Synchronic Trumping Diachronic?

A synchronic scene (a small part of an episode or story) does not trump a diachronic story. Not in the real world. Ah, but you might say, “Look at the power of a single short tweet on twitter. Look at the potential of a single post on facebook. Look at the sway of a thirty second commercial during a Super Bowl.” Hmm, can it be? Are we in North America headed in the direction where a synchronal scene trumps a diachronal depiction of reality? If so, then our culture is entering into a fantasy world that qualifies as the supreme titleholder of fickleness. We would be living in the very opposite of the real world – it would be a world that is every bit as unreal as little blue men on the moon eating feta cheese (I hope I’ve not unforgivenly offended anyone who has strong feelings concerning little blue men, the moon, or feta cheese.) in such a world there would be no meaning – absolutely none. There would be only absurdity. And the absurdity would be continually morphing – keeping pace with the ever-changing synchronic happenings (scenes, tweets, posts, thirty-second commercials) – sinking deeper into the black hole of absurdness. If this is, indeed, where we are (or are headed)…may God have mercy on us. There is no other hope. None.

Archetypes, Reality, Truth, and God

A word concerning archetypes, reality, truth, and God. Merriam-Webster defines archetype as “the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies; a perfect example.” Halverson et al tell us that, “Archetypes are standard characters that one might expect to find in a story. They unlock motives and operate as ‘shorthand for situations; in which characters might find themselves. All archetypes are tied to story forms, but not all characters in stories are necessarily archetypes” (Halverson, 2011). Carl Jung borrowed from Kant’s “forms,” Plato’s “ideas,” and Schopenhaur’s “prototypes” to further develop the concept of archetypes (Samuels, 1986). For Jung, archetypes were highly established components of a community’s or a culture’s collective unconscious. As such they were to be discovered by investigating outward behavior, symbols, stories, and religious beliefs. Archetypes play a key role in how humans think, relate, and understand their perceived reality.

The God of the Scriptures is presented to humankind with a kaleidoscope of archetypes – supreme archetypes. A prime example comes right out of the starting block: God is introduced in Genesis chapter one as the powerful, almighty Creator. By the sheer power of him merely speaking words, the cosmos was brought into existence. Just saying “light” brought light into existence. Just saying “sun, moon, stars” brought the entirety of those vast and immense celestial bodies into existence. Imagine, just saying, “Lamborghini,” and wah-lah. The genesis of written revelation begins with this grand Creator image/archetype of God, in order to dispel the various major rival cosmologies familiar to the Israelites wandering in the desert wilderness. Those rival stories were well known to the tribes of Israel – this newly-penned story by a first-time national author (Moses) hit the stands to dispel those stories and construct another.

Following fast upon the Creator archetype comes one generally seen in more somber garb: here comes the judge – the Supreme Judge. One can follow this judge motif (and archetypical characteristic) of God all the way through the biblical story. See it burst on the scene in Genesis three when Adam and Eve choose to listen to and obey a rival voice. From then on in the story it scarcely stops. See the Judge with Cain. With the generation of Noah. With Sodom and Gomorrah. With Samson. With Saul. With David. With Solomon. With Israel. With Jesus (vicariously). Ah, and then there is the book of Revelation. No doubt about it – God is the archetypical righteous Judge.

Then, of course, there is God the Savior. This trail through Scripture follows much the same terrain as that of Judge. He is judging. But he is also saving. He does not leave all mankind in that sunken fallen state. No, he saves some. He comes up with a most staggering plan to righteously save unrighteous man. The Bible is a story of God as Savior. Right to the end.

Creator, Judge, and Savior – three obvious God archetypes. There are others, many others (Caregiver, Sustainer, Warrior, Provider, to name just a few more). But what we really want to see here is that as incredibly important as these aspects of God are, God was something (in logical sequence) before he was Creator. God was something (in logical sequence) before he was Judge. And God was something (in logical sequence) before he was Savior. Before he created, judged, and saved the world, he was somebody doing something.

In order to understand this created world now, we need to understand something of God’s uncreated world then. Who was he (first, in logical sequence) and what was he doing (first, in logical sequence)? He was not creating, judging, and saving – not yet. Not before creation. Who was he? Answer: He was Trinity. Now granted, “the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those Christian beliefs that we all affirm but which, in our more honest moments, we often think is rather perplexing and somewhat remote from ordinary life (Parry, 2013). We will find, however, that the Trinity is far from “remote from ordinary life.” And, other than being Trinity, what was God doing? Answer: He was relating within the community of the Trinity. “Before he ever ruled the world, before anything else, this God was a Father loving his son” (Reeves, 2012). God is (first and foremost) the Loving Relater. From written revelation that is what we know of the God of the Bible before he took on all the archetypical hats that came with his Genesis one and forward activities. The Three-in One Community was all there was. Within that holy Trinity there was Self, Other, and Relationship. Each person of the Trinity was an individual Self. And each of those Self’s related with Other. Not one of the Selfs ever got a headache and wanted a break from Other. Not one of the Selfs ever had a slight temper tantrum and stayed in his corner of the Trinity for the day. Rather, reality was one being, three persons – in eternity past, relating in perfect loving communion.

As we have seen, reality is God himself. Geerhardus Vos ties together the cousins of reality and truth in the context of the Trinity, “It is this triune God who here reveals Himself as the everlasting reality, from whom all truth proceeds, whom all truth reflects, be it the little streamlet of Paradise or the broad river of the New Testament losing itself again in the ocean of eternity” (Vos, 1975). Trinity is reality. Trinity is truth. As Ralph A. Smith reminds us, “The neglected but nevertheless profound fact is that all truth finds its source in the truth of the triune God” (Smith, 2004). And to be sure, the Trinity as well as truth and reality are all more than mere propositions. All three are relational (story-based) actualities.

GPS - Governing, Pivotal Story-System

GPS

911. Nine-one-one (or nine-eleven). These digits and phrases have become a significant symbol in American. 911 is no longer primarily a symbol of how to elicit help when your cat is up a tree or your house is on fire. Today, it brings a whole different story to mind. Or, better yet, it brings a system of stories to mind. It brings a host of images to the collective national mind – images of two airplanes, one after the other, crashing into two of America’s tallest buildings. It brings images of a robust, young man in another airplane headed for Washington, DC quietly saying, “Let’s roll.” It brings images of smoke billowing out of once-thought invincible skyscrapers. It brings images of a dirty-faced fireman carrying a limp child through a surreal world of dust and ashes. It brings images of a nation forced into a collective, bowed-head moment of utter disbelief. That story (and all the related stories that make that story) may very well have become one of present-tense America’s GPS.

GPS – “Governing, pivotal story-system.” GPS is a story-system because it is a collection of theme-related smaller stories that combine to make a single, larger narrative. It is what Halverson, Goodall, and Corman refer to as a master narrative. They (helpfully) draw attention to a particular distinction of narrative – narrative (they write) is a system of stories. More in-depth, they define a narrative as “a coherent system of interrelated and sequentially organized stories that share a common rhetorical desire to resolve conflict…”[1] They then proceed to define a master narrative as a transhistorical narrative that is deeply embedded in a particular culture. Deeply embedded – think of the following as possibilities: the Obamacare narrative (for Americans), the tearing-down-of-the-wall narrative (for Germans), or the Tutsi-Hutu genocide (for Rwandans). All these story-systems are narratives that have become (or are becoming) embedded in a society because of their historical and emotional impact. A GPS is a narrative (story-system) that is pivotal. Why? Because it is of crucial importance in relation to the development of something. A GPS is never neutral, inactive, or benign. Each one is powerful and active. Each is of crucial importance in the development of a society’s core assumptions about reality. A GPS is a narrative that is governing. Why? Because it controls the very thoughts and actions of an individual or a society. Since it is pivotal in the formation of presuppositional core assumptions about all reality, it literally sits in the driver’s seat of how people think and behave.

A GPS device is designed to help pinpoint location. Through triangulation it locates where one is on planet earth. Likewise, our "GPS" is similar. If one discovers a society’s grouping of GPS’s (since there is more than one that makes up the society’s metanarrative), that person is a long way down the trail of pinpointing that society’s core assumptions concerning reality.

---

[1] [1] Halverson et al, Master Narratives of Islamist Extremism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 14, 15.

A Novel Approach

As you are no doubt aware, the title for this blog site is "Knowing: A Novel Approach." That is more than a cute, double-meaning title. That title is not primarily for marketing, branding, or tickling the ear. It simply represents a profound truth regarding how we (as humans) basically know stuff.

A friend of mine reminded me this afternoon of some words of Paul G. Hiebert. Dr. Hiebert was a remarkable man. He was distinguished professor of mission and anthropology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He also had pastored a church. Plus he had been a missionary to India. His writings are a tremendous gift to those of us still living this side of the Jordan. But more than all that, he was a humble man who believed in and lived in The Story.

On page sixty-six of Dr. Hiebert's book, Transforming Worldviews, he writes, "Narrative knowing is different from critical, analytical knowledge. Rational analysis is based on hard, objective evidence and logical, discursive analysis and creates abstractions from concrete reality. Stories, on the other hand, are based on both imaginative and rational analysis and deal with complexities of human experience that cannot be probed by the rational mind alone; they include contradictions, compromise, conflict, and crisis. They affirm that narrative knowing is real knowledge involving real truth and falsehood. Rational analysis focuses on cognitive knowing, but rationality unchecked by virtue and beauty leads to ugliness and evil. Narratives combine rationality and imagination and the cognitive, affective, and evaluative dimensions of life in a single whole." [Pause for this to sink in.] "...rationality unchecked by virtue and beauty leads to ugliness and evil." Thank you Dr. Hiebert. We might paraphrase and expand that by saying that truth (naked truth) devoid of the beauty of a truly loving relationship is not a pleasant thing. Jesus said, "I am the Truth." But he incarnated the truth that he was/is in love and in life. He demonstrated it in non-propositional embodiment.

Knowing. It really is a novel approach.

On Eisegesis and Exegesis

No human being does unbiased interpretation of anything. As per Schleiermacher, Heidegger, Gadamer, and Bultmann – preunderstanding, prejudice, and presuppositions cannot be eliminated.[1] All human interpretation and interaction with reality is eisegetical before it is exegetical. All information runs through the grid of one’s metanarrative, which acts as the ultimate translator of reality. The entire discussion concerning the power of metanarrative as well as a preliminary look at the problem of meaning validate not only the existence but also the significance and influence of eisegesis. Relegating this aspect of interpretation to the hermeneutical woodshed or giving it the silent treatment ignores a substantial player in the interpretation endeavor. Mind you, I'm not falling in step with the postmodern hermeneutical development that puts eisegesis ahead of exegesis in importance. Concerning such development, Silva writes

One can hardly overemphasize the radical character of these developments. To a practitioner of the historical method it is simply shocking to hear that eisegesis may be a permissible – let alone preferable! – way to approach the text. For nineteen centuries the study of the Bible had been moving away from just such an approach (especially in the form of allegorical interpretation), so that with the maturing of the historical method a great victory for responsible exegesis had been won. But now we are told that historical interpretation is passé…the search for a meaning other than that intended by the original author does seem, at first blush, to be giving up centuries of hermeneutical progress.[2]

            Agreed – eisegesis is not the way to interpret any literature. It is not the new panacea. But it does exist – and it exists powerfully and tacitly. No one denies the fact that interpreters practice eisegesis. However, one will search long and hard to find a set of eisegetical rules of interpretation in the hermeneutic textbooks. Eisegesis endures and since it holds a significant place in all interpretation, it must be adequately acknowledged, understood and addressed. Eisegesis is not the goal; exegesis is. But eisegesis is a notable part of the process. An interactive relationship exists between exegesis and eisegesis – one in which accurate exegesis of reality is undeniably dependent upon acknowledged eisegesis and acknowledged eisegesis is similarly dependent on accurate exegesis.

---

[1] See Friedrich D. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); Heidegger, Being and Time; Gadamer, Truth and Method; Rudolf Bultmann, Existence and Faith (Waukegan: Fontana Press, 1964).

[2] Kaiser and Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 279.

Toward a Theology of Eisegesis

In 1981 Walter Kaiser's book, Toward an Exegetical Theology, came out. It was a welcome book. It cost $9.95 back then.

Before proceeding, I must put forth a warning. What I am about to say/write may send the hunters of hermeneutical heretics out there to the grocery story – to buy leftovers – to buy the really rotten leftover tomatoes and eggs. And those would only be the mild, wanna-be, effeminate heretic hunters. The really professionals – those heretic hunters who reload their own ammo will be headed for the wood pile. They'll be gathering wood and bringing cans of lighter fluid and matches. And since I am not really that fond of rotten tomatoes and eggs, and even less of the kind of heat the real hunters are intent on producing, I beg for understanding. And just to be certain, I've changed our address, phone number, email address, and grown a beard.

Kaiser wrote his book to fill a gap – "a gap that has existed between the study of the Biblical text (most frequently in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and the actual delivery of messages to God's people." He was right. And his book went a long way to fill that gap.

I bring to our attention another gap – a gap equal in importance to the hermeneutical world of Biblical interpretation as Kaiser's work. This is a gap that has existed between the knowledge of the interpreter's tacit set of biased core assumptions and the study of the Biblical texts. As you can see, this gap is prior to Kaiser's. It is the gap of appropriate attention to eisegesis (reading into a text based on prior presuppositions). Wait! Before you light the match! I am calling for a new book – perhaps with the title, Toward a Theology of Eisegesis. The point would not be to incinerate. The point would not be to argue for eisegesis as a valid hermeneutical methodology. The point would be to bring eisegesis in from the proverbial hermeneutic woodshed and set it down at the discussion table. The point would be to recognize the universal presence of bias in all interpretation and to therefore present sound (biblical) principles of eisegesis. It seems that for too long we have given the academic nod to the presence of interpretive bias (everyone acknowledges it exists) but then we have simply proceeded to extol on the rules of exegesis as though our acknowledgement and such rules would be sufficient to overwhelm the bulk of bias.

So, look for the book. It may take a decade to find a publisher. The price? If you're caught buying the book, it'll likely cost you your life.

Big Story Replacement – No Small Thing

A comprehensive, diachronic metanarrative is not replaced by a single, synchronic episode. A single episode does not (cannot) replace a metanarrative; metanarratives (that is, a string of episodes) replace metanarratives. Metanarratives are too ingrained, too powerful, too embedded, and too bulky to be replaced by a single event. In order to get at true meaning, any lived-in rival metanarrative (that is, rival to God's true metanarrative) must be replaced or temporarily ignored. A rival metanarrative will not be replaced by a single episode; it can, however, be replaced by a competing, comprehensive, deemed-greater string of stories. Since this is true (or, if this is true – for those less convinced) the implications are huge.