Re: question

On 6/7/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Full-blown postmodernism claims that such meta-narratives
> are not even possible.
>
> Franke distinguishes between a "metanarrative" and a "meganarrative." A
> "meganarrative" is a "grand story" such as the Christian narrative.
> "Meganarratives" in themselves are fine, and Christian theology, whether
> postmodern or not, affirms the Christian meganarrative.
>
> A "metanarrative" is a narrative that entails both a meganarrative and a
> claim to legitimate the meganarrative "by an appeal to universal, autonomous
> reason." (Franke at p. 18). "Meta," Franke says, signals not the size or
> scope of the narrative, but the level of discourse with which it deals. A
> "meta" narrative deals both with second-level discourse about the world (the
> Christian narrative or some other narrative) and first-level discourse about
> how second-level discourse is justified (by "universal, autonomous reason").

I haven't seen such a distinction made in postmodern thought. Here is
from wikipedia on metanarrative:

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 characterised 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 humankind, some
verge on utopian, but different schools of thought offer very
different accounts. [emphasis mine]

Franke does get the meta part right as it is a story about a story,
but I believe most postmoderns would consider a meganarrative a
metanarrative nonetheless because it provides meaning and context to
the story. Franke does have insight on why postmoderns reject
metanarratives namely their usual appeal to modernist, elitist, power.
More later.

>
> Franke argues that the postmodern suspicion of metanarratives, understood
> this way, can be a legitimate and welcome aspect of Christian faith. I
> think this reflects his Reformed roots, which include a presuppositional
> epistemic stance and its related critique of "universal, autonomous" human
> reason (he mentions Plantinga and Wolterstorff approvingly in the same
> section, p. 20).

Your intuition is spot on. Both presuppositionalists and postmoderns
go right for the Achille's Heel of modernism, its elitism. They
differ, however, in what they do after they destroy universal,
autonomous reason. The presuppositionalist totally replaces this with
the metanarrative found in Scripture while the postmodern is skeptical
that anything can totally replace it and only replaces parts where
different communities replacing different parts.

 He says critics of postmodern theology who claim the
> postmodern critique of "metanarratives" contradicts Christian faith --
> because, they argue, Christianity is a "metanarrative" -- are missing the
> more technical meaning of the term "metanarrative." This sounds reasonable
> to me, but I'm not well-versed enough in Lyotard's and other pomo thinkers'
> usage of "metanarrative" to know whether Franke's use of the term is
> consistent with theirs.

While I don't believe that he is consistent with Lyotard, I do think
that he has provided an intriguing update to presuppositional thought.
One of my criticisms of presuppositionalism is its laser focus only on
modernism. This tweak might make it a more applicable apologetic in
the pomo world. It is in my opinion superior to McLaren's we will live
in our evangelical bubble and you live in your non-evangelical bubble
and you can join our authentic community if it works for you.
Received on Wed Jun 7 12:11:41 2006