Despite the inherent assumption that the measure of truth is the Christian Faith and the Bible, Groothuis launches a convincing attack on the more ludicrous aspect of Postmodernism.

Correctly identifying the key aspects of this new "faith" he debunks each nonsensical relativistic viewpoint, culminating in his final chapter in a total destruction of the idiocies of the televisual world most adults inhabit.

While it is hard as an atheist to accept his definition of truth as gospel and scripture, it is clear that the very concept of "truth" is under attack. That endless unconnected images and ideas, based on nothing but vested interests threaten to sweep away the last vestiges of critical thought. That the demise of reading, of words in favour of imagery will mark the decline of rational man, to be replaced by a total entertainment cosmos, and awful prospect.

A clear, persuasive and thorough treatment of the contemporary challenge of postmodernism. Dr. Groothuis examines how this cultural trend affects Christian faith and witness in the modern world.

A scathing critique of relative truth. My favorite and most personally convicting quote is about the postmodern mantra... "whatever". Ouch, I say it all the time.

Very good and readable 'first step' into relativism and postmodernism (from a Christian perspective).

Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" and that is the question the world is still asking today.

This book defends the correspondence view of truth. (The statement "the apple is red" is true if indeed the apple is red. The statement "the apple is red" is false if the apple is blue.) Maybe you think it's crazy to defend something so obvious, but Groothius shows why we can't take it for granted anymore.

For our world is fractured into three groups: premoderns, moderns, and postmoderns, making communicating truth difficult. Premoderns (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) believe that there is objective truth, but believe it can't be severed from God. Moderns (atheistic rationalists, secular humanists) believe in objective truth, but believe it's independent of God. Postmodernists deny objective truth altogether. Communicating to all three groups at the same time is a challenge Christians need to overcome. It's difficult, but not impossible.

Groothius' book is true, helpful, and encouraging, showing us how to be salt and light in a fractured and confusing world.

Despite the trite title, a well considered and written book on the all encompassing importance of truth. Loved the chapter on aesthetics and the appendix on television.

I agree with 99% of everything this guy says. Post-Modernism is a circular reasoning nightmare that creates nothing, sustains nothing, is built on nothing, and leads nowhere. The absence of objective truth is a scary proposition and a scary way to live life. This book was published in 2000, and we can see the outcomes of everything he discussed. The nation divided, everyone at each other's throats, all of life a political gerrymandering game, and a political ruling class more than willing to pray on the ignorant masses fears, grab more power, and demand that you conform to the narrative they've created.

The parts of the book where he stays rooted in very practical matters is wonderful. His take down of the television at the very end, his explanation of the world caught in the ideology of post-modernism, his explanations of how churches are failing and struggling to combat this dangerous ideology, are all very well written, easy to read, and are chilling twenty-three years later where all of his predictions have come true and we are now debating what a man and woman are.

There are parts of the book that are very difficult. Post-Modernism is tricky to understand only as Post-Modernists try to build a foundation on something that isn't there. It is circular and completely nonsensical. One of the easiest questions that refute most of their claims is: "is that true?" Most post-modern work is self-refuting and falls apart quickly. This is why people instantly resort to rioting, violence, and screaming for others to be silenced. Because their own ideas carry no weight or value, they can't debate, they can only scream and attack others.

Unfortunately, as this book needed to, and as the author saw fit, he took down many of their arguments in very precise detail. It becomes a very technical walk of people building on other people's ideas, referring to other people's works, while disagree with certain pieces and trying to build onto pieces that work. It becomes a jumble of names and technical terms that nobody knows and nobody would use.

Nobody who is confused about their gender or moral objectivity, nobody who is throwing a brick through a storefront window is thinking about Derrida's language games, and the semantic reasoning and language culture built by Michal Foucault. Most people have never heard of these names, and they certainly aren't smart enough to have read these guys nonsensical jargon which self-contradicts and falls apart.

Most people are confused because the TV told them to be confused, mad because the TV told them to be mad, upset because a college professor confused them about objective morality in order to free everyone from the "sexual constraints" of an objective morality.

I think Dinesh D'souza in his What's So Great About Christianity? does a better job of explaining this, and Ben Shapiro's How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps falls into the same technical trap, but at least keeps it short. Even The Coddling of The American Mind before iy becomes a political cudgel explains it better too.

This books gets far too technical, and really shone in the practical matters.

However, what this author really does poorly is his argument about female pastors. This could have, and maybe should have, dropped this to a one-star review. Right in the middle of his own book about truth being non-contradicting, and how there can be only one answer, this author goes through EXTREME lengths to make an argument that the bible supports female pastors. He claims that it doesn't have to do with subjective experiences, and then proceeds to give subjective experiences as his answer. He argues that the Bible can't be interpreted two contradictory ways, and then proceeds to interpret the Bible in two contradictory ways. He claims the Bible is the extreme authority, and then decides that his reasoning is right over how the Bible has been understood for 2000 years.

He looks at one verse about women in leadership (1 Corinthians 14:34), he takes it largely out of context, and claims that it has to do with culture or with that one specific church as opposed to all churches for all time. Sort of like Paul's command to greet one another with a holy kiss. Seeing as that teaching is surrounded by teaching that we'd expect for all people for all time, and seeing as he ignores the qualifications for leaders elsewhere (1 Timothy 3, or Titus 1) it would seem like he is not being intellectually honest.

He also claims that women were leaders throughout the Old and New Testament, but gives only one example of Deborah (a judge, not really a time we should seek to emulate, who sees herself as a mother of Israel, and who immediately tries to give any power or authority she had to man). All of the other women mentioned were invaluable, they were Godly women who advanced the kingdom and did great things . . . but they were not pastors.

It would be interesting to see if his view here has changed after 20 years of this thinking running rampant and more churches than ever ascribing to a post-modern view. Invariably, when a church concedes in this issue, they always eventually agree with homosexuality and abortion. Churches with women leadership are liberal churches. Churches he himself denounces in his book.

Like I said, I agree with most of what this guy said. This was worth the read, it was just sad that right in the middle of the book is the book's own contradiction.

Douglas Groothius has a clever title for a major problem. Truth Decay addresses the issue of postmodernism that is similar to the works of David Wells in No Place for Truth, God in the Wasteland, and Above all Earthly Powers. Truth Decay is more focused on the philosophical arguments of postmodernism and how that impacts Christian thought.

What is truth decay? Groothius explains:

Truth decay is a cultural condition in which the very idea of absolute, objective and universal truth is considered implausible, held in open contempt, or not even seriously considered. The reasons for truth decay are both philosophical and sociological, rooted in the intellectual world of ideas as well as the cultural world of everyday experience. These two worlds reinforce one another. Postmodern culture – with its increasing pluralism, relativism, information overload, heightened mobility, identity confusion, consumerism, and so forth – makes postmodernist philosophy seem more plausible. However, merely living in this cultural context does not mean that one must become a postmodernist on matters of truth, however tempting that may be to some.

A great resource on the philosophical thought and origins of postmodernism. Ideas have consequences and postmodern thought has done much harm in the church.

He explains that truth is propositional in nature. In other words, truth demands a response. Postmodernism erases any objective truth and therefore erases any propositions and therefore does not require any response. Postmodernism leads you nowhere because it proposes nothing!

Recommended for students of theology and those interested in the philosophical development of postmodernism from the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern age.

I'll be posting a full review later, but here's the short version: this guy isn't willing to look at postmodernism complexly, he's definitely a foundationalist and isn't willing to look at foundationalism critically, and most importantly for an academic book, he doesn't have particularly good citations for the people he doesn't agree with. The only postmodern philosopher he cites more than twice is Rorty, who he then states represents the views of all postmodern philosophers without any other postmodern philosophers to back him up. I had better citations in the paper I wrote for my university about this book- and I'm a sophomore in college. In short: this book isn't worth the money I spent to buy it, and I can't believe it was approved for a university level philosophy course.

3.5