidence, based on historical facts, that the Bible is the truthful, reliable, and authoritative Word of God. ©

 Next week we’ll look at our first apologetic response to postmodernism: Postmodernism is destroying the moral fabric of America.

Part Three: Why Many Christians Fail to Respond Successfully to America’s Cultural War—and Don’t Even Realize It.

Historians refer to the 21^st century as “post-Christian.” This means the Christian worldview has been virtually shoved off center stage as the guiding moral and spiritual light in America. In its place, the reigning worldview is godless, human-centered, naturalistic, secular postmodernism. In last week’s blog, we examined two of three ways the Church responded to America’s cultural war since it began in the early 20^th century—neither had success. This week’s blog post examines the third response, which started in the late 20^th century and continues into the 21^st century.

This third response to the cultural war is the most prevalent today. Increasing numbers of Christians, including evangelicals, accept a dualistic approach to life. They maintain well-defined boundaries between the spiritual and the secular components of their lives and function within each compartment according to the activities in which they engage.

For example, during church-related functions, they maintain strict biblical values. In discussing such prominent moral issues of our times as abortion and homosexuality, they endorse biblical values. They support missionaries, encourage evangelism, and give generously to Christian causes. But at school and work, and while enjoying entertainment, these same Christians behave according to secular values. They compartmentalize the religious and secular aspects of their lives into separate, independent categories. The spiritual side is privatized and confined mainly to church. The secular side governs everything else. It’s not uncommon for Christians to go to church on Sunday morning and later watch movies full of gratuitous sex, vulgarity, and graphic violence—and fail to see any inconsistencies with their biblical values.

The sad fact is, none of these three approaches to secularism—accommodation, isolation, or dualism—will win (or have won) any battles in the cultural war. Certainly, the early Church did not use these strategies to fight its own culture war with the Romans. They did not accommodate, did not isolate, and did not live dualistic lives. Instead, they engaged the culture and eventually transformed most of the pagan Roman world into a Christianized world through God’s power.

Engaging the Culture

We’re now about two thousand years removed from the first-century Christian church. We live in an entirely different and vastly more sophisticated culture and face even more challenges to Christianity than first-century Christians encountered. Nevertheless, we can successfully engage in today’s culture war—and do so the same way Christians successfully did during the first centuries of the Church. We put on our spiritual armor (Eph. 6:10-17), share the Gospel, live holy lives, and challenge the prevailing intellectual beliefs of our times through apologetics—just as the Apostle Paul did with the Greek philosophers in Athens some two thousand years ago (Romans 17). ©

Next week I’ll continue this series with effective apologetic responses to secular postmodernism.

Part Two:   How and Why Past Christian Responses to Secularism Have Been Ineffective

Throughout the past hundred-plus years, as the cultural war between the Christian worldview and secularism escalated—and Christian losses mounted—the church has responded unsuccessfully in three ways. We’ll examine two responses in this blog post and the third in next week’s blog.

First Response:  During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many seminaries attempted to accommodate the prevailing intellectual climate that favored naturalistic science and Biblical criticism. They responded by recasting the church into the image of the secular culture—and their efforts failed tragically. Theological liberalism infiltrated most, if not all, mainline denominations, destroying the fundamental beliefs that formerly identified Christians. As a result, many churches today are little more than social clubs. The Bible is no longer considered to be divine revelation. Jesus has been demoted to being just a nice guy who offered good advice on how to live a happy, quasi-spiritual life. He is no longer God incarnate, the loving—yet judging—Lord and Savior. One of my former professors, the late Dr. Harold Lindsell, a Church historian, documented this in his book, The Battle for the Bible.

Second Response:  During the early twentieth century, this liberalization of American churches led to a spiritual civil war. A large segment of Christendom responded by isolating and separating themselves from the liberal churches and secular society as a whole. (Mark A. Noll, in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and other evangelical scholars have written about this). Many Christians still advocate this second response. They claim that Christians have already lost the cultural war. The only thing we can do now, they say, is “dig in,” put up the razor wire, and withdraw from contact with the “world” to protect ourselves from being seduced by pagan values.

This response also failed. It marginalized conservative Christians into becoming a distinct subculture within the broader secular society and ushered in radical fundamentalism. Many churches became anti-intellectual. They became dogmatic and legalistic in doctrinal beliefs. Christianity came to be identified with strict prohibitions, and the mark of a true Christian was adherence to rigid codes of conduct.

Unfortunately, the fallout from the fundamentalist movement led to conservative Christianity losing much of its voice and influence in American culture. Christians became viewed as an anti-intellectual, ideologically exclusive, radical fringe group out of touch with mainstream America—an image that persists to this day. ©

Next week we’ll examine the third unsuccessful response to the ongoing culture war between the church and the secular world:  “Dualism,” which is Christians compartmentalizing the spiritual and secular components of their lives—a typical behavior among many Christians today.

Part One: American’s “Longest” War Is Not on the Battlefield

 When I refer to America’s “longest” war, I’m not referring to the war on terrorism being fought on various fronts around the world. I’m referring to a cultural war among Americans themselves over ideas, beliefs, and behaviors. I’m referring to a great moral struggle that can destroy this powerful country as quickly and completely as any conventional war. It has happened before.

Historian David Wells observes that the fall of Rome has always perplexed historians. On the surface, it shouldn’t have happened. How could wild barbarians defeat the most powerful civilization the world had ever known up to that time? Many other historians believe that, ultimately, Rome was not defeated by outsiders but by its own moral decline.

The following exert from Wells’ book, Losing Our Virtue; Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision, draws a parallel between the fall of Rome and the precarious moral state of America today:

If this surmise has any validity at all, should we not view our own deep destructive social pathologies and the rotting of our national character with some alarm? America seems so strong, so invincible as it bestrides the world, its technology unmatched, its economic system robust . . . its government stable. . . . Rome, however, once occupied a comparable position in the ancient world, and against every human calculation and expectation, it fell. A fate as improbable as this is not beyond the repetition, even for America, if this nation cannot address its own disintegrating life, for no civilization will endure forever. (p. 7-8)

This grim indictment of America appears to be coming true. Until recent times, the Christian worldview dominated American culture. Christian principles and values largely underlaid governmental policies and the standards for judicial, educational, ethical, and social behavior in this country. This is not true in today’s secular postmodern culture. People have become apathetic, even indifferent, to immoral behavior that a few decades ago was universally recognized as evil and condemned. Vulgarity and violence flood our entertainment. Cheating is commonplace in our universities, as is corruption and greed in our great corporations. Our judicial system has legalized abortion and other immoral behaviors that were illegal and considered sinful a generation ago. Says the late theologian, Dr. Harold O. J. Brown:

Much of the nation outside the government, and especially all that pertains to the elite or the establishment, has been or has recently become in essence anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-natural law, and implicitly or explicitly pagan. All the nation’s great secular universities, private and public, have turned pagan, with the exception of occasional faculty members, department heads, and other officials who have remained true to Christianity or observant Judaism. (“The Christian Future of America: Two Views; A Decisive Turn to Paganism,” Christianity Today, August 2004, 42.)

Next week we’ll see how and why Christians responded ineffectively to the growing culture war between secularism and the Christian worldview that began in the early  20^th century—and continues in 21^st century postmodernism. ©

Part Thirteen:  How Political Correctness Is Changing the Way People Think and Trying to Transform Society

As we saw in last week’s blog post, multiculturalism—as an integral part of postmodernism—views human history as dominated by Western culture attempting to manipulate and impose their beliefs on other cultures. “This ought not to be,” insist multiculturalists. “It must be changed, and political correctness is the means of achieving it.”  What does being politically correct mean? Probe Ministries provides a good definition:

“To qualify [as politically correct], one must be pro-feminist, pro-gay rights, pro-minority studies, mistrustful of tradition, scornful of Dead White European Males and deeply skeptical toward the very idea of a “masterpiece,” because it implies that one idea, culture or human being can actually be better than another.” (Dan Closson, “Political Correctness and Postmodernism.”   See https://www.ministeriosprobe.org/MGManual/Polcor/PC2.htm)

Contrary to what many people assume, the goal of political correctness is not merely teaching sensitivity to people’s feelings and beliefs but to transform society by controlling how people speak. To achieve this, multiculturalists advance a rigid language code—especially in universities and colleges. The idea is to dictate what is permissible to say (correct) and what is impermissible to say (incorrect) in the community. This, in turn, should eventually transform societies into conforming to multiculturalism’s political and moral agenda.

Postmodernists recognize that people communicate and think through language—words. However, languages vary from culture to culture. Hence, postmodernists believe people interpret reality differently according to the words used in their respective cultures. And here’s where the perverse side of political correctness comes into play. If language determines how people think and communicate, if you want to change society, you change the language—the way people talk, the words they use. This, in turn, will eventually change the way they think and behave.

This is what multiculturalists try to accomplish under the guise of politically correct speech. Words, they realize, not only allow us to apprehend truth but can also modify or even create “truth.” So, changing the language can create a new reality. For example, if you want to change people’s negative views of abortion, you redefine a fetus. Instead of calling it an unborn baby, one calls it “product of conception” or “reproductive tissue.” The idea is that gradually, people will no longer think of a fetus as a human being but as a soulless piece of tissue. Similarly, if you want to change people’s views on homosexuality, you don’t call it”sin” or “abnormal behavior” but an “alternate lifestyle” (see part nine). The goal is for people to think of homosexuality in positive rather than negative terms.

This is political correctness undressed, and it demonstrates why we must oppose it despite its positive features. The agenda of political correctness, like multiculturalism, includes abolishing  Christian-based morals and principles that have successfully guided Western civilization for two millenniums. ©

Next Week:  I’ll begin a new series titled “Apologetic Rebuttal to 21st Century Religious and Secular Postmodernism”

Part Twelve:  The Sinister Side of Multiculturalism—and How It’s Negatively Influencing American Culture

Although the majority of Americans believe people are free to pursue their own religious and political agendas, postmodernists (see parts seven and eight) exert tremendous pressure on Western societies to comply with their freedom-stifling ideologies. This is vividly seen in multiculturalism and its enforcer, political correctness (we’ll explore PC in next week’s blog).

Multiculturalism teaches that no single culture is superior to another. Thus, one culture’s beliefs, traditions, and customs are just as legitimate as any other culture. Moreover, no culture has a right to denigrate the beliefs and practices of another culture—or try to suppress their beliefs and practices. In reality, however, multiculturalism includes more than societies being composed of various distinct cultures or ideologies, as in Europe and America. Nor does it merely suggest that people should seek to understand, appreciate, and tolerate other cultures. Rather multiculturalism is loaded with philosophical, educational, social, and political goals and ambitions designed to advance their ideological agenda. In particular, they insist that dominant cultures, such as American and European, should not impose their values or religious beliefs on less-dominant cultures and minority groups within their own cultures.

This philosophy is particularly prevalent and propagated in Western universities and colleges. Researcher and author William Watkins comments on this:

Under the guise of a new approach to education, they [multiculturalists]  want to rid the classroom of what they call a eurocentric, ethnocentric, white-male-dominated, racist, heterosexist education. The emphasis on Western civilization—its history, religious foundations, intellectual and political movements, and achievements—must be marginalized in the curriculum and radically reinterpreted. In addition, they want to inaugurate studies that deride the West as bigoted and oppressive, as they uphold non-Western societies and other “oppressed peoples” as monuments to human fulfillment and keys to freedom. (The New Absolutes, 194)

Students who disagree with this philosophy, who challenge its inconsistency and irrationality—and yes, hypocrisy—are pigeonholed as narrow-minded and intolerant (i.e., racists, homophobes, male chauvinists, and so on).

Multiculturalism errs in many ways, but perhaps most notable is its assumption that every cultural ideology is equally legitimate. As Christian apologists Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl correctly point out, “Some cultures, like some individuals, have discovered more knowledge and truth than others.” Referring to economist   George Reisman at Pepperdine University, they later add:

      [Reisman] argues that the trends toward “multicultural education” and “diversity” as well as critiques of “Eurocentric” or “Western” values are misguided and ill-informed.

     For one thing, these trends imply that all cultures have contributed to human progress and knowledge equally.  Reisman argues that this is false, since Western values—whether scientific, philosophical, economic, or moral—have proved to be vastly superior. Those societies that have embraced Western values, whether geographically in the Far East or in the West, reveal this.” (Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, 81, 94.)

In sum, multiculturalism, especially as it plays out in university and college campuses, stifles progress and represses freedoms. ©

Next week’s blog post will explain how political correctness—the enforcer of multiculturalism—is exerting tremendous pressure on Western societies to comply with it freedom-stifling language restrictions.

Part Eleven:  Why Does Tolerance Today No Longer Mean Being Tolerant—What Does It Mean?

Let’s face it. The traditional definition of tolerance has changed dramatically since the mid-20^th century. Before the 1970s, tolerance had to do with how one person treated another person. We might disagree with a person’s viewpoint—even oppose and try to refute it—but “being tolerant” meant we don’t demean the person and prevent them from having and expressing their views. However, this did not mean that everyone’s moral and religious beliefs were equally valid and legitimate. People were free (and expected) to debate opposing viewpoints and stop unethical, dangerous, and detrimental behaviors in society. In short, people were free to think as they liked, but they weren’t free to behave as they wanted.

This is no longer the case. In today’s postmodern society, the definition of tolerance has changed radically and has become a governing policy for both religious pluralism and moral relativism (see the previous two blog posts). Being tolerant in today’s postmodern culture means accepting all religious beliefs, lifestyles, and moral behavior as equally legitimate as our own—even if they contradict or mock us. One should never criticize, disparage, or reject as illegitimate or immoral anyone’s beliefs or activities. If you do, you’re intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded, and ought to be ostracized from mainstream society (think “cancel culture”). Indeed, you should be punished.

This so-called “new” tolerance is absurd, unlivable, and inconsistent. Indeed, postmodern gurus who promote this contemporary definition of tolerance violate the very principles they claim to endorse. They insist everyone is free to think and behave as they please, and no one should interfere or impose their views on another person. But in the next breath, they condemn Christians, and other like-minded people, who adopt a view of reality in which objective, absolute moral and religious truth exists. This is clearly hypocrisy!

This redefined philosophy of tolerance puts tremendous pressure on people to conform to postmodern values. Author and researcher William Watkins accurately describes how intolerant the proponents of the new tolerance are toward the “nonconformers:”

“Nonconformers are considered racists, sexists, homophobes, Victorian prudes, religious zealots, terrorist-like fundamentalists. . . . If we call ourselves pro-life, we are labeled anti-choice. If we say we are pro-family, we are told we are anti-women or anti-gay. If we present ourselves as pro-marriage, we are reported as being intolerant moralists and antagonistic toward single mothers. If we say we are for parental involvement and choice in education, then we are said to be against children’s rights and quality education. If we uphold character and performance as the true measure for job placement and advancement, then we are looked upon as racists or suppressors of the poor and needy.” (William Watkins, The New Absolutes, 209-210)

This new paradigm of tolerance attacks the fundamental values and principles of biblical Christianity and the traditional understanding of tolerance in Western culture for centuries—yet it is now widely promoted in American colleges and universities. Nowhere is this more evident than the ideologies referred to as multiculturalism and its bedfellow, political correctness, which I’ll examine in my next two blog posts. ©

Part Ten:  What Is Religious Pluralism—and How Is It Changing America’s View of Spiritual Truth and Contradicting Christianity?

 This week’s blog will explore religious pluralism and how it not only changes the way postmodernists view spiritual truth but openly contradicts Christianity.

Religious Pluralism         

Pluralism is the word used to describe the belief that reality consists of many instead of one. Religious pluralism, then, teaches that all religions provide “paths” to spiritual truth and therefore salvation—however one imagines that to be. This can mean two things: (1) all the diverse, distinct, and contradicting religious beliefs are independently true and legitimate, or (2) there is only one “Ultimate Reality” to which all world religions relate but in different ways.

Postmodernism, however, is not necessarily atheistic. Many postmodernists are open to religious beliefs and are spiritual seekers. Unfortunately, most postmodern spiritual seekers gravitate toward New Age ideologies rather than Christianity because they are more in harmony with postmodern relativism (see parts eight and nine). In other words, religious postmodernists (unlike Christianity), focus on subjective feelings and experiences rather than objective, verifiable revelation. Thus, New Age-like reasoning leads naturally to religious pluralism.

In today’s cultural environment, religious pluralism is expressed in remarks such as this:

• “Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed—all are prophets of God.”
• “All religions are paths to the same mountaintop.”
• “All religions are true; they’re just different.”
• “Christianity may be all right for you, but I prefer Hinduism” [or whatever].
• “What gives you the right to claim Christianity is the only true religion.”
• “You Christians are so intolerant; you think you have a monopoly on God.”

Religious pluralism is relativism played out in the spiritual arena. In postmodern America, it has become fashionable to promote this view. It’s “politically correct” to accept all faiths as equally legitimate and denounce religions—particularly Christianity—that refuse to accept this pluralistic philosophy. Religious pluralism is a serious affront to Christianity. It not only destroys the unique, saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross but opens the door to universalism—the fatal belief that everyone is eventually saved. And sadly, religious pluralism has swayed some Christians into considering non-Christian religions as legitimate avenues to God. ©

In next week’s blog post, we’ll see that the definition of tolerance has changed so dramatically in today’s politically correct society that it no longer has the same meaning it did in past generations.

Note:  In later blog posts, I’ll provide an apologetic response to moral relativism and religious pluralism.

Part Nine:  What Is Moral Relativism—and How Is It Dramatically Changing American Society? 

 Emerging from the two foundational postmodern presuppositions examined in last week’s blog post (“There Are No Absolute Truths” and “Truth Is Culturally Conditioned,” five interrelated and socially degrading postmodern creeds permeate virtually all aspects of modern society. We’ll examine the first one this week and the other four in following blog posts. (I’ll provide an apologetic response to these challenges in later posts.)

Moral Relativism

 Relativism is the cardinal doctrine of postmodernism and is central to every dimension of its worldview. It is arguably the most widespread apologetic issue in American society today. Conforming to the postmodern insistence that there are no absolute truths in any area of knowledge, moral relativism teaches that acceptable ethical behavior depends on the circumstances that define it. In other words, because peoples’ beliefs and experiences vary and are culturally conditioned, moral behavior is relative (situational) to individual preferences and cultural environments. Consequently, what was immoral in the past may not be so today. For example, during my lifetime I’ve seen views on homosexuality evolve from being considered a sin to a sickness (it was classified as a mental illness in the DSM until 1973) to an alternative and acceptable lifestyle. In short, moral relativism declares that what is wrong for some people is OK for others. I may oppose cohabitation, but people who wish to live together before marriage consider cohabitation legitimate. And for them, it is.

To fully grasp how such an alien view of morality evolved into prominence in American culture, we must understand philosophical naturalism’s formative role (see Part Two). Moral relativism’s roots dig deep into this philosophy, which denies the supernatural. Consider the following logic:

• If naturalism is correct, there is no God.
• If there is no God, people are elevated to supreme beings.
• If people are supreme beings, individuals and cultures set the standards for moral behavior.
• Since no absolute higher authority exists to set universal ethical standards (i.e., God), it logically follows that all moral perspectives must be equally valid and acceptable.
• The logical outcome: moral relativism (e.g., It’s OK to kill unborn babies and engage in adultery if you think it’s permissible).

See how this works? In a relativistic society,  people determine their own moral standards even if they oppose each other. And, as we’ll see when we examine multiculturalism and political correctness in later blogs, you and I are supposed to accept all as equally valid. In short, without God, there is no ultimate “good” to identify what is ultimately “bad.” Moral behavior is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It’s how we behave, not how we ought to behave. Thus, sin in any absolute sense is nonexistent. ©

Next week we’ll examine the second postmodern creed that permeates and influences virtually all aspects of modern society, including the Church—religious pluralism (e.g., are all religions legitimate paths to God?).

Part Eight:  Two Fundament (but Irrational) Dogmas that Fuel Postmodernism

In last week’s blog post, we saw that probably the most dangerous adversary confronting the Christian Church in the 21^st century is Postmodernism. Two fundamental presuppositions govern Postmodernism, and both directly oppose the principles for determining truth that has guided Western culture for centuries—and they directly affront biblical teachings.

1. There Are No Absolute Truths

Until the late 20^th century, most people subscribed to the belief that absolute, universal truths exist that are objective and trustworthy. They may differ over what constituted truth, but they agreed that truth does exist and appealed to evidence and reasoned arguments to support their perspectives. People believed the laws of logic are valid and foundational to thinking and communicating.  Truth is not situational nor relative to one’s cultural milieu; it exists independent of personal beliefs, feelings, and experiences.

In direct contradiction, Postmodernism assumes that no area of knowledge produces absolute truth. Objective facts are virtually nonexistent. “Truth” is relative, situational, and subject to redefinition and reinterpretation, including history, law, psychology, education, sociology, ethics, and religion. Thus, for example, American courts read into the Constitution “freedoms” such as abortion and same-sex marriage that the Constitution’s original intent never had.  We see a similar philosophy at work in our universities. Many college-aged students are encouraged to bypass religious and moral beliefs that tell students how they ought to behave and instead follow their own subjective feelings and select those “values” they prefer.

In short, in postmodern secular America, ethics are primarily in the eyes of the beholder. A postmodernist may say, “Pornography may be wrong to you and OK to someone else.” “Abortion and homosexuality were considered sinful in the past but are no longer today because we live in a different world .” Both are acceptable under postmodern moral relativism (which we’ll examine in a later blog post).

2. “Truth” Is Culturally Conditioned

 The second basic postmodern presupposition is likewise the antithesis of objective truth and values. Postmodernism rejects the faculty of human reasoning as a means of discovering absolute truth (even if it did exist). Why? Because its proponents believe what people think is objective knowledge is a byproduct of their cultures; peoples’ thoughts and feelings are conditioned by the societies in which they live. According to postmodern thinking, people can’t escape their personal life history and the influence of the traditions, interpretations, and corporate experiences of their cultural heritage. ©

I provide an in-depth study of Postmodernism in my revised edition of Defending Your Faith; Reliable Answers for a New Generation of Seekers and Skeptics. (Kegel Publications, 2019) You can review it on my website home page.

Next week we’ll examine the first of three postmodern creeds that permeate virtually all aspects of modern society. It is arguably the single most widespread apologetic issue in American society today.