Hopefully I am not coming too late to this philosophy party, but let me start by saying both Wormwood and Ozspen raise some good points. I don't think that ya'll are as far off as you or someone might read this thread might think. I see even your sort of slants or takes on philosophy reveal your positions in argumentation.
That said, could I just throw in that Modernism and Postmodernism are both descended from the Enlightenment? I'm vastly oversimplifying the case here, but I think of the two reactions as the pendulum swinging a bit farther in the opposite direction each time. I'm not sure that either of them relate to the days of Jesus and Paul quite as directly as we like, because we all have modern (little "m") biases that influence just how we read the text. We all have our hermeneutics. We all have the vehicles to our understanding of an issue. Eastern Orthodoxy has a lot to say about this. Some of the triumphalists make bad points, but there is a certain logic to the idea that many of the things taken for granted in the West aren't presumed in the East.
Probably first, I should confirm that 45 minute, 10 point SBC sermons are entirely alive and kicking. I know of one minister that went into a 60 minute salvation sermon at a local association meeting where I do hope all of the attending ministers were already saved... Baptists love their words here in the south. My own pastor's preaching usually lasts about 45-50 minutes. It's usually accompanied with a page in the church bulletin with 6+ empty lines or terms for filling in. I used not to mind it, but looking around I do see where he frankly loses some folks. I've found that my own threshold is probably about 25-35 minutes each Sunday. So just confirming that is unfortunately not as much hyperbole in my neck of the woods. It's reality.
I side with Wormwood (WW) in this discussion in many ways. I see postmodernism as being particularly concerned with structures and authority as a negative thing, where modernism views authority and organization as almost the end to be achieved. I'm not sure that modernism can be quite as strong on maintaining the values of eternal truth, since to me it seems to be more concerned with the classification/observation of things rather than the weightier matters. Postmodernism has a worse problem with eternal truths, but for all its bloviating about relativism, it contains a core paradox that an injection of Christ can begin to work with. For, it begs the question that if we must maintain the decidedly nonrelativistic notion that everyone must be relativist, then Houston we have quite a logic problem.
Enter post-postmodernism that Mohler hits on. I tend to agree that this is where we are now, because it seems very much like a bit of a panicked reaction to the realization that modernism and postmodernism don't satisfactorily address everything. Modernism is too handicapped by the idea of the observable, falsifiable ability to solve everything. I should be able to "observe" God somehow for him to be real. Observe, by the way means something quite physical or quantifiable. For me, it doesn't have the epistemological hardware to answer the question of God, it doesn't even have a framework for fully understanding him much beyond drawing attention to the diversity of the world. Postmodernism is also quite flawed, because it's self-destructively bent on criticizing power structures and always finding a relativistic quibble.
As an English major, I used to deploy deconstructionism sparingly to make a point to teachers and professors: it's all fine to deconstruct something, but we all agree there is a point where the author is decidedly not saying that thing that I am saying as a deconstructionist. If I can discern what propels the author to take a stance, and I agree with him or her along with others across time and culture, well then we have something greater than relativism at work. Ironically, a modified form of argumentum ad absurdum will often make a strong point in literature.
The thing I like about postmodernism is that it at least opens a venue for narrative (story, testimony). It's almost an attempt to be religious without being religious, so there are so openings. However, one Evangelist I know talks about how in Europe it almost gamifies life and makes discussion difficult.
That said, where I do disagree with my much smarter and better looking brother in the faith named WW, is that Apologetics adapts to this and becomes about interposing story with truths. To me, Apologetics has died down because with the advent of the internet, strong arguments against the faith can be made by anyone with a little time to read or Google. You're just dealing with the postmodern framework on top of that as further complication rather than impetus. Apologetics begins to look more like Philip in the Ethiopian Eunuch's chariot. Mars Hill is the famous example for Paul, but he also there describes the character of God rather than resorting to modernist proofs.
