in the spirit of being mean...
‘Mean spirited’ usually followed by the word ‘attack’ is thrown around quite often these days. In our political discourse as a society, in our discourse as a denomination- this most damning of post-modern accusations is used with increasing frequency. I mean, what do you say when accused of this-- ‘nuh uh...you’re mean!’
In my unscientific and completely random survey of the useage of this idiom it tends to come from those with the cultural wind at their backs to those who feel like so many salmon swimming upstream to - well- procreate and die. Its just what you do. Perhaps that is unfair and not entirely accurate, but hey- this is my blog, I have convictions/biases- so do you, deal with it.
I’ve been listening in on a conversation over at Truth in Love on Propaganda, its definition, legitimate and illegitimate use. And more to the point, the sense that as a society more and more of our public discourse consists of propaganda- spinning reality to fit one’s purposes- which- whether utilized for noble or ignoble purposes is an enemy of Truth.
This my perspective, thats your perspective, thats his perspective, thats her perspective- and we’re left with disparate and contradictory personal opinions, that we assume are equally valid approximations of what is. From the Jesus Seminar’s tired old tripe trotted out every Lent, to Rosie O’Donnell’s latest diatribe saying 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. I’m sure there are instances of this going from right to left- but I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
This tribalization of truth issues forth in being able to speak about reality in the only language the tribes hold in common- propaganda, a sort of pidgin trade language cobbled together for pragmatic trade purposes, but ill-equipped to speak to the heart, deep unto deep. You don’t write lasting love poems in trade languages.
Ok- I’ve beat that metaphor to death, and as I read back over it, I’m not sure this is the best, most accurate analogy, so lets move on.
Post-modernity does a good job of describing the illegitimacy of Modernity’s claim to ‘objectivity’- however, it does a lousy job of prescribing a posture to take in light of the enlightenment’s foundations being shown as wobbly- that there is no big T truth, or if there is its unknowable. Anyone who tells you otherwise is - well- a propagandist, and is all about power. And is probably mean, to boot.
Both modernity and its child post-modernity have at their center, human pride. Whether its a big all encompassing Tower of Babel or smaller tribal towers, they get built.
But folks, gravity works. There is a there there that is not a personal or societal construct. Some things work, some things don’t. Some things are right, some things are wrong, always and everywhere. There is truth and there is falsehood. Humility towards our ability to know, acknowledging our own subjectivity is not the same as saying our subjectivity is unassailable or that big T truth can’t be encountered. Perhaps not completely, but certainly meaningfully. My encounter with truth may begin with my experience, but - evaluative statement coming- it better not end there. Cause, sooner or later, and the sooner the better- it is good to grasp that its not all about me.
So what does this have to do with the whole mean spirited thing? Its what we’re reduced to when we refuse to understand that worldviews are in collision. All we can do, when someone disagrees with my self-evident truth is assume their motives are malicious or malevolent or mean. Certainty returns, and ad-hominem attacks flourish.
Paul, on Mars Hill, in Acts- at the Acropolis where many gods were acknowledged, a very post-modern space that, got this, I think. He didn’t assume that all these Athenians needed to do was slap the name YHWH or Jesus on that statue to an unknown god and it would all be good. That they were talking about the same god. Jesus was particular, not a fluid idea reduced to the least common denominator, ready to be filled with meaning and relevance. Paul began with their experience, their own poets- but moved them to encounter the particular, the impossible and ridiculous by Greek truth - a God who was flesh and blood, and a man who rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Not a construct. Not their experience.
Some were drawn to embrace this Jesus, many left scoffing, bent on continuing their previous conversations content in their assumptions that the truth was in the journey, and it was in their diversity that they were united.
When society is like this, we need to acknowledge reality and work with it. Like Paul. When the church adopts this posture, not pointing out the incoherence and inconsistency with what Jesus said considering the consequences, would be - well- just mean.
blog 137
Saturday, 31 March 2007
