Truth and Postmodernity

I think it’s time to kick things off in the blog world here at emerginglutherans.org…

So I’ll start with a conversation I had this week about truth and postmodernity.  Well, really truth claims and how that all gets sorted out in a postmodern context.  (Looking for a definition of postmodern?  Soon we’ll have definitions up on the Emerging 101 page here).

It’s a tough nut to crack, the notion of what is true when everything is seemingly up for grabs.  Does postmodernity allow us to slide into relativism (the notion that everything is true or good)?  Or are there bounds for what is true?  And perhaps most importantly, what does this all mean for the church?  How do we live out our faith in such a context?  How do we understand truth?  How do we talk about what is true and good when others may not consider it true or good (or have different truth claims)?

The conversation I had this past week tried to address all these questions (note the word tried), but there’s still plenty we’re trying to sort out.  And instead of trying to address all the same questions or recreate/summarize the conversation for you here, I will try to sort out my subsequent thoughts.

First, as a Christian I would affirm that there is absolute Truth (God), but that we as finite humans cannot possibly fully understand that Truth.  We all have different experiences and understandings that shape our perception of the Truth and therefore are always going to differ (even if slightly) on how we see/know/understand/talk about the Truth.  So here I would make a distinction between the Truth (Big T - God as infinite being and absolute Truth) and truth (little t - our finite understandings of God/absolute Truth).

So how do we live as Christians in relation to this?  Does our faith have the right to make truth claims (little t) to the world?  How do we speak to a world in which truth is understood differently by other people? In response, I think we live out our truth claims (we do this all the time, whether we are aware of it or not).  We cannot force another person to accept our truth as their truth, but by living into that which we believe to be true, we create a place where action and dialogue are possible.  It is in this space that there is an opportunity for truth claims to be shifted a bit and hopefully for a bit of the Truth to be revealed.  Therefore, we live in the truth that God is god and has a real interest in the world.

So then, what are the bounds for a true truth?  I would say pure love for every person on earth - that every person has value simply because they are human.  This love pursues what is good and right for the person and allows each to fully live.  Any truth that doesn’t do this is not a true truth.  For example, any truth that asserts one person is “lower” than another is not a true truth.  Each is equally valuable because they are both fully human.  Any truth that exploits one person over another is also not a true truth.  It is through the lens of love that we examine truth claims.

Well, I have more to write and probably  will at some point.  But I’ve put a lot down here and hopefully it begins to make sense…. what do you think?  I’d like to hear from you and maybe we’ll begin a conversation in the comments section below this post.

Kate

Filed under: Postmodernity on June 2nd, 2008

  1. Charo, on November 10th, 2008 at 5:25 am Said:

    Good words.

    Reply to Charo

  2. Kate, on July 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm Said:

    I also agree with Eric - actually with everything that he’s said. Particularly in thinking about language, it’s an interesting quandary that many who follow rabbits down holes (including me at various times) wrestle with…

    To respond to Kim’s comment about Rollins’ book, Fidelity of Betrayal, and stepping away from doctrinal beliefs toward God as an event, I would say that I’m still wrestling with it.

    On the one hand, I do firmly believe that we experience God, just as we experience another person as we encounter them. To not have an experience of God is to hold to a set of beliefs (or doctrines) without any direct contact with the real God who was incarnated and became one of us.

    However, I will also say that we must be able to talk about God, or our experiences of God, and to do so would inevitably lead to some sort of doctrine or belief.

    So here’s where I think Rollins is going (but I think it’s much more complicated than all of this), we have beliefs and doctrines, but that those are not the end-all-be-all of who God is. That we must, at some point, be able to give those beliefs or doctrines up, betray them, if they are found to no longer be suitable for describing God.

    Now, whether I fully agree with Rollins or not… I’m still not sure. However I am intrigued by his propositions and keep meaning to take a deeper look at it on my own blog - possibly adding to further discussion here down the road.

    Looking forward to hearing more from all later.

    Reply to Kate

  3. Kim, on July 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pm Said:

    Well - how would’ve thought that a ’simple’ debate with friends at the ocean would elicit such a conversation.

    While reading the responses I must say I feel quite lacking in words, but I think that Hank may be saying what I was beginning to try to spit out. Particularly, “If the “big scheme” IS Christianity, then we are forced to say that other systems of meaning are just wrong.” I think that if all truth claims are subject to validation only by those who “own” or articulate them, then it is all relative and what it truth?

    And Eric (I think that’s you!) I think your comments about being a Christian is a lonely and joyous experience is spot on! I don’t know that I would ever have used those words but they are ringing quite true. Something I need to chew on a bit more, but its caught me.

    Kate, the bit you have noted about Rollins is intriguing to me. Intriguing because by leaving behind doctrinal presuppositions to be in a space of God as an event seems to be an either or - and maybe it is not, I haven’t read this book. But God as everything and beyond all things wouldn’t we be able to experience God as both noun and verb (and adjective, adverb, etc.)? Again I haven’t read this book and may be taking this comment way out of context but that’s what popped in my mind.

    Look forward to further conversation.

    Reply to Kim

  4. novaeric, on July 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 am Said:
    Language is a tool. A device organized around pragmatic application working on the basis of preferred response and utilization, gathering its meaning from mode which varies under circumstance and condition. Language cannot work with transcendent absolutes because we cannot know if what is proposed is actually understood as it was intended. Here in lies the problem when we want to uncover “The Christianity”, or “love” for that matter. What is our external referent which justifies our knowledge of the given subject? It seems we have none and here is, in my mind, the postmodern condition. What I am left to think is that the business of a Christian is really a lonely one yet a joyous one. It hinges entirely on faith derived from subjective experience, and elicits what I believe god truly wants from man, passion. Passion For life, death, charity, gratitude, love, sacrifice, friendship all of which must be milked from experience. This can be both joyously and fearfully witnessed in the life of Abraham. Or more precisely in his sacrifice of Isaac as depicted in kierkegaard’s book fear and trembling. It is also present when pilot asks jesus “what is truth”. In his silence the Christ speaks loadest “I am” . In this way I think we can approach the cross honestly, not by its depiction littered in words but in its accomplishment echoing through our hearts. PS i think I am ya’lls friend on face book.

    Reply to novaeric

    1. kathy, on August 29th, 2008 at 2:29 pm Said:

      Hi all,I disagree that the business of being a Christian “hinges entirely on faith derived from subjective experience.”  I would say rather than one encounters a faith (or any other type) community and over time internalizes its core concepts, accesses and lives within its linguistic matrix, and it is this exposure which actually gives rise to the subjective experiences we claim as faith.  It’s coming at it from the other end, so to speak.  I’d love to talk more about the way language and indeed all symbols of a particular culture shape our perceptions.Kathy 

      Reply to kathy

  5. Kate, on June 30th, 2008 at 12:23 am Said:

    In re-reading the original post, I acknowledge that the phrase “true truth” is probably not the most helpful with regard to the conversation. But how are we as Christians (also speaking as a Christian person) to evaluate truth claims? That, I argue, is through the lens of agape love - which is perfectly realized in God, the person of Jesus, and the saving event of the cross.

    So then in response to your question about a big scheme and what IS Christianity, I’ve been wrestling with this a bit lately. I recently finished reading Peter Rollins’ latest book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, and in it he argues for Christianity away from belief in doctrinal presuppositions (noun) and toward acceptance of God as an event (verb). It’s way more complicated than that and I’m sure I haven’t even begun to be able to explain it, but what I’m drawn to is his return to 1 John 4:8 - “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” He builds on the notion that God is love and extrapolates that God is an event, a verb - something/someone to be experienced.

    Drawing from Rollins’ discussion about God as love and something/someone to be experienced, I’ve been wrestling with the very idea that God is love. Does this mean that all experiences of love are experiences of God? If so, then does that mean that any experience of love outside of the religion of Christianity is a true experience of God (I would say yes) and if so then that means any experience of love in another religion is also an experience of God? So then in talking about Christianity’s relationship with other religions and the claim that God may possibly be found in other religions… I would say that it is possible for God to be experienced in other religions but that the ultimate expression/revelation of God is found in Jesus and the cross event. So I suppose I’m not rejecting every other religion’s truth claims absolutely, just parts of them…. does this make any sense?

    Ultimately truth claims are built out of relationships and what communities hold as important. In some communities only very narrow truth claims are set (as seen in traditionally evangelical, conservative churches) whereas other communities allow for a wider range of interpretations and truth claims (some even value and encourage the wider range).

    But that’s one of the major issues that we are all wrestling with now - truth claims in an increasingly pluralistic age.

    Reply to Kate

  6. Hank, on June 12th, 2008 at 9:10 am Said:
    I agree with the observations in general … until you get to the place where you begin to make claims about the “true truth.” Part of my objection is that the language is too “propositional”; too “scientific” (rather than relational). Part of my objection is that I read this as an attempt to establish the “big scheme under or by which all the other schemes can be sorted and evaluated.” The problem with articulating a “big scheme” is this (and I’m speaking here as a Christian person): If the “big scheme” isn’t Christianity in all its doctrinal and dogmatic regalia, then what IS Christianity? Is it just “one good way of getting through life that is as good as another”? If the “big scheme” IS Christianity, then we are forced to say that other systems of meaning are just wrong.

    Reply to Hank

    1. kathy, on August 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm Said:

      Christianity is indeed a ”big scheme” or, more strictly speaking, a metanarrative.  It is an overarching narrative which tells the story of how a particular group of people, i.e. ”Christians,” perceive God to be dealing with his creation over time.  It’s a culture unto itself with its own population, norms, core values and beliefs.  It used to be “the only game in town” for a large segment of the population.  But not any more.Now it is one of many.  It is mine.A peculiar benefit - a left-handed gift from God via postmodernity - is the  induction of humility in those of us who call ourselves Christians.  The privilege previously accorded to our religion no longer exists. We are forced to offer our ideas in the marketplace of ideas without presumption of privilege.  Some people view this as a great loss.  I choose to look at it as an opportunity to delve deeply into our particular theology and look more closely at what we are offering to the world.  Most of us choose to plant our “belief stake” somewhere, be it the ground of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism or the more popular “spirituality” swamp (sorry, a bit prejudiced there).  As we humbly yet assertively offer up our theology, our spiritual culture, and our way of being God’s children,  I think we should do so with humility and a deep respect for the ways others have found.  That’s not to say we should embrace every practice and end up foundering in relativity.  That’s where a firm knowledge of our own idenitity is necessary - an identity rooted and grounded in the person and life of Jesus Christ.May I suggest we focus not on converting people, but on encouraging them to be the best Jew, Hindu, Roman Catholic, etc. they can be?  We might find people responding positively to that approach by extending such respect to us.  Personally, I hope folks become  curious enough about us to check us out.  If people find a Lutheran theology which is flexible, open, inviting, engaging and firmly centered in Jesus Christ - heh, anything could happen!  What do you think?

      Reply to kathy

Leave a reply

« Join the Conversation! Emerging Theology as Reclaiming Lutheran Theology - Part One »