the thing about metanarratives

This is about metanarrative and the attempt to stretch a viewpoint (mini-narrative) into an all-encompassing explanation for why the world is the way it is (which are two different concepts, by the way). This stretching looks a lot like trying to stretch one’s lower lip over one’s head; the observer can’t help but be awed by the dedication and effort put into the action, but does wonder about the ultimate value of the benefits, if any.

It’s difficult to create a believable metanarrative out of a mini-narrative, but it’s somehow easy to confuse meta and mini narratives. It’s easy to think that what i think about Christ is all there is to know as regards salvation, the kingdom, loving people… but what i think about Christ represents only a very small percentile of who Christ actually is- in reality, what i think about Christ does not really represent Christ one bit- but i act like it does, and that’s dangerous b/c then i interpret the whole world thru my goofy viewfinder.

For instance: Jesus tells people to not hype him. He goes so far as to tell people to keep quiet. He heals people and then says “don’t tell anyone about this.” and tells the disciples not to mention their ‘Jesus as Messiah’ theory to anyone. What’s up with that?

This verses kind of bugged me for a while. If the point is to tell the world the good news… why keep it under wraps? I’ve heard teachers try explain this one away with all kinds of ideas but none of them add up.
So how about this one?
Maybe it can’t be interpreted because my interpretation is too small. Maybe evangelicalism (god rest its soul) is an inadequate interpretation of scripture. We all use a basic format for interpreting scripture and in the protestant united states (somwhere between liberal and fundy theologies) it’s all about evangelicalism. I guess i’ve been using this as my big lens without realising it. The elephant of scripture does not fit well in my shoebox of evangelicalism.

I asked Andrew about these troubles with interpretation a year ago and he said, “Your problem is western hemeneutics.” and he was right- but more so than i realised at the time.
Frankly, i never thought of evangelicalism as a box or lens for interpretation- i always assumed it was right there in the bible and didn’t need to be drawn out or concluded. It was a foregone conclusion that evangelism is central to scripture. Huh. It takes a lot of work to pull out of that mindset.
So far, i’ve got three things i’ve noticed about scripture as it relates to this box or lens… or any box, or any lens.
1. some things fit and make sense.
example: the matt. 28:19 makes perfect sense when seen thru the evangelical lens.

2. somethings don’t fit the first time around, you have to break them to get them in the box.
example: parable of a prodigal son. perhaps this is misinterpreted just a bit, tweaked, so it fits into the evangelical box.

3. some things just don’t fit in the box. period.
example: this thing about Jesus not wanting people to tell others about Him and what He has done. what?

At the end of the day, i’m probably still sympathetic to the evangelical thing. It makes sense to me. But when i run into stuff that doesn’t fit, its appropriate to remember that i don’t have the all-encompassing, onesizefitsall box yet. The other thing is re-examining that scripture that fits in the second category- stuff i think i understand because i’ve stuffed it into the one box i have to work with.

What i’d really like to say is: Salvation is limited to Christ, but not to our understanding of Christ. One’s understanding of Christ does not a metanarrative make.

Mike threw in here:

1. i often wonder if Christ reveals Himself to us in the way that we can, as individuals, understand it best. Using that as a starting point and then stretching us and our understanding of who He is from there.
   That would make Christ look to an individual very much like that individual, especially as people initially get to know who He is. This is also dangerous, because it almost gives an individual the ability to make Jesus look like they want Him to look, and because growth and change is difficult, they can go on with a very shallow understanding of who Jesus is, yet because it fits their purposes and supports their beliefs and values, they don’t allow Jesus to stretch them by revealing who He really is.
   I’ve also wondered if we just see Jesus like we want to see Him. I’m strategic, so I think that Jesus is strategic. I have a friend who is moving to South America with no place to stay, no job, and not much of a plan at all. He feels that He is doing what Jesus would do. I don’t think so at all. Strategic Jesus is easier for me to follow. No plan Jesus is easier for Him to follow. So, we both follow our little picture of Him, try to convince others that He is as we see Him (possibly to reaffirm us more than to free people) and roll our eyes when someone else’s picture looks drastically different than ours.
   Either, He reveals Himself to us through our personality and giftings in a way that we can most fall in love with Him, or, we have just made Him look like we want Him to so that it’s easier to follow Him.
   I hope the first scenario is true…
   I hope that this made any sense at all…

Yes it does, Mike. Yes it does.

Our big pictures, lenses, boxes, worldviews, or metanarratives are made up of little insights and little ideas- observations made along the way. These little pieces color the big picture in a certain way, then when we step back and look at the whole we can be surprised by what all the little pieces add up to. What we discover (un-cover what was previously covered up) is that we have a way of looking at life that we may not have quite appreciated in full, and not realised how the little details interact to form a bigger picture. The big picture then informs the little parts and colors them a slightly different shade… what happens to the big picture when the little pictures shift? The big picture, our worldview, reflects that on a large scale.

This is why we always have the capacity to learn and grow and (hopefully) mature, because our lives are integrated, not static or divided into autonomous categories. Every bit that we pick up can have a significant impact on the other bits we already have and  cause us to see, not just one category differently, but wide fields of thought and assumption can be dramatically shifted.

So, here’s the DIY: Metanarrative is THE overarching explanation for what going on and why it’s going on. Meta= All, and Narrative= The Story… The All-Story. All-Spark, anyone? Did you know Transformers went that deep? Do they?

1. Is there such a thing as a metanarrative- or are we on the wrong track by thinking that the concept is a reality?

2. Is/Was the the gospel a metanarrative, or is there more to the idea?

3. How do you determine what big story you subscribe to?

4. Is metanarrative what Jesus means when He is speaking about the kingdom?

5. In this context, are ‘mystical’ and ’scholastic’ mutually exclusive or can they co-exist?

6. What is your view/understanding of the larger/largest story? Is it like or unlike the view of the local church you are a part of? How does that alignment/disparity play out in pratical terms?

7. Do you agree/disagree/why(?) with the idea of metanarrative within scripture? What would you add or take away from this theory?

8. Ken Wilber said: “The secret of contextual (metanarrative in this case) thinking is that the whole discloses new meanings not available to the parts and thus the big pictures we build will give new meaning to the details that compose it. Therefore, choose your big pictures with care.” Agree/Disagree/Why?

9. Is there a difference between Big Picture and Metanarrative?

 

This is all a bit shaky- caffeine will likely be required to bring it home.