Ascertaining meaning is a tedious and difficult task.
This is the issue that surrounds one today. Buzzwords like,
truth, purpose, or meaning have been replaced with words like relative,
worldview and interpretation. This is the rise of the age of postmodernity. The
word itself, postmodern, elicits a
strong reaction. It has become a lightning-rod for conflict especially in the
conservative, religious community, and rightfully so due to the problems the
postmodern worldview presents.
Christians particularly (although I imagine that we are not
the only ones, I’m sure practitioners of Judaism and Islam run into similar
problems) have a tough time with postmodernity—particularly the postmodern
understanding of language. Let us for a moment examine postmodernity’s view of
language.
For those who ascribe to postmodernism, language loses
meaning. This is not to say that it means nothing, that is impossible and
impractical, and, if it were so, how would we communicate with one another? On
the contrary what postmodernism claims that language has no inherent meaning
nor truth-value. Words or, more broadly, all forms of communication do not own
meaning but are ascribed meaning by individuals and by social groups.
Therefore, language has no objective meaning, but it does have relative
meaning. In other words, the word ‘church’ to me is different than the word ‘church’
to you. Richard Rorty sees it in terms of irony. If postmodernism is true then
we must communicate it using faulty irrelevant symbols. Naturally, the work
deconstructs itself as Derrida would claim.
Now that one sees the problems of language one can see how
Christians find this problematic when these same critiques of language are
placed on the biblical text. The Bible begins deconstructing itself revealing
itself as a document meant for certain people at a certain time. It is here
that we begin asking ourselves is there a solution to this problem? How do we
as Christians live within, or deal with a postmodern society?
In the past many people have tried to combat postmodernity
with clever retorts. I am sure you have heard this conversation or ones like it
before:
The Postmodern: “I don’t believe in universal, objective
truth. It is too hard to know.”
The Christian: “Well that was an objective truth statement right
there, you’re not being consistent; therefore, your claim is false.”
Although this is clever and probably has more merit than I
am willing to give it, I do not think that this argument solves or proves anything,
except that one is clever, arrogant and ignorant of the movement of
postmodernism. If this has been you, I apologize; however, I stand by my
statement.
Instead of trying to combat the postmodern movement on our
own ground, which they claim is not even present—metaphorically giving us no
footing for our claims—why do we not speak to them on their terms. Let them
critique language as inherently meaningless, but respond with asking about the
comprehension of ideas. If one were able to comprehend an idea within a text
based on a solid understanding of what the language typically means and given
many examples and a wide understanding of the cultural practices, could one not
at least ascertain some general principles?
Perhaps our defense is not to argue for the text and its
truthfulness—that does not seem to get anywhere. It is like asking an American
to speak Chinese. It will rarely happen and most attempts will be hysterical to
watch. Instead we can argue for the process of understanding language. Perhaps
this becomes an argument for the process of exegesis. Clearly the postmodernist
thinks that language is culturally construed, if that is the case then one can
make a case that they can understand the culture. This is a difficult process
and it must not be brushed off as simple or easy; instead it challenges us as
Christians to know and deal with history as it is and to understand our text in
light of that—that is how we truly begin to have a general idea of what the
authors of the text are saying.
If this is to work, two things will be needed: 1) the
Christian community, myself included, will need to be prepared to have an
educated understanding of the text and the culture surrounding it at the time
of its creation. This means we need to know what Paul is trying to get at. This
does not mean that the answer is clear cut; instead, it calls us to deeper
inquiry into and dialogue about the text. This is what 1 Peter 3:15 speaks of:
But in your hearts
revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who
asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with
gentleness and respect… (NIV)
The last sentence of this verse speaks to the second thing
needed. 2) Willingness to be respectful of different worldviews and not to
destroy their worldview, but to build ours as true. If we genuinely believe
that our worldview is true and that we are the bringers of hope to this world,
we must not speak as if we have some form of moral superiority. In the Gospels
the only people Jesus speaks harshly to are the religious leaders of the day.
Let us follow him and speak into the postmodern conversation as He would.
-Jordan Britt
No comments:
Post a Comment