|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Post-modern Metanarratives
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
//sigh//
Glenn,
It's not a case of denying all truth. Of course the holocaust happened, of course it could never be considered edifying to the Christian to declare otherwise, and that should always be challenged. There is an overwhelming background of evidence that simply cannot and should not be ignored. We should, by all means, reason to the best of our knowledge.
However that is in a completely different league to contemporary theological issues - where the reasoning stacks up on either side and both are just as convinced that they are right. In such a case, I cannot ignore the outside factors that can be influencing a view, and I cannot, in all honesty, declare myself free of such influencing factors. So isn't it prudent to move away from facts and see whether such a view has an edifying effect?
Unless you believe that all truth can be reasoned by all, objectively; then you must surely see that reasoning and propisitions can only go so far?
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
watchergirl
Shipmate
# 5071
|
Posted
Glenn Oldham: ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Any answers I could give to your questions would be my own conclusions on these things. I think the point is that we are in the process of discovering what a postmodern Christian will be - or, to use McLaren's phrase, 'what postmodern Christianity will look like'. Do I think that there's no such thing as objective truth? No, I don't think that. Do I think that truth may be too big for us to understand and/or handle? Yes. That's why we need to listen to each others' stories about their interpretation of the same truth. In terms of inerrancy, I don't think that the Bible is inerrant for you while not being inerrant for me. I do think that we may need new categories, signs, symbols and terminology by which to understand a change in such concepts as 'inerrancy', which may be modern and which we may move on from entirely (I'm not saying that they are and we will, just that it's a possiblity that other ways of looking at the world and the Bible could be considered).
In terms of sexuality, it seems to be that each side in the argument claims to have a monopoly on truth over this issue. Whether or not they do, the fact is that this belief is stopping each side from hearing the stories of the other side. (Don't believe me? Ask me how many people have literally stopped talking to me since my views on this particular argument changed.) We've stopped listening to each other in very real ways. This is often the case in very heated debates, Christian or otherwise, in which one side or other feels that they have some kind of vested interest in maintaining the status quo. But in a postmodern culture we need to listen to the stories of others before they will be willing to listen to ours. I think some branches of Christianity have been rather bad at listening to others, a fact I started to notice at my university Christian Union when it was regularly suggested to me that my only reason for having non-Christian friends should be to evangelise them. In postmodern Christianty, perhaps we will learn to listen to the 'little stories' of others and to hear about why these interpretations of the same truth are so important to them. I think that can only be a good thing.
And that's where I run out of things to say and so end with 'shut up and go and read McLaren's book.' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Posts: 96 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
AB, sorry to make you sigh (I sympathise with that reaction – it is one that I have at times here on the boards).
OK. Let me try and get to the nub of your comments. (Apologies in advance for any misunderstandings of what you have been seeking to say - I may have got the emphosis wrong).
Firstly your description of the kind of dilemma that postmodernism is supposed to help with:
The dilemma(s)
quote:
Originally posted by AB: … if one person looks at the evidence and declares that the Bible is inerrant, and another looks on the same evidence and decides the opposite - who are we to arbiter between them? In the end our take on it will be based on loads of factors to do with our culture, upbringing, and yes, eventually personal taste …
--
where the reasoning stacks up on either side and both are just as convinced that they are right. In such a case, I cannot ignore the outside factors that can be influencing a view, and I cannot, in all honesty, declare myself free of such influencing factors.
What you seem to be saying is that there are issues on which Christians disagree, such as inerrancy, where Christians faced with the same evidence argue and reason to different conclusions; and you argue that therefore factors other than the evidence seem to be involved in their arriving at their decisions. You seem also to say that, faced with such an issue, you can’t claim any greater authority and so conclude that if they can’t agree on this, who are you to say what the answer is?
I agree that this is indeed a genuine dilemma. You also put forward a suggestion as to how we can (ought? need?) to respond to it, and describe that response as postmodern.
The suggested response
quote:
Originally posted by AB: where the reasoning stacks up on either side and both are just as convinced that they are right. In such a case, I cannot ignore the outside factors that can be influencing a view, and I cannot, in all honesty, declare myself free of such influencing factors. So isn't it prudent to move away from facts and see whether such a view has an edifying effect?
…
The postmodern take on (say) inerrancy, is … that we can't be 100% sure that our take on the subject is objective. … the post-modern can say, "if it helps you to be a better Christian, then the Bible can be inerrant for you, I read it the other way, but I am no more necessarily right than you are"
- I'd prefer to embody my viewpoints and show that they can provide a valid and passionate christian life. By their fruits will you know them, and all that. (my use of bold typeG.O.)
What exactly are you suggesting here? When faced with a particular issue on which Christians disagree are you suggesting:
AB1 that you can choose between competing views on an issue on the basis of whether or not holding that view leads to an edifying and fruitful lives amongst its adherents; or
AB2 that it does not matter which of the competing views you hold as long as holding it helps you to live a more fruitful life, or
AB3 that you need not hold any of the competing views on the issue, you can just admit that you don’t know and concentrate on leading a fruitful life; or
AB4 that you need to decide which of AB1, AB2, or AB3 applies in each case.
It is thus very unclear to me how you would envisage your comments being put into practice.
First of all, I heartily and sincerely commend your emphasis on what I take to be actions and character. Christian life is colossally impoverished if it is seen as primarily a question of what we should believe about a large number of abstruse doctrinal niceties. I adopt the AB2 and AB3 approach for a large number of Christian doctrines, (eg AB3 the virgin birth.)
The problem with the suggestion
However, the crucial problem with your suggestion (however interpreted) is how do we decide what is edifying and what is fruitful? How are we going to do that without looking at evidence and reasonings about what is good for human beings, and looking at views on what is holy and moral and coming to decisions about them? We are back in the realm of facts, reasoning, and propositions. We cannot sidestep them as you seem to suggest that we can.
Take the homosexuality issue. Should a Christian who believes he is gay attempt to have a long-term sexual partnership with a person of the same sex, or have none at all, or attempt to have one with the opposite sex? If your answer is: ‘whichever is the more edifying and fruitful for him’ then how does he, and how do you, decide which of the three options that is in his particular case?
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Thanks for your reply, watchergirl.
quote:
Originally posted by watchergirl:
Do I think that there's no such thing as objective truth? No, I don't think that. Do I think that truth may be too big for us to understand and/or handle? Yes. That's why we need to listen to each others' stories ...
I would agree. Popper said something like 'tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think and together we may be able to arrive at a better view of the truth.'
quote:
In terms of inerrancy, ... I do think that we may need new categories, signs, symbols and terminology by which to understand a change in such concepts as 'inerrancy', which may be modern and which we may move on from entirely (I'm not saying that they are and we will, just that it's a possiblity that other ways of looking at the world and the Bible could be considered).
I would agree, but constructive alternatives to inerrancy have been around as long as inerrancy has and predate postmodernism and are part of what people argue about.
quote:
Originally posted by watchergirl:
In terms of sexuality, it seems to be that each side in the argument claims to have a monopoly on truth over this issue. ... Whether or not they do, the fact is that this belief is stopping each side from hearing the stories of the other side. ... we need to listen to the stories of others before they will be willing to listen to ours.
I have a view on this issue and it came as the result of intensive listening to both sides of the debate and coming to what seemed to me to be the view that is most consistent with the evidence and with my wider beliefs. I therefore disagree with the alternative view, but I can understand why they hold it. It would be great to just leave it at that, but real people and their lives and welfare are dependant on what people think about this issue and so we can't treat it as a matter of indifference. We can't stop saying what we think and why, but yes we can keep listening even if we still end up saying, 'well, I understand why you think that but I can't agree'
quote:
Originally posted by watchergirl:
In postmodern Christianty, perhaps we will learn to listen to the 'little stories' of others and to hear about why these interpretations of the same truth are so important to them. I think that can only be a good thing.
Once again, this has been going on for centuries. Why is it I wonder that postmodernists portray the history of Christianity as only ever being about dogmatic groups and as if the discovery of and respect for other views is somehow new?
Some of what I read about postmodern Christianity makes me think that it may be helpful for those Christians who are disenchanted with Fundamentalism to think of themselves as postmodern. That is fine by me (as long as they manage to avoid the know-nothingism of much postmodern theory) but the alternatives to Fundamentalism have been around for as long as Christianity has.
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AB
Shipmate
# 4060
|
Posted
Glenn,
Thanks for the interesting post, I guess it does summarise (and critique) my view quite successfully.
I guess at one time or another I have advocated or put in to practise all of the AB points you mention. Personally I have a subtle slant towards AB1 when I decide which doctrine to follow. My experience with a lot of hard talking inerrantist calvinists and how I witness them leading their lives, and the fruits they show leads me to react and take an opposite view. But then, I am clearly judging them by my own moral standard and definition of fruitful living, as you so rightly point out.
My definition of fruitful would be adhearance to Jesus' two greatest commandments which I do believe (as I've debated on other threads) to be absolute in morality (in that true for all) and yet subjective in practise.
Thus with the homosexuality matter (and let's not go there) I would point out to someone struggling with issue, what I know to be the factors and arguments for both sides, gently point out where I might stand, but stress the importance that the person make his/her mind up with a clear conscience before God and others.
Thus my own internal view point is something between AB1/AB3 and yet I would stress AB2 to someone genuinely struggling with an issue.
Note that this is only my approach with what I would suggest are some of the more unimportant points in theology (which is, again, my definition) and I would certainly try and correct someone who I felt was following a truth that would not lead them closer to Jesus.
Hope this all helps,
AB
--------------------
"This is all that I've known for certain, that God is love. Even if I have been mistaken on this or that point: God is nevertheless love."
- Søren Kierkegaard
Posts: 513 | From: not so sunny Warwickshire | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
watchergirl
Shipmate
# 5071
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
quote:
Originally posted by watchergirl:
Do I think that there's no such thing as objective truth? No, I don't think that. Do I think that truth may be too big for us to understand and/or handle? Yes. That's why we need to listen to each others' stories ...
I would agree. Popper said something like 'tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think and together we may be able to arrive at a better view of the truth.'
Now that sounds interesting. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) That's close to what I imagine postmodern Christianity will be about. Getting better views of the truth by sharing our own views of it with each other in ways that we haven't done in the recent past.
quote:
quote:
In terms of inerrancy, ... I do think that we may need new categories, signs, symbols and terminology by which to understand a change in such concepts as 'inerrancy', which may be modern and which we may move on from entirely (I'm not saying that they are and we will, just that it's a possiblity that other ways of looking at the world and the Bible could be considered).
I would agree, but constructive alternatives to inerrancy have been around as long as inerrancy has and predate postmodernism and are part of what people argue about.
I agree with you, to an extent. However, they were more prevalent in the pre-modern era, I would argue. The modern era has brought with it a wave of 'my view is right and all others are wrong' ideas that, to my mind, have eclipsed other ideas about Christianity. Just ask your average non-Christian to describe Christianity - most people will not tell you about the full range of beliefs within it, but about fundamentalism. If postmodernism Christianity will be partly about moving beyond that, I'll be very happy to see its arrival. I think it will also go beyond that into something new, though.
quote:
quote:
In terms of sexuality, it seems to be that each side in the argument claims to have a monopoly on truth over this issue. ... Whether or not they do, the fact is that this belief is stopping each side from hearing the stories of the other side. ... we need to listen to the stories of others before they will be willing to listen to ours.
I have a view on this issue and it came as the result of intensive listening to both sides of the debate and coming to what seemed to me to be the view that is most consistent with the evidence and with my wider beliefs. I therefore disagree with the alternative view, but I can understand why they hold it. It would be great to just leave it at that, but real people and their lives and welfare are dependant on what people think about this issue and so we can't treat it as a matter of indifference. We can't stop saying what we think and why, but yes we can keep listening even if we still end up saying, 'well, I understand why you think that but I can't agree'
Yes. As a gay Christian, I have a view on it too. I am working hard at attempting to listen to the views of others, though, however much I am often tempted to join in the slanging match. From my position I experience both sides of this debate being thrown at me without allowing me a chance to think, respond or usually even listen. I personally feel that our inability to listen to each other is a central problem in this issue. However, I'm not saying that everyone suffers from this failing. And I'm certainly not suggesting that we should shrug off the issue - quite the opposite. If we listened to each other, maybe we would learn from each other in this and many other issues in a way that would benefit the welfare of us all, particularly those who suffer because of a lack of understanding. It's not about giving up what we believe to be right. It's about learning from each others' stories, something that I believe modern Christians often fail to do.
quote:
quote:
In postmodern Christianty, perhaps we will learn to listen to the 'little stories' of others and to hear about why these interpretations of the same truth are so important to them. I think that can only be a good thing.
Once again, this has been going on for centuries. Why is it I wonder that postmodernists portray the history of Christianity as only ever being about dogmatic groups and as if the discovery of and respect for other views is somehow new?
Because the history of Christianity has been re-written in this light, often (as far as I can see) by people who believe that this position is the only acceptable one within our faith. It's also true that in recent (modern) times, we've been very bad at listening to each other. I refer back to the experience that non-Christians tend to have of Christianity to show in part why I think that modern Christianity has been dominated by groups that would not accept each others' experiences.
quote:
Some of what I read about postmodern Christianity makes me think that it may be helpful for those Christians who are disenchanted with Fundamentalism to think of themselves as postmodern. That is fine by me (as long as they manage to avoid the know-nothingism of much postmodern theory) but the alternatives to Fundamentalism have been around for as long as Christianity has.
I am disenchanted with fundamentalism, but I don't think that's the only thing that draws Christians to a postmodern approach. Liberals can be as modern as evangelicals. If a postmodern Christianity develops, I don't believe it will be either evangelical or liberal. Exactly what it will look like, I don't know. McLaren has some good ideas but he doesn't claim to know how things might develop. It's up to Christians and our willingness to develop new approaches for a new age, I think.
[ 06. January 2004, 18:48: Message edited by: watchergirl ]
--------------------
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me
Posts: 96 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from watchergirl:
quote:
Just ask your average non-Christian to describe Christianity - most people will not tell you about the full range of beliefs within it, but about fundamentalism.
So true, & so,so frustrating!!!
quote:
If postmodernism Christianity will be partly about moving beyond that, I'll be very happy to see its arrival.
Amen.
quote:
I think it will also go beyond that into something new, though.
I think so, too.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracia:
from watchergirl:
quote:
Just ask your average non-Christian to describe Christianity - most people will not tell you about the full range of beliefs within it, but about fundamentalism.
So true, & so,so frustrating!!!
I don't think that's true at all. I think most of the non-Christian majority in our society think of Christianity as a long list of rules that you have to obey to go to heaven; mixed up with something fluffy to do with angels.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
Well, Ken, whenever anyone here in California learns that I am Christian, & that it's the most important thing in my life, they want to make it clear how much they are against arrogance, exclusivity, prejudice, judgmentalism, etc (all of which have nothing to do with my own Christianity at all).
Here,they don't see Christianity as fluffy at all.
The rules are not what bothers them, it's the judgmentalism.
If not fundamentalism, I don't really know what version of Christianity they feel they have to distance themselves from, as a point of pride. Whatever it is, Christianity has an extremely bad reputation in my neck of the woods.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
English Ploughboy.
Ship's tiller
# 4205
|
Posted
I have been following this thread with some little difficulty being a bear of small brain and a child of scientific modernism. However I have been warming to some of the ideas posted, in particular the postmodern willingness to listen to peoples stories and ideas of truth and to be willing to investigate them as valid alternatives.
However I do not think there has been one word about Jesus and how he fits in to all this.
I think in many ways his way of presenting teaching was rather post modern if I understand at all what it is all about. For instance Luke 10 25-37 the good Samaritan. Jesus is asked about truth but never actually gives any opinion himself but seeks out his questioners opinion and then manages to subvert his predujuces by a simple parable, in fact Jesus hardly ever forced his own opinion on an argument but invited his listeners to form their own opinions from the parables and signs that were before them, culminating in the greatest acted parable of his own death and resurection. This is certainly very different from the teaching I hear in the modern church, would a post modern church actually sound more like Jesus speaking? What do all you cerebrates out there think?
--------------------
Christmas: celebration of un-created love let loose upon a needy world,
Posts: 386 | From: Sussex and Rwanda | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
