Whither Absolute Truth? Getting a Clue about Postmodernity

Eastertide

It's not that we don't believe in truth. The issue is that we reject particular stories about who knows the truth, who lives in it, and how that happens.

It means that the preacher on the street corner, or the one pontificating in the pulpit, insisting so loudly that in his rationalism and supposed objectivity that he knows "the Truth" is the one who I'm awfully sure is farthest away from it.

Let me try to explain why in clear terms. The "postmodern" aspect of my thinking is not an issue of what I do believe so much as what I don't believe. I don't believe that "absolute Truth" is something that yields its secrets to what is perversely called objective rationality. We all have bodies, and memories and relationships that serve as filters, or better yet, the interpretive framework for our experiences and the testimonies we receive. When it comes to real "Truth," the "data" isn't going to line up just so.

I am a Christian. I do not believe that I can pursue "Truth," and force it to yield so that I may ravish it. Truth is a person. Truth is the person who pursues, the person who ravishes.

"Batter my heart, three-personed God..."

This is what the premodern Christians knew - from the church fathers to the medieval mystics - Truth is not known like a thing is known. Truth reveals himself. Truth knows you, and then invites you to know Truth.

Post-Protestant: What I'm Talking About

Lent
Polycarp of Smyrna

Context

For those of us who have grown up in the evangelical world it kinda feels like there was a big family argument before we were born and we grew up being told that our great uncle was a really bad man and we shouldn't have anything to do with him. Then as we got older we found out for ourselves that actually he wasn't a bad man at all, in fact he had a lot of wisdom.

from Matt, discussing Liturgy

How to Know You are "Post-Protestant"

Ordinary Time

"I just realized that I have more reasons for not being a Baptist than I have for not being a Catholic."

- Anonymous (until I have permission to quote him)

Postmodern Morass: Where are my Crayons?

Ordinary Time

A pastor of a local church has recently caused quite a stir with public proclamations of his relativism. I discovered this when I stumbled upon the blog of another local church planter who quit writing about his mission work in favor of being a full-time watch blogger.

One the one hand, the first pastor argues since all religions are human articulations of a (potentially) universal "God experience," to say that explicit faith in Jesus is the only way to "God" is to deny the validity of someone else's "God experience."

On the other, we have an "inerrant" Bible insisting that Jesus is the only way to God.

I think, generally speaking, that folks who hold the first position consider themselves faithful interpreters of that bit in John because they will maintain that Jesus is indeed the only way to God, but explicit faith in Jesus is not the only way to access the benefits of what God has done through Jesus. And, after all, isn't Christian exclusivism just a way of arguing that my own personal "God experience" is legitimate, and that someone else's "God experience" is not?

Ah, the wonders of foundationalism.

Both sides of the argument are based on two imaginary concepts that I don't think are real: a universal "God experience," and an inerrant Bible. But you knew that, right?

That doesn't mean that I don't think I've had some experience of the Christian god, but I don't go about constantly seeking to consider and judge the tradition in terms of whether it matches up with "my experience." I also have no problem questioning, doubting or outright disregarding someone else's experience or their interpretation thereof. I know it sounds a bit rude, but I think my experiences and my own interpretation of them are quite suspect, so it would be silly to insist on granting some kind of epistemological priority to somebody else's, just to be polite.

And the other thing... I think it's pretty amazing. See, when I have been asked, "do you believe the Bible is inerrant," I actually hear, "Do you believe that the Bible is [contrived post-Enlightenment foundationalist concept]?" And I think, no, I don't believe the Bible can be understood and entirely encapsulated in terms of some contrived invention of modernity. "Oh, then do you believe that the Bible [insert opposite of contrived post-Enlightenment foundationalist concept]?" And I think, well of course, not. I just happen to think that it's the wrong question to be asking.

N.B.: I'm thinking out loud here. This is not a formal essay. If you want me to take any of this further, or some bit of it just don't make no earthly sense, do let me know. But do be polite...