truth be told
The following I originally wrote in an email to a friend, so, sorry, Stina, if you're reading this and expecting somethign new.
I've been struggling lately with the proper amount of historical skepticism. Obviously, we can't know things wie es eigentlich gewesen. And in a sense, we can't really have historical truth. Yet, at the same time, I feel like I'm living a dualistic lifestyle. One 'life' says, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, etc.." and the other says "We can't have historical truth." _I_ am postmodern. I learned about modernism in school, but it's a thing of the past, and I'm finding that part of the my societal context that has influenced me is that there is an element of instinct that is postmodern (in a broad, cultural sense, not really in an academic sense of the word). So how can I as a Christian reconcile my belief that there is Truth with the appropriate amount of historical skepticism!? I suppose that's the million dollar question, and one that was proposed to us in Historiography class. I feel like everything I learned at Covenant was so easy to say but unrealistic in the everyday academic department. I don't remember half of all that jargon from the mountain. And what I do remember, I'm frustrated with. Marsden is passe. His thesis is unsatisfactory and for a generation beyond my own. I am probably one of the most skeptical people in my department YET I'm the only one that believes in eternal Truth. How can this be?
Comments
I know you hate it when I answer your rhetorical e-mails, but here goes . . .
Are you reading too much theory? You can make yourself crazy doing too much theory. Maybe you are in a place and time where you should not allow yourself the luxury of thinking about these things. It seems to me you need to just "do" histroy as best you can.
Posted by: mom2 | 09.02.04 09:02
Comments
You're right. I do hate it. Why don't you just call me? We end up understanding eachother better on the phone than over comments on my blog. :-)
In response to your comment, though, I think it is quite the contrary. Of ALL places to mull over "theory" this is the one. It's part of what I "do". I'm not a carpenter mindlessly following directions to put together a house. That's why I'm a scholar. I think the moment I become a stymied recluse skulking around the unanswerable problems, then perhaps maybe I should step away a moment to gain perspective. I LIKE the theory. That's why I'm here!
Posted by: Jeannette | 09.02.04 10:29
Comments
Ijust want you both to know I peeked. Keep going. I'm staying out of this one. I'm at the place where I think in the morning, "Why am I saying "I pledge allegiance..." instead of "I believe in God the Father......" Sorry I am sooooo deep.
Posted by: mom1 | 11.02.04 21:30
Comments
"One 'life' says, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, etc.." and the other says "We can't have historical truth." _I_ am postmodern."
I've wrestled a lot with a very similar issue, and I want to tell you about a conclusion that has brought me peace.
Last year my church asked me to give a talk about evolution. My pastor basically wanted me to marshal the evidence against evolution and destroy the theory in front of the congregation. I had read plenty of stuff that I could use against evolution, so beating up (a likely straw-mannish) theory before a friendly audience wouldn't be problem. But as I worked on preparing the talk, I was bothered continually by the same issue: the authority of evidential support for the truth or falsity of an idea.
I was pretty sure most of the people who heard the talk would walk out of church that day feeling pretty safe in their creationist beliefs. But what would happen if they were to speak with an evolutionary biologist--or someone else who knew the evidence far better than they (or I) did? Would their beliefs hold up in the face of apparently damning evidence? Worse yet, what if talk turned from debate about origins to the historicity of scripture? What if all the evidence introduced in a conversation pointed to the falsity of New Testament accounts? Would their beliefs about the person of Christ hold? What if tomorrow archaeologists make a Dead Sea Scrolls-like find that strongly supports a hypothesis that the gospel-writers were lying?
My point isn't about evolution--I think evidence needs to play a fairly significant role in that issue. What I realized is that my core Christian beliefs--that I am God's child in whom Christ lives by God's Spirit--were not, and should not, be open to the authority of objective evidence. Even if the accuracy of all of scripture were repudiated by the academy, I would still believe. I don't believe due to the accuracy of historical accounts, or the authority of tradition, or even the coherence of a system derived from certain presuppositions. I believe because God testifies to me directly in my spirit, by the person of his Spirit. I cannot deny that another person lives in me--he speaks to me all the time. As John says in his first epistle "And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gives us" (3:24b). Objective, empirical evidence will never corroborate my claims that God exists and lives within me. And so external evidence will not persuade me otherwise.
As I climb down from my soap-box, I'll say that it doesn't seem like there has to be conceptual dissonance in being skeptical of historical truth while affirming the eternal truth of God's revelation. It could be that you don't believe in those eternal truths because of any type of historical evidence. Besides, if we're going to be postmodern, it seems like it ought to be OK to believe something for uniquely personal reasons ;)
By the way, I really like the green anole on your blog. I used to keep them for pets...
Posted by: paul | 13.02.04 15:25