Impressive. Through some stray links at the WordPress forums, I wondered into a group of young (post?)evangelicals talking about pluralism and postmodernism in a most helpful way.

The two terms offered up for discussion are metanarrative and meganarrative. Metanarrative come from Quebecois philosopher Francois Lyotard, who defined postmodernity as “incredulity toward metanarratives.” What does that garble mean? “I don’t believe any Big Story is capable of being The Story to End All Stories.” This doesn’t (necessarily) mean that Story A can’t be better than Story B when it comes to talking about Situation X. But it does mean that you can’t claim Story A is The Story to End All Stories.

Then there are meganarratives, a new term to me. Justin at Radical Congruency offers this: “This is a big story that’s worth being a part of, because it’s going somewhere.” A meganarrative offers a big enough story to settle down it yet it open enough to embrace other stories. Justin imagines that society would be fine with Christians who told their story like this, and I can’t help but agree.

Some points about pluralism and relativism:

1. Almost all of us in the West are “functional pluralists.” We pretty much have to be to participate in a democracy—otherwise, there wouldn’t be peaceful transfers of power on Inauguration Day. (The theocrats in the Reconstructionist Movement are an obvious exception.)
2. Almost no one actually functions as a relativist—it’s just too damn hard to not stand by your own story. When you listen, appeals to to relativism (especially among the young) are usually a matter of defining social etiquette: “But you can’t say that she can’t say that…” One everyone is clear that everyone has a right to their own story, the call to relativism fades away.
3. Some folks function as perspectivalists. Here everything is a matter of perspective. You and I can never have the exact same view of things because we can’t be in the same place at the same time. Still, Story A might have a better perspective of Situation X than Story B, because Story B is blocked by a tree or something. Yet both stories offer unique knowledge. Story A might have the better view of Situation X, but Story B might make for a better photo.

Justin’s notion that the Christian story isn’t complete (because it isn’t finished yet) nicely embraces pluralism in a way that is fully Christian and fully welcoming. It meshes nicely with Jurgen Moltmann’s theology of hope. If Christians started talking like this as a matter of course, I might enjoy talking with them more.