Every Story has a Storyteller

Every story has a storyteller; every metanarrative has a meta-author (someone or something) that holds the metaphorical megaphone through which they propagate the authoritative and percieved-as-ultimate communal story of reality according to their perception and agenda. So...who (or what) is narrating the world/story in which you live? The answer to this question is revealing and really important - especially if one answers commensurate with one's (real) behavior as opposed to one's (ideal) creed. 

Is "In Him" Devoid of Story?

I just finished reading an article in a popular periodical The politely polemic article concluded with “We don’t participate in a story, we participate in him.” That sounds quite good (and spiritual) on the surface – the kind of statement a preacher might give (with gusto) right at the end of a message. Hopefully followed with amens and hallelujahs. In the context of the article the statement was intended to put the final nail in the coffin of “there’s been too much emphasis of late on narrative/story.”

          

However. Let’s pause and evaluate the statement. The him is Jesus. That’s clear. From there on the logic gets fuzzy. Is it that we don’t participate in any story whatsoever? Ever? Or is it that we should participate primarily in him and not primarily in story? And to those introductory questions I would have to add others – like: Why the dichotomy? Is it possible to live in him without also participating in his story? Is it really either/or? And besides isn’t he ontologically “in story?” And isn’t the story he is in important? Like, really important. If it is not important then the him could be any number of hims (make up your own.) Hmm, now that would change the story.

Metanarrative – Mighty Important

The metanarrative we live in (notice I didn't say "believe in"- for instance we may live in the overarching story of animism, secular-humanism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc) -- this lived-in metanarrative gives us our sense/perception of taxonomy (classification of everything), identity, community, cosmology, authority, morality, destiny, functionality, epistemology, temporality (time), locality, and unity (how everything is connected). Needless to say, it is fairly influential.

A Stab at Defining Metanarrative

A definition of metanarrative (in progress): A metanarrative is an all-encompassing, communal, on-going story of reality in which a society lives, and which provides the story-based, tacit, present tense grid whereby individuals of that society interpret and interact with all aspects of life.

Community and Metanarrative

A lad growing up in an animistic culture in the remote jungles of Brazil would have different family experiences, learn a different language, hear different stories, laugh at different jokes, go through different initiation rites, listen to different music, view ancestors differently, and treat elders differently than a Caucasian boy growing up in the suburbs of Philadelphia or Edmonton. Each boy would have a distinct and different tacit view of what constitutes community -- community rites, community metaphors, community relationships, community signs, community symbols, community obligations, and community rights. Each view comes via a particular (lived-in) metanarrative – the former characterized largely by the larger story connected with animism, the latter quite possibly characterized by the larger story of postmodern, pluralistic, secular-humanism. Here the postmodernists have it right – each community does indeed come up with its own (non-universal) metanarrative. Here the postmodernists also have it wrong – each community’s metanarrative is not equally valid.