Emerging Africa

Nic already made the firts point that came to my mind: that there is a differance between seeing truth as relative, leading to relativism and the crowning of the subjective as king, and the Einsteinian (is that correct) view of relative as relative to... to time, space etc.

May I use two words to describe postmodernism which I think many others will be comfortable with (if my assumption is wrong, please correct me). Postmodernism is about seeing truth as relational (rather then relative), and about thinking holistically.

The first has as implication that I can find truth only in relation, I alone never holds the truth. The second say that we should get beyond the fragmented views of the past and look at life holistically.

In relativism, where the subjective is king, I can tell myself that whatever I do is just, and since everything is relative (using the meaning which I alreadt opposed), no one can deny what I say. However, if we look at this relationally, than I, as a western priviledged white guy can never decide that justice would be, and how to achieve this, if not in relation to others, especially not if it's not in relation to the oppressed. Thus, where modernism had well-meaning white guys in offices deciding that would be best for those who suffer, postmodernism would say that we find the meaning of justice in relation to others.

Holistic thinking call us into a world where we cannot decide something is OK by loking at a part only. Holistic thinking help us to see the complexities of justice. It's not simply about giving money or preaching the gospel. Justice would also mean addressing, for example, systems which lead to that which we have relationally identified as being unjust.

In this way, the postmodern, I hope, would cry out about unjustice in ways previously unknown, and at volumes previously unknown.

I agree with the first comment by nicpaton. Postmodernism as you seem to have it was never a reality. Sure, it might have been discussed in some university residence or deep philosophy classroom, and of course the nihilists and extreme existentialists laid something of a foundation for absolute relativism. But I know of no-one who can keep your extreme version of postmodernism in their heads consistently.

Postmodernism as it has come to exist is not about relativism. It is about the escape from confining metanarratives. OK, in English... It is simply the belief that although there is no doubt that there is absolute truth somewhere, we fallible and limited human beings are unable to find it. Or more technically correct, even if we find it, we will be unable to verify that it is, in fact, the absolute truth. There will always be some doubt in our minds. Or, more technically correct, there SHOULD always be some doubt in our minds that we have finally fully found the Truth. Our task as humans is to seek truth, and seek to know The Truth.

The Bible is clear that a knowledge of The Truth means having a relationship with Jesus, who is The Truth. Relationships are subjective, not objective; emotional as well as rational; constantly changing and growing, not static and once-for-all declared.

But that does NOT mean that anything goes. In fact, from a standpoint of society and social justice, it means exactly the opposite! It means that I must take my neighbour's viewpoint and ethics into account when dealing with him or her. It means I cannot run the world on the basis of my values alone. It means that social justice will be based on the combined viewpoints of all parties involved, and where we disagree, I have no right to impose my own values on you, but need to work to find a common path and a joint solution.

You want a real life example? America currently believes that "freedom" and "democracy" (as defined by them, although they carefully don't define it of course) are two of the most important values of all. They are prepared to strip people of their freedom (and even their lives) in order to bring freedom and democracy to foreign lands. Postmodernism arose in part out of the revulsion of academics to the atrocities of the Second World War, and discussions on how facism could survive in such an "enlightened" age. The answer is that when someone believes they are absolutely right, that comes with the desire to impose their beliefs on others.

Postmodern Christians read the Bible and see a lot more invitation than imposition. They see a lot more about being a light and an example, than being a ruler of the world. They see compassion, not rebuke (the rebuke in the Bible is almost always directed at God's own people, and is about them losing their way in rules about who is "in" and who is "out"). And postmodern Christians typically begin to see that God desires for everyone to be saved.

Postmodernism would critique the underlying assumptions inherent in your questions. You seem to imply, for example, that your views are absolute. This is not true. Take a simple example. Can you kill someone? The 10 commandments say no. But, God says, "yes". You can kill in self defense. You can kill during war. And, you can kill if God tells you to kill. Can you kill a dictator (like Bonhoeffer who was part of the plot to assassinate Hitler)? You can kill people who have killed people (the death penalty). And, Jesus tells us, if you even think hateful thoughts of someone, you might as well have killed them. So, what's your definition of the 6th commandment? It's not quite as absolute as you thought it was. Postmodernism simply tries to be honest about this fact.

Postmodern Christians are at the forefront of a fight for social justice... for ALL people! Not just for the people who think like us!

The pomo landscape is definately a challenging one to get a handle on and brings a challenge to the evangelical bias toward believing they (and I include myself in this) really have 'the truth'. I'm realising more and more that what people say and what others hear often varies. When a pomo says "truth = relative/relational/perspectival" an evangelical hears "there is no truth" (or perhaps even "the cake is a lie!" if they're Portal fans).

I don't think pomo Christianity is about removing the absolutes as much as it is about understanding our experience of 'the truth' and it's experiential value in our personal lives and in the world at large. Having spent time in church and in ministry I'm well aware that holding on to those absolutes does not make good churchgoers any more moral than their worldly secular and hedonistic counterparts. It would seem to me that those who hold the absolutes forwards hold their hearts back while those who hold their hearts forward hold their absolutes back.

Where some hear a rejection of truth I hear a deliberate, responsible and meaningful wrestling with purported truth. "Easy truth" has had a good inning but is being outed by the growing pomo communities.

Envoy

One of the French postmodern founder, Emmanuel Levinas, has as a central point to his thesis the necessity of experiencing the world (and 'the other') as relational. It is thus most definitely a part of philosophical postmodernism at its very origins, outside of Christianity. Although Levinas comes from a Jewish background, his writings are deeply embedded in secular philosophy and have been significantly influential in the development of philosophical postmodernism (which is different from practiced or lived postmodernism).

Levinas and people like him (Derrida, for example) main issue was (what Cobus mentions) that we tend to read reality through the eyes of the white, western, male. Modernism has made this perspective absolute truth. That is the absolute truth of modernism (the masternarrative postmodernism so hates!). What Levinas says is that seeing reality through this lens of 'absolute' truth is an act of violence against 'the other' - the marginlized (women, the poor, the powerless, people of other races and cultures) and that EVERY voice needs to be equally heard and acknowledged. This could perhaps very crudely be seen as a form of relativism but it really seems to me more like the best thing ever to happen in philosophical thinking.

It is relativistic in terms of that instead of one view (that of white, western male) being the absolute truth and everything else being measured up to it, EVERYONE's view is given EQUAL voice. This idea of equal voice is a very important one in French postmodernism (where philosophical postmodernism has its roots). A large part of Derrida's project is around how language either excludes and diminishes others and his deconstruction project is partly one that creates a new space where every person might be allowed an equal voice.

For further reading on this online:
Something on Levinas' views on embracing 'the other': http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/levinas.html
Introduction to Levinas: http://mythosandlogos.com/Levinas.html
Introduction to Derrida: http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/

Cori, Paul, Envoy, Stray, thanks for your considerations.

It's becoming clear to me from this discussion that what we may have called relativism in the past based on our absolutist (white/western/male, if you like) worldview should be rather seen as relational.

Science has been taking a lead here too. Thomas Berry said "The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects". Others like Brian Swimme, James Gleik and Lynne McTaggart have revealed a totally different view of the universe than has been offered by modem scientism.

Additionally the "prophetic" nature of pomo is exciting, as you point out Cori the marginalized, who are quite patently the recipients of G-d's grace in the message of Christ, are given a voice when we "escape from confining metanarratives" (Graeme). Or Paul, "the issue isn't about the need to abandon a grand narrative but to embrace one that does not coherce or manipulate."

Envoy, you make a good point in saying "It would seem to me that those who hold the absolutes forwards hold their hearts back while those who hold their hearts forward hold their absolutes back." That's very incisive. I really do think that heart is gaining ascendancy once again, much to G-d's joy and out benefit.

Stray - thank you for starting this gedoente. I see you as a seeker, but as one whose milieu has been very modernist. Given the denominational culture you are in, I understand this, because I have had the experience of being frozen out (read: pre-emptively excommunicated) by such structures when I presented my views there.

Thanks for sticking out your neck, but I am afraid I shall have to decapitate this comment:
"non-Christian philosophy cannot be person focused".
That's a sweeping statement if I ever heard one, and its assumptions need further examination. I have been deeply touched and transformed by much that might be considered "non-christian", simply because the truth is larger than our categories or allegiances.

Well, at least you say "I may be wrong on this". Good on ya! Keep up the courage and the seeking.

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you." (Jeremiah 20:12)
Pilate asked the sceptical question "what is truth?" (John 18:38) and in so doing lost the opportunity of finding the answer simply because he had become convinced that there was none to be found... certainly not in person of the man he spoke with. His scepticism became his stronghold.

But then absolute truth is knowable since Jesus is The Truth, not 'my truth' or 'some truth'.

I think that if God says He is discoverable then that's exactly what He is. But “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” (Romans 1:19) is also true. He must be knowable in different ways.

One of my pastors (of 10 years ago) told the story of his two year old daughter who always wanted to stick her finger in the wall socket (we have round wall sockets in South Africa, just the right size for children's fingers - it's called 'pre-modernism'). Whenever she wanted to touch it he would say "shue-shue" as a warning for her not to touch it, and if she persisted she would get a smack on the hand.
Now neither "shue-shue" nor the smack on the hand gave her a complete knowledge of domestic electrical power outlets and the flow of electrons along a wire. But it told her all she needed to know and all she was capable of knowing, not only about electricity but, more importantly, about dad.

In one sense she never needed to know more about her dad, he loved her enough to rebuke her when necessary, in another sense she got to know more and more about him as she grew up.
It's like that when we deal with relationships, they are absolute and progressive at the same time, I know my wife, yet I am growing to know her every day.
But I cannot see that relationships are relative, and I cannot see my way clear to call relational what I used to call relative.
Here's why: The Universe is relational, it is subject to relative principles and laws, but it is relational (the universe is not the same thing as those laws). Mathematics may be a Universal language, but it is not the Universal language. Everything relative may be relational, but not everything relational can be relative. It does not fit the other way round.
Einstein's theory of general relativity could not equally be called Einstein's theory of general relationships.
Relationship is at once too common and to grand for mathematics, for mere relativity. It is one of the key reasons, I believe, for the sermon on the mount, and the key difference between Christianity and the Hindu faiths. The intelligent, the wealthy and the very good looking must find a way to identify with the poor, the dull and the ordinary (even the ugly). It is the foolish thing that is chosen to shame the wise. It is the child we are called to become, not the intellectual.

Too often I think we call 'being relative' or 'being post modern' what is actually just plain 'being sceptical', reserving our rights or trying to please all the people all of the time.
Marriages don't work particularly well when one or both parties reserve their rights, yet they work with passionate excellence when both parties do not consider equality something to be grasped, but make themselves nothing, serving each other in humility.
Relationship with God is a relationship with diminishing returns when we reserve our rights, allow a little doubt in, doubt that is welcomed at the door of our hearts by post modernism. And God certainly reserves nothing from us.

Hi Stray,

It sounds to me like you lean heavily toward a foundationalism position on truth and morality. Not everyone does so. Many in fact lean toward non-foundational positions. One does not have to prove truth absolutely or have an a priori truth in order to have morals or a moral foundation for life or a sound faith. One only has to have a good enough reason for oneself to work from.

Nancy Frankenberry's Religion and Radical Empiricism deals with this in a manner that is both understandable and succinct so if you can find a library copy it's worth reading.

For example, many people simply accept the canon of Scripture. They may have little reason to do so, except that they do and are part of a community that does so. Others accept the canon of Scripture and actually know the in's and out's of how we ended up with it. This logic can equally be applied to all our commonly accepted doctrines. It seems to me that even when people reference foundational positions they often work with a fuzzy position that includes some things considered foundational and others non-foundational.

I don't agree with you that we need a foundational position in order to have 'truth' and 'morality'. That's a foundational bias that simply doesn't hold up. Even the most secular of people are often quite moral and wise.

Paul Knitter in Has God Many Names? speaks of a confessional approach to speaking about the truth that is more appropriate when people speak to others. A pomo landscape does allow Christianity or any other position to be the accepted "truth". In fact, it seems to me that more conversations around and about the excluded middle are called for than in the modernist era. In the modernist era you could say all the right stuff about Godde but live without any meaningful relationship with or evidence of Godde's reality. Furthermore you could imbibe tons of so-called teaching, most of which had little enduring soteriological value in day-to-living. In a pomo environment you may assert 'truth' only secondarily into the conversation. First and foremost you have to demonstrate. This is a 'show and tell' era.

Envoy

"just a casual read of Jesus' words are enough to show that He has an absolute view."

I'm sorry Aratus, the "absolute view" is the view of an Enlightenment affected, rationalistic culture, not that of Jesus, in the way I understand it.

If that is true, why did he talk in almost exclusively in parables, poetic aphorisms, and even enigmatic signs? Why is there such diversity in the interpretations of his words through the centuries? Why did he not just give us a new textbook, such as he was coming to fulfill, which tried to define rather than illustrate?

Aratus
What is "absolute" about the unique word spoken into your heart? I sincerely celebrate the fact that you and G-d communicate this way, (diehard charismatic me) but really don't think I'd describe this as "absolute". It is entirely relational.

Again, those 2 commandments, concerning the ultimate sacrifice, are I agree "great" and even ulitmate, but never absolute. If anything, Love and especially G-d's love, is a deep deep mystery and so cannot be absolutised. If it was "absolute" it would not be a mystery. And neither would it be great.

So, that's enough theology, where are you based? And is that red and black badge off the set of the Starship Enterprize, or is it the broach on your lapel?

That sounds very Hellenistic, and not very Hebraic! And wikipedia agrees -
Aratus (Greek Aratos) (ca. 315 BC/310 BC – 240 BC) was a Greek didactic poet, known for his technical poetry.

Is Bedfordview the new Mount Olympus, perhaps?

D'Oble D'Oh: So my favourite piece of scripture, was borrowed lock stock and barrell from the Greeks? It's obvious I suppose since Paul says that staright out, but somehow I have appropriated it to be "directly from the Spirit". Thanks Aratus for destroying my faith.

Anyway, in the battle between Zeus and Promethius I think Zeus looks like the loser, don't you? (for a primer in this see my essay on the holy trickster).

Now, where were we all ...