The Demise of Metanarrative and the Implications for Culture

Introduction

“Simplifying in the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”¹

“A massive intellectual revolution is taking place that is perhaps as great as that which marked off the modern world from the Middle Ages. The foundations of the modern world are collapsing, and we are entering a postmodern world. The principles forged during the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1780), which formed the foundations of the modern mentality, are crumbling.”²

The current situation, which is being referred to as postmodern, is intimately connected with the notion of metanarrative and its demise. Western civilization has, until recently shared a common story. This common story was not explicit, nor was it intentionally constructed. In the pre-modern period and in the modern period, Western civilization has held had a common story.

Such is no longer the case.

Definition

The word metanarrative is a compound word coming from the word “narrative” and the prefix “meta.” Narrative refers to story and meta has the meaning of “with, after, from”. Combined, they give the notion of going beyond the story. More familiar is the term metaphysics. Physics has to do the material composition of reality and its function. Metaphysics goes beyond physics to look at being or the essence of reality. It asks the questions such as “What is real?”, “What is ultimately real”?, and “What is man’s [sic] place in what is real?”³

In similar fashion, a metanarrative looks at the story beyond the story. We will come back to this below when we contrast metanarrative with worldview. Metanarratives are stories that are over-arching, all-encompassing. They have been referred to in negative fashion as totalizing. By this is meant that they place all reality within a common framework. Robert Webber refers to them as “comprehensive stories for the whole world.”⁴

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, defines metanarrative as follows:

A metanarrative can include any grand, all-encompassing story, classic text, or archetypal account of the historical record. They can also provide a framework upon which an individual’s own experiences and thoughts may be ordered. These grand, all-encompassing stories are typically characterized by some form of ‘transcendent and universal truth’ in addition to an evolutionary tale of human existence (a story with a beginning, middle and an end). The majority of metanarratives tend to be relatively optimistic in their visions for human kind, some verge on utopian, but different schools of thought offer very differing accounts.⁵

Note the terms “grand”, “all-encompassing”, “classic”, and “archetypal.” One cannot overestimate the unifying role and nature of metanarratives.

Metanarrative and Worldview

It is important not to confuse metanarrative with worldview. So, how do they differ? One might think of worldview as related to individuals or groups of people and metanarrative as related to society or culture more broadly. Worldviews have to do with a view of the world. They are a view that I, the individual, hold. They are how I make sense of the world around me. They provide a framework or paradigm by which I understand my world. Individuals or groups within a culture may hold to varying or differing worldviews, but they still exist within the bounds a common metanarrative.

Metanarratives, in contrast, are unifying stories that are beyond the individual. The locus of a worldview is within the self as an individual; the locus of a metanarrative is external to the self. I adopt a worldview, but fall under the influence of a metanarrative. James Fowler describes metanarratives as “unifying notions of universal truth.”⁶ Metanarratives go beyond worldview.

This can be seen clearly in the Enlightenment period when secular and Christian perspectives went their own separate ways with regard to worldview. Where they did not part was with regard to the metanarrative under which they operated. While science went one way and began to explore the physical world, theology (acting like science) went another to explore faith, but both used the same tools of logic, analysis, and the conviction that knowledge could be wrung out of the subject during the process.

The Collapse of the Metanarrative

Somewhere in last century things began to change. It is reasonable to go so far as to say that the “horse was already out of the barn” well before that. To use another metaphor, the trajectory was set, even if the missile was still out of sight below the horizon. It is fascinating to note that seminal management thinker, the late Peter Druker, was already commenting on the emerging “post-modern” situation as early as 1954 in The Practice of Management.⁷

Many factors can be identified in the emergence of postmodernism. A complete examination is well beyond the scope of this discussion. One of the most significant underlying foundations for postmodernism’s emergence is the collapse of metanarrative in western society. What is meant by “collapse of metanarrative” is the idea that we now live in a world where the overarching, all-encompassing stories of “the way things are” are no longer functioning. These stories have been called into question and challenged by competing stories. Keep in mind that while the metanarrative is collapsing, people are still functioning with worldviews. Now, however, there is no harmonizing and mediating metanarrative in place. As a result, we see what in America has come to known as the “culture wars.”

One factor in the demise of metanarrative is deconstruction. Much has been written about this and most of it is rather dense. It is a concept that has impacted many fields of study. It is closely related to epistemology as it focuses on what we know and what can be known. Put simply, deconstruction is the process of taking apart or “de-constructing” the stories (metanarrative) that society has constructed.

This process is supported by the “media-accelerated onrush of globalization.”⁸ Increases in both the speed and accessibility of communication and transportation are factors here. Western culture, in the earlier phases of the modern era, could exist without its metanarrative being disturbed because there was little to challenge it. With the advent of modern communication and air travel all this changed. One can now be in New York or London one day and in Delhi or Bangkok the next (and vice versa). A world that once lived in relative isolation under competing, but mutually unaware, metanarratives now cannot. This has led, not the construction of a new, more encompassing metanarrative, but to the demise of metanarrative. Whether a new, more powerful metanarrative emerges, only time will tell.⁹

One might reasonably ask, “Well, was not western civilization in contact with other cultures during the modern era?” The answer would, of course, be yes. What is different then than it is now is the fact that the existing metanarrative of western culture was taken into other cultures. This was done on a variety of fronts, such as commerce, religion, medicine, etc. Competing metanarratives in the new culture were not engaged, they were simply overpowered. It is beyond the scope of this analysis, but it should be noted that it is this aspect of metanarrative that will quickly move a discussion of postmodernism into issues of justice, imperialism and colonialism.

Implications for Culture and Ministry

How, then does all this affect our culture? How does it change ministry? These are critical questions to answer. One thing is certain. The framework within which we operate has changed and this, in turn, changes how we as followers of Christ live out our faith.

Background Considerations

With the demise of the metanarrative which was operative throughout the vast majority of the modern western era, Christianity went about its business with some level of general support from the surrounding culture. While specific aspects of the culture may not have been supportive of the Christian enterprise, overall, the Christian faith did not find itself in an adversarial role with the culture. Take, for example, the American Revolution. A close study of the biography of individuals like Jefferson, Franklin or Hamilton will reveal that these founding fathers would not necessarily have been at home in a twenty-first century evangelical church. Yet, much of conservative Christianity looks back with fondness to the “Christian” heritage provided by these founders. In truth, many of these individuals were deists or agnostics. Jefferson’s infamous New Testament is cut to shreds from where he removed everything he thought miraculous. These founding fathers were able to provide what is now taken as a Christian heritage, in large measure, due to the metanarrative which provided support for the Christian faith.

Move forward into the later half of the twentieth century and witness the outcry that accompanied the determination of the United States Supreme Court that school-sponsored Christian prayer could no long be allowed in the classroom. Much has been written about this and anything said here can only scratch the surface, but one way to look at this change is with regard to the demise of metanarrative. The metanarrative of modern western culture was crumbling. The larger consensus about reality and God’s place in it shifted. Prior to this, even those who did not believe in God subscribed to the larger metanarrative and to His place in that story. Christians and non-Christians alike functioned under a common metanarrative. As a result, much Christian activity in the culture took place without the culture giving it a second thought. It was just the way it was. The late Francis Schaeffer pointed out this situation in his classic trilogy¹⁰. Schaffer, living in Europe, saw this shift taking place since European culture was about a generation ahead of American culture.

The Changed Situation

Churches and Christian ministries now find themselves in the place of having to determine how to do ministry without the support of a metanarrative. For some, the answer is to enter a battle whose goal is to restore America to its Christian roots. This is a dead end. Transforming society by governmental edict has been tried once (under Constantine) and many scholars point to it now as a disaster for vibrant Christian faith. The New Testament uses metaphors of salt and light and leaven. Transformation by these means occur from within, not from without. Some Christians are rightfully looking at the demise of the modern western metanarrative as holding bright prospects for ministry in the days ahead. To be sure, it will be more challenging, but it will also likely be richer.

Consider the following implications for ministry in this new era in which a metanarrative is not in place.

First, the environment in which ministry takes place will be increasingly fragmented and pluralistic. Operating under the modern western metanarrative, Christianity had the luxury of a certain amount of “given” credibility. Christians and non-Christians may well have looked at many issues differently, but shared a common understanding in many ways. No one questioned the place of Christian ministry in the larger society. No one questioned the right of Christians to share their faith and engage in ministry.

Secondly, “toleration” will continue to be a watchword of the new environment. For many Christians, toleration has become a negative word. It is often taken to mean that everyone and everything is tolerated with the exception of Christians. This is not an altogether unwarranted perspective. Two comments are in order here. First, some of this just comes with the territory. As Christians, once the metanarrative is stripped away, we still find ourselves with an ultimate story. We do need to strip away the remnants of a dying metanarrative. In its place we need to cling only to the biblical story. That story is an ultimate story and our culture is not really interested in other people trying to tell them an ultimate story. The second thing that needs to be said here is that Christians will continue to bear the burden of the totalizing approach to metanarrative over the past centuries. The notion of “totalizing” was mentioned earlier and it was noted that it is a negative one. We would do well to keep in mind that throughout the modern era a lot of negative things happened as a result of western culture’s totalizing approach to its metanarrative. Christianity was integrally a part of this. White, western Christians likely have little conception of how much of what was taken to the mission field was the western metanarrative versus how much was the core of the gospel message.

Finally, our approaches to evangelism and apologetics will need to change if they are to be believable. Much of the foundation upon which our traditional approaches to evangelism and apologetics have been based are intimately intertwined with the metanarrative which has now disintegrated. The logical, sequential approach to evangelism found in presentations such as “The Roman Road” or “The Four Spiritual Laws” will be increasingly less compelling in the changed environment. They assume a common base established by a metanarrative which is no longer in place. The same is true for our attempts at apologetics. Logical argumentation and rational proof will be like water on the proverbial duck’s back. It just will not work. Many Christians are currently wringing their hands over this when, all the while, nothing has really change from Jesus’ words about the convicting power of our love and unity (John 13:34-35; 17:21). Philip Kenneson pointedly states this when he says,

My hunch is that when the church begins to embody its testimony to the world, when it begins to embody the character of this particular God known in Jesus Christ, when our neighbors see the Spirit alive in our common life and when our neighbors begin to ask about the hope we have, only then will the church have something to say.¹¹

Evangelism and apologetics in the postmodern era will have to be based on relationship and personal credibility, and, after all, isn’t that really what God did when He chose to become flesh and dwell among us?

 

PR

 

Notes

¹ Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1984), p. xxiv, in J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger Than It Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1995), p. 70.

² Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: The Full Wealth of Conviction (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), p. 2.

³ William Hasker, Metaphysics: Constructing a World View (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1983), pp. 13-16.

⁴ Robert E. Webber, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), p. 84.

⁵ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-narrative

⁶ James W. Fowler, Faithful Change: The Personal and Public Challenges of Postmodern Life (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), p. 14.

⁷ Peter F. Druker, The Practice of Management (New York: Harper and Row, 1954), in Warren G. Bennis, Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1.

⁸ Middleton and Walsh, p. 29.

⁹ Think of Star Trek and its various sequels to imagine a new metanarrative.

¹⁰ See Schaeffer’s three works, The God Who Is There, Escape from Reason and He Is There and He Is Not Silent.

¹¹ Philip W. Kenneson, “There’s No Such Thing As Objective Truth, and It’s a Good Thing, Too,” in Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World, ed. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1995), pp. 169-170.