In the comments to my last post, a reader named Darrell posted an interesting question. I answer on the thread, but thought it was worth repeating as a post for those who might miss it.
Q. "...in the book are you supporting the modern notion of a 'correspondence' theory of truth or are you noting something more similar to a post-modern take on such theories which is basically that such theories are only helpful to a point and can otherwise be somewhat unhelpful?"
A. Darrell, the section in question is about a page and a half long (pp. 33-34), and I don't really engage in a philosophical discussion. Rather, I approach the rival (and complementary) theories as tools. Instead of championing one over another, I take it for granted that we use all three -- trusting things that seem to correspond to external reality, trusting things that fit with what we already know, trusting things that solve problems other assumptions don't -- and we don't use any of them exclusively or absolutely. (And we use them cumulatively, too, not in an either/or fashion.) It might help if I quote the conclusion of the passage:
"These three tools are good as far as they go, but they are not necessarily conclusive. Sometimes a lie seems more coherent and consistent than the truth, so when we ask whether worldviews correspond to reality, whether they cohere and produce results, we have to admit that we're the ones asking -- i.e., subjective people and, according to Christian doctrine, fallen too. This is all part of the struggle that is worldview. We are constantly wrestling with ideas while we question our own ability to judge, always acting decisively only to look back with doubts after the fact." (p. 33)
Now I suspect there are people who would classify that as the "postmodern" approach, but to me it's more like common sense. The "modern/postmodern" dichotomy is really only useful as an entry-point -- or as a bit of polemic sleight-of-hand by which I can dismiss things by labeling them modernist to some audiences or postmodernist to others. In reality, the specifics of the argument are more important than the broad label.
I hope this helps -- and if it raises any additional questions, feel free to ask!