The idea of things "modern" isn't just about things current—"Modernism" was a specific era in history from the turn of the 20th century up to World War II where Western culture saw themselves as evolving not just in a cultural sense, but in a biological evolutionary sense. Everything around them seemed to be getting better and better: science was progressing, technology was making incredible strides, the economy was expanding to the point where they saw no turning back, because resources were unlimited and with technology making factories bigger, better, and faster, man must also be getting smarter, evolving to a whole new plane. Their hope was that with this new evolution mankind would eventually have no more need of want, and therefore have no more need for war.
I hope a big red flag popped up when you read the above paragraph, because these ideas cannot align with Scripture. Do you recognize how?
The conept of evolution was not and is not a Scriptural idea, as it conflicts with the Genesis creation account and other aspects of Scripture. Luke traces the lineage of Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3) and Jesus himself quotes the Genesis account of marriage in Matthew 19:5-6 and mentions Abel the son of Adam as a real person Matthew 23:35, which is confirmed in Hebrews 11:4, and through inference in Cain in 1 John 3:12, and Jude v.11. Paul goes to great lengths speaking of sin coming into the world by one man, the first Adam, and the salvation of mankind coming into the world by one man, the second Adam, Jesus (Romans 5:12-19) There were attempts to use the "Day-Age" theory that if "1000 years are as a day to God and a day is as 1000 years" as it suggests in Psalm 90:4, and 2 Peter 3:8, perhaps when it says in Genesis that God created the universe in six days it just meant six "ages" or periods of many years to create everything—that would match evolution. References to Adam could just be references to a time when man became evolved enough to be self-aware, the current definition of "human."
In other words, Scripture was and is twisted to match "science," instead of questioning why science didn't match Scripture. Even Hebrew scholars with a belief in evolution, if are honest, have admitted it's clear the original language indicates the author, at least, believed the universe and everything in it were created in six 24-hr days—they dismiss the story as written by men and poorly conceived or just a myth. Biologos today trivializes the need for Adam as a particular individual. In the Modernist era, what science said was beginning to trump Scripture for no other reason than they no longer believed God could or would intervene and operate outside the boundaries of the laws of the universe. This tenet is taken by faith and not by fact—it's no more possible to prove with science and clinical observation that God created the universe than it is to prove that God did not create the universe with science and clinical observation. Certain things can be inferred in either case, but both are based on assumptions making them both based on faith—science becomes religion. It should be pointed out that in 2 Peter 3, which speaks of the 1000 years being as a day and vice versa to God, Peter is using this passage to refute those who say the Lord will not return suddenly because everything has continued as before and He has not returned. I find it fascinating that this is the argument of "uniformitarianism"—that the laws of science are today what they always have been and nothing could change them (including God)—and that it's the very thing Peter is arguing against. Peter is saying anyone who says things have always been as they were and will continue, doesn't understand Scripture. What God has promised, He will perform even when it's contrary to the laws of "science."
The other rather glaring difference that all the assumptions of the Modernists had from Scripture was that they were built on the idea man was basically good and getting better. This idea has no place in Scripture whatsoever. Scripture states clearly that man is basically evil, with no hope whatsoever outside of Divine intervention that he can do anything good (Romans 3:9-19, 23; Mark 7:21; Jeremiah 17:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; John 3:19, Galatians 5:19-21). The very idea that man is basically good was also a belief based on faith, underscoring that "science" had become religion. For atheistic evolution, even the idea that there was/is no spiritual realm must be taken by faith, since the realm of spirit cannot be either proven or disproven with science or clinical observation. Both sides must accept their beliefs by faith, making them both religious beliefs.
There are other areas of disagreement with Scripture that are taken by faith on both sides, but suffice it to say that the hopes and dreams of the Modernists were built on clouds and fairy dust. The Modernists' first glimpse that their belief system needed updating was World War I. It seemed to come from nowhere to many (though in reality there were very clear indications of problems leading up to WWI), and the vast majority still clung to their belief system and felt it was the last gasp of ancient man and ancient beliefs and surely must be the "War to End All Wars," as it was called. At its climax, Woodrow Wilson immediately helped form the League of Nations to usher in the new era of peace and cooperation between nations.
When Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy rose to power, along with Stalin in Russia and the fascists of Japan, many within those nations believed the evolutionary path forward was through eugenics (using science with controlled breeding to enhance desirable genetic characteristics). The Italian "Futurists" went so far as to believe that was was the ultimate purifier of genetic lines, as it would cleanse the world of the weak through survival of the fittest. The Futurists were just artists, so one can't completely fault them for not thinking everything through (okay, I'm an artist so I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek), but they believed this strongly enough to go off to war in World War I and many of them died there. They followed Mussolini when he rose to power thinking a stronger leader was the answer, but after World War II, Modernist believes came to a hard end.
Disallusionment set in, along with a fear that man would not survive all the wars long enough to evolve to the new plane where he wouldn't need war. Cynicism began to abound, along with nihilism, which rejected all religions and morality, believing life is meaningless and there was no hope for mankind. Man now had weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out all not only civilization but all mankind. These disheartened, hopeless individuals were the Postmodernists. They could no longer accept the idea that man's reason alone was the answer to everything. They began to wonder if there was some inherent genetic flaw in man that would have to be beaten out of him by force.
As science and global politics progressed, however, some saw a glimmer of hope. If wars could be stamped out and man survived, perhaps evolution could progress. They came to see a global government strong enough to prevent world wars as the only answer. They began to wonder if the hopes given by Plato could be stripped of their spiritual elements and used to create a global government that could bring in utopia. As you recall, Jean-Jacques Rousseau had adapted Plato's Republic, as had Karl Marx with Friedrich Engels in the West with Mao's variation in the East, so the writings of Marx and Mao became the foundation for this envisioned global government. To them it represented the only way to reach the next evolutionary plane. If populations were controlled, and the masses were culled of inferior breeding, the stronger more rational could be educated to live in harmony, just as Plato predicted. If the global government controlled all resources and manufacturing, the environment could be improved. If no one but the government had arms, there would be no rebellions or murders or problems with rioting or mass shootings.
Since religion was often a source of contention, that would have to be irradicated, as well. The people would be told to trust their leaders and their feelings (which would be encouraged to be warm for their leaders), they would not need to trust ancient manuscripts or the priests or rabbis or preachers who followed them. Feelings were the result of millions of years of evolution, and these ancient manuscripts were only a few thousand years old. Why should they trump millions of years of development? They were a diversion, a failed branch of evolution that must be left behind.
Do you remember how Plato said it was okay for the leader and his auxiliaries to lie to the people if that was the best way to gain their cooperation? Perhaps it might be best to begin to sort through all that you are being told today to see how much of it is built on lies. Comparing it to the revelation of Scripture is the only way to distinguish lies from Truth—"Your Word is Truth" (Psalm 119:160, John 17:17).
