How the Protestant Reformers are Still Changing the World

Category: Philosophy

Modernism and Postmodernism

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“I have come into the world–to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” John 18:37b

How do we define Modernism and Postmodernism? The citations below, from Dr. Richard Winter, were very helpful to me in defining these unfamiliar and complex philosophical terms:

Dr. Richard Winter, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Counseling at Covenant Theological Seminary

In our culture we live at the confluence of two highly influential rivers of thought: modernism and postmodernism. These are the humanist and existential ideas that, over the last three hundred years, have replaced Christianity as the dominant world view in our culture. They flow through and around us, affecting everything, often without being named or recognized, shaping both our way of thinking about ourselves and the world we live in—for good or ill. 

— Richard Winter, Perfecting Ourselves to Death, 149.

Here are the definitions that made plain the meanings of Modernism and Postmodernism for me. Stating it bluntly, these simple explanations “cleared the fog” of uncertainty! My exposure to philosophy has been minimal. I’ve picked-up a few concepts here and there in studying theology and church history. Philosophy, however, is an entirely different discipline that has its own set of academic terms and its own catalogue of philosophical jargon. I hope Dr. Winter’s explanations can be as helpful to you as they were to me.

Put very briefly, modernism is that belief that with science, reason and technology we can make our world a better place. Our identity from a modernist perspective, is defined by the objective, scientific experts of genetics, anthropology, psychology, sociology, biology and other sciences. Reality is what is described and measured. Biologists or sociologists, for example, tend to reduce the fundamentals of human nature to biological or sociological processes, respectively. God is no longer needed (in this modernist perspective) as part of the explanation of how things work or to give a moral framework for living. 

However, even from the beginning of modernism, in what we call the Enlightenment, there was a reaction against this emerging mechanistic view of human nature. In an attempt to preserve the significance and dignity of persons in a scientific age, these reactionary movements—seen in romanticism, existentialism and mysticism—emphasized personal and subjective values almost to the exclusion of the mechanistic and objective. The pendulum swung to the other extreme. It was these ideas that became what we now call postmodernism, in which, without a reference point outside of ourselves in revelation, reason or science, we are left only with subjective experience and freedom to choose to be whatever we want to be—to invent ourselves. Self-fulfillment becomes a core value. 

— Richard Winter, Perfecting Ourselves to Death, 149-150.

As you encounter these two terms in conversation, literature, film, and music, you now have an explanation that makes their meaning plain. It is interesting to note that in both Modernism and Postmodernism the need for a transcendent God is steadfastly rejected. The Modernists deny God’s very existence by insisting that they are the masters of their own destiny. And the Postmodernists elevate the Self to the position of the one who determines all reality and truth. In this sense, as Christians, we see the utter futility of these two philosophical systems. Yet, it benefits us to understand the philosophical “world views” of those whom God brings into our life. How else can we best know how to answer the questions they pose in response to the Gospel? Therefore, it helps us to understand where people are coming from when we seek to “make a defense to anyone who asks…for the hope that is in [us].” (1 Pet. 3:15)

Source: Richard Winter, Perfecting Ourselves to Death: The Pursuit of Excellence and the Perils of Perfectionism, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Pages 149-151

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved

Schaeffer’s Critique of Modern Culture

Edith and Francis Schaeffer (c. 1972)

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“For it is time for judgement to begin at the household of God.” 1 Peter 4:17a

Dr. Francis Schaeffer gave us an insightful critique of modern culture over fifty years ago in his blockbuster book, How Should We Then Live? Who would have thought that his analysis from the past would be as true today as it was in 1976 when his book was first published? The relentless pursuit of peace, prosperity, and personal gain in America appears to have reached its apex in our current society! But the question posed by Schaeffer remains–How Should We Then Live? In particular, how should we live as disciples of Jesus Christ in this self-centered age? Consider Schaeffer’s challenging words,

“As the more Christian-dominated consensus weakened, the majority of people adopted two impoverished values: personal peace and affluence. Personal peace means just to be left alone, not to be troubled with the troubles of other people, whether across the world or across the city–to live one’s life with minimal possibilities of being personally disturbed. Personal peace means wanting to have my personal life pattern undisturbed in my lifetime, regardless of what the result will be in the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren. Affluence means an overwhelming and ever-increasing prosperity–a life made up of things, things, and more things–a success judged by an ever-higher level of material abundance.”

Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Now Live? 205

It is my belief that Christians everywhere should respond to this indictment of modern culture. We cannot ignore it. Perhaps as a first response, personal repentance should be manifested throughout the life of individual Christians. Rather than living only for the acquisition of personal possessions, property, and prestige, Christians should live as those who “seek first his kingdom.” (Matt. 6:33) Possessions, property, and prestige are secondary. The Apostle Peter instructs Christians that “judgement [begins] at the household of God.” (1 Pet. 4:17) These sobering words should move us to sincere repentance from the pursuit of selfish gain. Only by cleansing ourselves from our own quest after personal peace and affluence can future generations be preserved from the same malady.

Beyond that, individual churches should give a hard look at their philosophy of ministry–is it all about the growth and prosperity of the church, or is it all about the advance of Christ’s kingdom here on earth? As a church, our priorities should be in alignment with the kingdom ethics of our Lord. (cf. Matt. 5:13-16; Matt. 28:18-19; Mk. 8:34; 2 Cor. 10:3-6; 1 Tim. 5:1-25)

Moreover, we should find a strategy for living in this fallen world that is consistent with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. What should that strategy be? Here are some historic approaches: (1) We should remove ourselves into cloistered enclaves where all worldly influences are kept at a safe distance [i.e. Monasticism]. (2) We should become political revolutionaries who forcefully impose our beliefs and morals upon this fallen world [i.e. Secular Marxism]. Or, (3) We should acquiesce to secular pressures and not impose our beliefs and values upon unbelievers, but live at peace with all [i.e. Cultural Relativism]. Let me just say that I do not think retreat, revolution, or acquiescence are the proper Biblical responses.

Instead, I believe that modern culture should be thoroughly engaged by those who have a God-given remedy to the self-centeredness and prideful arrogance of this fallen world. The Lord gives us a better way! This remedy is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The ethics of God’s kingdom, therefore, should become the new standard for life in the 2020’s throughout the world. In short, God’s ways are better than man’s ways, and Christians must lead the way in bringing order to a disordered world. This is not accomplished by retreat, revolution, or acquiescence. It is accomplished by engaging the people and structures of this fallen world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. (cf. Jer. 29:4-7; Lk. 19:11-27; 1 Jn. 2:15-17)

Rev. Dr. Abraham Kuyper
Prof. Dr. Herman Bavinck

This approach of cultural engagement is traditionally called a “Reformed World and Life View.” In short, all aspects of human culture that are found in this fallen world are to be thoroughly engaged—not retreated from [in monasticism], not overthrown [in Marxism], nor acquiesced to [in cultural relativism], but contended with [in a Reformed world and life view]. The theological world-view of Reformed Christianity seeks to boldly penetrate all spheres of human culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Historically, this view has been popularized by two dutchmen, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), and in this current era by Henry Van Til (1906-1961), Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984), Chuck Colson (1931-2012), and David F. Wells (b. 1938). Other theologians–too numerous to be named–have taken-up this important theme as well. I will name some of the most helpful spokesmen in upcoming blog posts.

And so, how do we respond to Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s critique of modern culture? We respond in repentance (both personal and corporate) and by committing ourselves and our churches to thoroughly engaging the people and structures of this world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2024 – All Rights Reserved

We all have Presuppositions

L’Abri, Switzerland–this was a special place where it was acceptable to ask serious questions and to find ultimate answers

Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven

“Know thyself” –Socrates (d.399 B.C.)

It seems clear from human experience that everyone has a set of presuppositions that they adhere to. For example, each person has a basic understanding of what is right and what is wrong. We may differ from one another in this, but if we are “wronged” by our own standards then we cry out in indignation! Also, each person has a conscience that is activated when they respond in anger, get caught in a lie, or act in selfishness, so that an internal sense of grief, shame, and sorrow begins to arise. It also appears that each person has deeply-held religious beliefs that govern and shape their inner thoughts and their outward behavior. People may disagree about religion, but as human beings we are all inescapably religious. Moreover, each person has a set of social expectations that influence how we relate to one another. These are but a few examples, but consider how our presuppositions affect our attitudes, beliefs, morals, opinions, pleasures, politics, relationships, values, and our quest for significance.

Dr. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) addresses the matter of presuppositions in the following way,

Dr. Francis Schaeffer

“People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for the decisions…most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true. When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, ‘not many men are in the room’—that is, although world views have many variations, there are not many basic world views or basic presuppositions.”

— Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, 20

Here is Dr. Schaeffer doing what he truly loved–hearing serious questions and answering them with thoughtful responses.

The question of “how” our presuppositions are formed is a bit more complex to answer. Perhaps it is best to simply acknowledge that we are influenced by our relationships–our parents, siblings, extended relatives, community, country, and culture. It also must be admitted that we receive some of our presuppositions by our Maker (Rom. 1:19-20). In other words, we receive them from God who puts them in our heart and mind. Francis Schaeffer argues, last of all, that it appears thinking people “after careful consideration” can determine “what world view is true.” How ever we receive our presuppositions, it is essential that we recognize that we have them. With that thought in mind, the famous maxim of the great philosopher, Socrates, “Know thyself,” certainly rings true! And once we “know” ourselves, then we are more likely to be “humble” and “teachable” in searching out answers to the ultimate questions of life. In this way, we can become the best philosophers that we can possibly be (Gk. phileo+sophia = “a lover of wisdom”).

Source: Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. 50th Anniversary Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1976.

Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin

The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2020 – All Rights Reserved