Divided by a common language

It’s an often-repeated fact that the English spoken in the USA isn’t the same as the English spoken in Britain (or India, or Australia – you get the idea!). And it’s quite true. Although we can mostly communicate perfectly well, every so often something comes up that confuses matters totally, whether it’s a word used by one group that the others don’t know at all or a word both use but with different meanings (Brits and Yanks mean quite different things by being “pissed”, for example). And it’s the same with many other groups. For example, when evangelicals and liberals debate, they often come unstuck for just this reason – their words don’t always mean the same things. Simply insisting that our words are “right” and the other group’s “wrong” is nonsense; the word is irrelevant, it’s the meaning that counts.

But it goes further than this. If we think of the evangelical-liberal language divide as being similar to the US-UK language divide, it help us to avoid some other very common (and annoying) mistakes. For example, both Brits and Yanks speak English, as do Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and lots of other people. So, just because someone doesn’t speak American English, it doesn’t mean that they’re automatically British. Similarly, just because someone’s not evangelical, it doesn’t mean that they’re automatically liberal. Theology cannot be measured along a simplistic “evangelical-liberal” axis, and to pretend that it can is to close our eyes to the genuine issues involved.

Indeed, evangelicalism and liberalism share a language with each other and with various other theological traditions (like the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India etc. do), but they do so because they share a common theological basis in Modernism. To think that the whole world speaks English is the same error as thinking that all theology is Modernist. To think that the whole world ought to speak English is the same error as thinking that all theology ought to be Modernist. There’s nothing especially holy about English, and nothing especially holy about Modernism. There are other languages out there, and some of them are spoken by an awful lot of people. Modernism is simply one way of viewing the world, and it’s not the first or the last or the greatest of them. It’s simply been the dominant worldview for a couple of hundred years, and Christians are accustomed to thinking in its terms. But Modernism is fading fast, and that’s no bad thing. Christianity did very well before Modernism and will do very well after it; what won’t do well are theologies that cling to Modernism as the world moves on. They will end up speaking Latin rather than the new lingua franca.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 12:59pm on 04 July 2006
Category: Faith, Musing

Points well taken.

But, how, exactly, do you define Modernism? And as opposed to what, for example?

(And just what does a Brit mean when he says he’s “pissed”? My favorite difference: If a Brit wants someone to come get him the next day, “Shall I knock you up in the morning?” is a perfectly acceptable phrase. But probably best not to say that to an American woman.)

MikeC () (URL)
04:48am on 05 July 2006

Modernity, as it’s usually used, refers to the post-Enlightenment worldview that placed rationality and objectivity as the central virtues. All forms of knowledge are reduced to terms that can be so expressed. This led to (and accompanied) the rise of science as a force in Western culture, and heavily influenced Christian thinking (as so much else). Even those Christian movements that rejected rationality were left in a Modernist framework and so tended to be reduced to unthinking literalism.

Evangelicalism and liberalism are both children of Modernity. They both rely on objective knowledge and rationality. Their differences are in where this knowledge resides, rather than whether it exists at all or is the most desirable form of knowledge.

As for “pissed” :-)

Americans mean “angry” and the British mean “drunk”. “Knocking up” has the same meaning in the UK as the USA – it just has an additional, older meaning as well!

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
09:52am on 05 July 2006

John,
This is indeed and interesting premise. Can you give a few examples of orthodox Christianity that rejected absolute truth that was expressible and definable? Of course, I understand that God is certainly incomprehensible to us, but he has expressed Himself in ways that are at least partially comprehensible. So, aside from the nature of God, what about historic Christianity rejected rationality and objectivity?

Hammertime () (URL)
6:27pm on 05 July 2006

Hammer,
I think you’ve misunderstood. The very desire for “absolute truth” betrays a Modernist heart! Other worldviews have valued wisdom rather than abstract truth, or have placed their emphasis on knowing in relationship rather than in the abstract, or have assumed as a basic tenet that knowledge is revealed or passed down, rather than being discovered. Insisting on the primacy of “absolute truth” is insisting that everyone speak English. Christianity isn’t, at heart, about absolute truth. Christianity does make truth claims, of course, but they aren’t its heart. The heart of the Christian faith is a Person who is God Incarnate – a very non-Modernist thing.

So, the relevant question isn’t whether there are exampled of orthodox Christianity that “rejected absolute truth” so much as whether there are examples that value other kinds of knowing. And, when we ask that question, the answer becomes obvious – every Christian and every theology before the Enlightenment valued other forms of knowing. It’s not that they reject rationality but that they also value the other forms.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
6:53pm on 05 July 2006

I didn’t misunderstand – I recongize that abosulte truth fits under the “Modernist” view you have defined. That’s why I wanted to know when it was rejected. If it is a product of Modernist thinking, it would have been rejected before said thimking, so I would assume.

However, you have added some clarity, that absolute truth was never rejected, but that other forms of “wisdom” were appreciated. What were they? How did they relate to absolute truth?

A far as the statement “Christianity isn’t, at its heart, about absolute truth…[but] is a Person who is God Incarnate” is part and parcel with things you have said before. The problem is, that Person is The Truth (Jn 14:6), and it is the knowledge of the truth that is held by true disciples (who are known because they abide in his word) that makes them free (Jn 8:31-32).

Thus, Christianity is based on the Truth, and has no place apart from truth. If there be augments to the Truth (The Way, The Life), they are inseparable from it and would not make the truth change in any fashion – so I see it.

So what are these other wisdoms of which you speak? More detail may help me understand. Thanks!

Hammertime () (URL)
7:50pm on 05 July 2006

No, I’ve clearly still not got across what I mean. It is not that abstract, rational truth was rejected. It was that this aspect of truth was put in its correct relationship to other forms of knowing. Modernism places abstract rationality far above all other forms of knowledge. In other times and places, people have valued wisdom, relationship and myth just as much (in different proportions at different times).

To anticipate your next question, these are totally different to abstract truth. “Abstract truth” equates to “information”. Wisdom is the ability to discern which information is important and how it applies to the current context, and to see the current context in the light of the past. Relationship places information in context, and values the context more than the information (for example, in a family, it’s more important that Jack is my brother and that we love one another than that he’s a banker or 6 feet tall). Myth is the use of narrative to convey wisdom and relational knowledge, and to explore the place of humanity in the Universe. All these forms of knowledge and others are “true”, but they are quite different to each other. And to ask how they value “absolute truth” is to miss the point. It’s like asking how blue values spoon.

“A far as the statement “Christianity isn’t, at its heart, about absolute truth…[but] is a Person who is God Incarnate” is part and parcel with things you have said before. The problem is, that Person is The Truth“

Yes indeed. But that Person isn’t information. Christ isn’t “absolute rational truth”. It’s absolutely not “knowledge of the truth that is held by true disciples…that makes them free“ if we’re understanding “truth” as rational propositions (that would be Gnosticism). The Truth that is Christ sets us free – and that truth contains rational propositional truth but transcends it, containing wisdom, myth and relationship as well. Any of those parts by itself is not the whole.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
09:51am on 06 July 2006

You’re right – I was mistaken! I’ve got it all now.

Thus, I present a second opinion on why absolute truth is important to us. In every Wisdom, Relationship, and Myth (at least one that attempts to display a truth) truth is a critical component. If Jack is not my brother, the Relationship is different than we thought, regardless of whether we love each other or not. If the information we think is “important” is false, our Wisdom is false. If the Myth falsely presents the place of humanity, then the myth is worthless.

Furhtermore, it is Truth that is under attack. When wisdom is questioned, it is the underlying truths supporting the wisdom that are actually questioned. When Relationships are challenged, it is under the auspices that the underlying truths are lies. When Myths are challenged, it is because the truth they speak are denied.

I don’t deny that Wisdom, Relationship, Myth, and other elements are important. Instead, I insist that Truth is greater than them all. Just as Faith, Hope and Love are the great ones, but Love is the greatest.

Hammertime () (URL)
4:51pm on 06 July 2006

Hammer,
That comment, though, is merely an assertion that Modernity is correct. It doesn’t actually prove anything!

For example, I would say that rational truth (information) is useless without wisdom. Indeed, it can become actively dangerous; give a fool a lot of knowledge and then step back! Information (facts, rational truth) is merely a tool to be wielded by the wise. One aspect of wisdom, of course, is knowing then one lacks the information to make a wise choice. But the information remains subordinate and secondary to the wisdom that puts it into practice.

Similarly, myth places information into context. The mere facts of creation (however we think that happened) mean nothing until they are woven into a myth that tells us how they fit together into a whole, and what our place in that is. So, the Genesis accounts are myth in this sense – they aren’t primarily concerned with telling us exactly what events occurred during Creation, but with telling us how humanity fits into that Creation. Similarly, the Creation myth of the secular atheists (from Big Bang through abiogenesis) tells them where they fit into the Universe. Notice that the information upon which the secularist’s myth is based doesn’t mean anything in isolation – whether the Universe began with a bang or a whimper, or a word, is meaningless until we place it into a myth.

“I don’t deny that Wisdom, Relationship, Myth, and other elements are important. Instead, I insist that Truth is greater than them all.“

And so you are a good Modernist. Personally, I would place Wisdom in first place, although sometimes I’d want to put Relationship or Myth there. Certainly, in any case, Rational truth should never come first in my opinion. And this is because I think Modernism is flawed. Mere information is dangerous unless placed in service to deeper and broader Truth.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
5:11pm on 06 July 2006