Meganarrative [Justin]
Cleave has some great thoughts from EC04 and Brian McLaren:
It seems to me that as Christians, when we say that our story is “the story” (rather, we should say “God’s Story” is THE story, because, as McLaren likes to mention all the time, when we say “our” story, what story/version of Christianity are we really talking about), we’re saying that our “story” is the metanarrative. Now, postmoderns have a general incredulity toward metanarratives (thanks Lyotard?or was it Derrida?oh well) ? they don?t like the stories that like to beat up other stories. McLaren says that our story, GOD’s story, is in fact not a metanarrative, but just a big story (mega-narrative ? not a phrase he’s really latched onto, just used for lack of a better term). Our story is the story that embraces all other stories ? the Christian story is the one that welcomes, embraces, redeems all other stories. So, in the name of Jesus, we can say that we need to embrace the story of Buddhism ? to look for what is Good, True, Beautiful and Right about Buddhism. In doing so, we are truly showing respect (not disregard, rudeness, or a false imperialistic confidence) for the other stories that God may in fact have the power to work through.
Mmm. Beefy.
First, some thoughts in defense of the idea of Christian metanarrative. If God created the universe, then everything is really all about God and his work in history through Israel, Christ, and the church. Viewing Christianity as the holder of the metanarrative is then in some sense justified. But just because God holds the metanarrative doesn’t mean we do as his followers, at least not perfectly. Other religions may have found pieces we have missed.
Second, I think Cleave and McLaren are right that viewing our story as a metanarrative comes across as arrogant and imperialistic. Plenty of people respond to this with “Darn right it is. Jesus is Lord, and I’m not going to water that down.” Understandable, but maybe not the best approach.
I think society would be fine with Christians saying “This is a big story that’s worth being a part of, because it’s going somewhere.” We can acknowledge the validity and limited truth of other stories, while at the same time acknowledging the incompleteness of the truth in the story we present - not because it is an inadequate story by any means, but because we do not yet have full grasp of it, and it’s not over yet.
My main problem with critiques of the Christian metanarrative approach is that a lot of them lead to the conclusion that Christianity is no better than any other world religion. On the one hand, I can see why people wouldn’t want to come across as arrogant when talking with people of other faiths. On the other hand, if you don’t believe that your faith is real and true above all others, why bother? Sorry. My commitment to Christ is higher than my commitment to pluralistic values and being nice - even if it’s not above my commitment to truth and wisdom. Fortunately, these need not conflict. Thoughts?
Found via Hamo
good discussion here..Im thinking that it doesnt matter whether there is really a grand metanarrative or not. We may argue that God’s plan (metanarrative) for the world was made clear in Eden and then broken by the crisis in history (the fall). If so, then metanarrative may still really be there, but we can never really get at it. We can never speak about the metanarrative besides declaring there is one. The very next thing we try to say about the metanarrative will be no more than our best guess through our shady lens.
So does it really matter if there is a metanarrative if we can never really get at it? I dont think so, at least right now…
mark
Thanks for the input, Mark. I think the evangelical church has used the idea of a Christian metanarrative as an evangelistic technique, an apologetic for our worldview. If everything is about Christ and God’s story, then you’d better be a part of it or you’ll be left out.
Would it be desirable to have an apologetic that emphasized narrative but without insisting upon a hard-to-get-at metanarrative for the Christian story? What would that look like?
I’m with you on this one, Justin. Arrogant Christianity is an oxymoron, but being nice and respectful has a limit when it comes to “is Jesus the only way or not?”.
For the record, it was Francois Lyotard who populatized the phrase “incredulity towards legitimizing metanarratives”, although Derrida’s work echoes the sentiment if not the exact same phraseology.
good points..this discussion reminds me of Newbiggen’s “Proper Confidence.” A really good read..
mark
James Sire’s book “The Universe Next Door: A basic worldview catalog” is very helpful in explaining the aversion to metanarrative in non-Christian postmodernism. Any kind of metanarrative is seen as oppressive, and is rejected in favor of a pseudo worldview built on it’s ability to lend congruency in feelings, behaviors, thoughts, and values. (Of course, with Christian postmodernism, we have Radical Congruency!)
The problem with postmodernism’s rejection of metanarrative (and also the part we need to sensitively point out) is that usually, as Sire states, one metanarrative is replaced by another, albeit less threatening one. For example, some postmodern “Christians” replace “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father except by Me” with the less oppressive but equally meta-narrative “All roads lead to heaven.”
This Burger King, have it your way aspect of postmodernism is very difficult to deal with (at least for me), and it’s usually accompanied by a reactive anger toward any metanarrative that’s perceived as restrictive or oppressive toward any belief or behavior that Christian theists would call sin.
While quick conversions are probably not possible, understanding some of these points can at least help to open a dialogue. The frustration comes for me when I realize that while both missionary fields may be difficult, I probably share more worldview commonalities with the average Muslim than I do with the average postmodern American. Discussions like this one help me to reconcile my Christian theistic worldview with my postmodern needs; hopefully this process will ease this frustration (and others).
Ted
The problem with postmodernism?s rejection of metanarrative … is that usually, as Sire states, one metanarrative is replaced by another, albeit less threatening one.
Exactly. This is what I was getting at in my “Is it really all about love?” post recently. The metanarrative of God working through history to bring all people to Himself is replaced with a metanarrative of tolerance, love, or social justice, none of which are inconsistent with biblical themes, but neither are they adequate to serve as overarching stories.
Since postmodern thought is inconsistent in this regard - saying metanarrative is oppressive but actually imposing a new metanarrative - I wonder if there is room to propound a Christian metanarrative that is obviously less oppressive, even less oppressive than the metanarratives of social justice, love, and tolerance. Surely Christians should be the best at living out these values.
Since the Gospel is inherently offensive, there probably isn’t a way to propound an un-oppressive Christian metanarrative. However, I recently found Richard Foster’s http://www.renovare.org ; it seems to present a very organized way to live out the values of social justice, love and tolerance, plus tax. Being that it promotes both internal and external disciplines, maybe it?s a good place to start.
I think there’s a difference, though, between the gospel’s inherent offensiveness and the unnecessary oppressiveness that Christians tend to take on when they are hegemonic in a culture. Saying “Jesus is the only way to God” isn’t the same as repressing people.
When I was younger (and young in the faith), black-and-white rules were very important to me?they still are to some extent. I think maybe the best way to deal with some who hold the postmodern worldview is first to try to understand their unique narrative, and then try to determine whether they are ready to embrace paradox. This is a higher level of faith, but it can also be childishly simple. If we could open the possibility that the true path to personal freedom (from oppression) may be found in turning over one?s right to self determination to Jesus, and that the beginning of faith is in believing that Jesus is Who He said He is?the way, the truth, and the life?even when I don?t really understand how yet?
Are even the legalistic Christians really being oppressive, any more than the postmodernists are being self-willed? Both are hardheaded, and narratives aside, the questions need to be reframed in a more effective way.
I think the problem here comes down to how you interpret “truth”. Postmodernists have redefined that word because the modernist definition of the word didn’t seem to make any sense.
For example, “truth” has gone from:
“A statement that can always be relied upon to be accurate no matter what the context”
To:
“A statement that I can rely upon to be accurate”
The reason for this has a lot to do with the fact that any statement must be expressed in a language. And any word, no matter what language it belongs to, has a meaning that is subtly unique to every person who uses it, and may even change over time. So if any statement means a different thing depending on who said it and at what time, how can everyone, no matter where or when it is said, rely upon that statement to be accurate.
Hence, a PoMo might say that “that’s true for you” or “this is true for me“. Without being illogical. Truth is a lot more like what a modernist would call a working assumption.
Justin said: “My main problem with critiques of the Christian metanarrative approach is that a lot of them lead to the conclusion that Christianity is no better than any other world religion.” But to a PoMo, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that “Christianity is true” and “Christianity is no better than any other religion”. That’s because something can be true without it being necessary for everyone to agree on it.
Also, when a PoMo says “all roads lead to heaven” they’re saying that that’s their truth. In other words, that is the working assumption they’ve adopted. Not that everyone should adopt that as truth.
Of course, there is a problem with this PoMo way of thinking: Everyone must agree that truth is subjective. Which is a bit of a paradox. In PoMo culture you can happily talk about what you believe without thinking that you are offending people. But try to tell others what to do, and you’re in trouble. Imagine…
PoMo: “I am a new age agnostics Taoist”
Mo: “Hmmm, I believe in the bible”
PoMo: “Really, that’s great” [nods affirmingly]
Mo: “…and I believe that you should repent and believe”
PoMo: “How dare you impose your beliefs on me, follow your beliefs by all means, but don’t force them on others”
Mo: “But my belief is that I should try to persuade others, so I’m just practising my beliefs”
PoMo: “Well then stop practising your beliefs, they’re wrong!”
Mo: “But but, now you’re imposing your beliefs on me”
PoMo: “No, I’m just teaching you respect for others”
and so on…
To tell the old, old story
Impressive. Through some stray links at the WordPress forums, I wondered into a group of young (post?)evangelicals talking about pluralism and postmodernism in a most helpful way.
The two terms offered up for discussion are metanarrative and megana…
[...] ry A is The Story to End All Stories. Then there are meganarratives, a new term to me. Justin at Radical Congruency offers this: ?This is a big story that?s worth being a part [...]
Dan-
That’s a great story!
You said:
“Also, when a PoMo says ?all roads lead to heaven? they?re saying that that?s their truth. In other words, that is the working assumption they?ve adopted. Not that everyone should adopt that as truth.”
But obviously, the PoMo (love that term, by the way) really does think that everyone should adopt that as truth! You’ve obviously had some experience with this; I’ve only had a little, but I actually am a former “new age agnostics Taoist”
I was looking for something else and found a reference to this talk in Seattle (at University Pres).
Title: Can Christianity conquer postmodern paganism?
I’m not sure whether they intend the result of that title or not, but “conquer” isn’t a term I’d use myself, and I’m not sure if “postmodern paganism” is synonomous with “postmodernity” or with “a subset of postmodernity” to this speaker. Actually it sounds like the speaker sees postmodernity the way Colson’s initial article appears to..