One of my big problems with all the talk about POMO is a lack of definition to what it really is. I want the best representation of Postmodernism put forward. Modern Reformation did an interview with Richard Rorty, a postmodern philosopher, about his views. Here are a couple quotes:

MR: How would you define truth in contrast to the ways we have usually thought about it?

RR: I think that it is a mistake to try to define the word "true." We call beliefs true if we think ourselves justified in holding them. Justification is relative to particular audiences and circumstances. There is no such thing as absolute, unchallengeable justification (though, of course, there is such a thing as absolute, unshakable conviction). But since truth is an absolute notion (we don't say "true for you, but not for me" or "true then, but not now"), you cannot define truth in terms of justification. Nor can you define it any other useful way, as far as I can see. If one says, for example, "true beliefs are beliefs that correspond to the way things really are," this is entirely unhelpful, since we have no test for how things really are apart from the test of whether we are justified (by our current lights, given our present circumstances, to certain audiences) in describing them in a certain way. The very absoluteness of truth makes it an indefinable and unanalyzable notion.

Confused? Don't feel bad, it's just a subjective feeling. The thing he doesn't even address is objective truth-- something that is true whether or not is recognized as true. As one of the atheist bloggers I read said, "An objectively true statement is one that is true regardless of whether it is believed. A subjectively true statement is one that [is] true simply because it is believed."

MR: You've made some intriguing comments about Christian theologians and churches selling out robust versions of Christianity in exchange for cultural clout. Do you find, as an outsider looking in, that this contributes ironically to its irrelevance?

RR: No, I'm delighted that liberal theologians do their best to do what Pio Nono said shouldn't be done -- try to accommodate Christianity to modern science, modern culture, and democratic society. If I were a fundamentalist Christian, I'd be appalled by the wishy-washiness of their version of the Christian faith. But since I am a non-believer who is frightened of the barbarity of many fundamentalist Christians (e.g., their homophobia), I welcome theological liberalism. Maybe liberal theologians will eventually produce a version of Christianity so wishy-washy that nobody will be interested in being a Christian any more. If so, something will have been lost, but probably more will have been gained.

This was highly convicting. Most "postmodern evangelicals" are liberal theologians in disguise. Ironically, they are welcomed by our secular philosophers.