"Grace" and "post-modernity"

by Narkissos 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  I was thinking today (again, for I may well have already written something similar before) that if one word of Christian theology has any chance to survive into (and, perhaps, past) the so-called "post-modern" era that would probably be "grace".

  I wrote "word" rather than "concept" or "notion" because "grace" is not easily reduced to a single meaning. In the Bible the Hebrew and Greek words usually translated as "grace" ("undeserved kindness" in the NW overTranslation) happen to fall both sides of an unlikely semantic "border," between aesthetics ("grace" = "beauty") and ethics ("grace" = exception to, or excess over, "justice"). And in Christian tradition too the idea of "grace" has been construed in a number of ways. Along with "faith," opposed to "Law" and its "works" in the Pauline and post-Pauline literature; along with "mercy," "forgiveness" and "generosity" (including the rejection of judgement), as fulfilling the Law (by "excess," as it were) in Judeo-Christian material such as found in the Gospel of Matthew or the epistle of James. As a broader equivalent of "supernature," opposed to (mere) "nature" and "reason" in middle-ages theology (especially Thomas Aquinas). And a different mix of the above in the Protestant and Catholic theologies of the modern era, both of a rationalistic and anti-rationalistic kind.

  It seems to me that "grace" is still oddly relevant to the current philosophical context. It has successfully adapted to the paradoxical and dialectical trends in 20th-century theology. It is not tied in, imo, with the notion of a personal "God" -- it can be construed as a paradoxical "law" which subverts or exceeds the usual notions of law (in both a rationalistic and economical sense), so as to integrate the "absurd" and "groundless" aspects of human "reality" which existentialism has put to the fore. It can equally adapt to the lack of signifié which post-structuralism evidences. It can be a word for the "gratuitously cruel beauty" of life and being as we now tend to perceive it. And I would surmise it could even play an important role in the next pendulum shift toward a fresh, supra-rational "ecstatic objectivity" possibly lying ahead of our current solipsistic fascinations.

  Amazing grace... do you like it? Why, or why not?
• 

  Mr. Ted

  Your expansive erudition certainly casts a shadow over the provincial village of my intellect. That being said, it may be indicative of my own ignorance and naivete but as a young JW I never really understood the theological idea of "grace."

  I never recall "grace" being expounded upon in the literature or at the meetings. Undeserved kindness, yes. (If it was, I must have been sleeping.)

  When I heard the song "Amazing Grace," I assumed it meant "divine love."

  As regards the future, I would think the idea of grace would depend if humanity continues to move in a secular direction or not. To my understanding, Christian grace is predicated upon the idea of one's being unworthy, sinful, deficient. Is such a denigrating idea beneficial to survival in a secular, materialistic world?

  Rather, I think the word and idea of "social" love, religious or non-ecclesiastical, with its dialectical freight, would have a better chance of surviving. Of course, the idea of sexual love has proven its timelessness.

  Ted
• 

  DanTheMan

  I find the idea of a "fresh, supra-rational 'ecstatic objectivity' possibly lying ahead" to be very appealing idea. I'll leave it at that as I don't want to embarrass myself here trying to sound intelligent...lol
• 

  slimboyfat

  Talking from my British perspective: Grace is an old-fashioned word I reckon. Either it is used by someone in a churchy context and it immediately separates the speaker from any non-believers present, or it is used purely to refer to the aesthetic quality of a movement or act or a person's general manner. Non-churgoers (95% of the population) have only a hazy idea that "grace" once had a theological component.

  I don't know if you are a fan of Seinfeld. It is the best American sitcom of all time (IMHO), although Derrida was apparently not impressed (from 5.05 minutes on):

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=dwDZ6jrDgdg

  Incidentally one might say that Derrida did not display much "grace" or concede any ground to the interviewer on that occasion.

  Anyway, during an episode of Seinfeld, the character Elaine had a discussion of whether it is possible to have a "little" grace:

  http://www.strangecultureblog.com/2006/10/grace-according-to-seinfeld.html

  Today in Britain the ladies at Wimbledon played some graceful Tennis, and the deputy mayor of London displayed a distinct lack of grace when he blamed media reporting (rather than his own duplicitousness) for his forced departure. Tomorrow morning a few ministers may explicate God's grace to the nation's remaining depleted huddled congregations. A few more TV viewers may tune in to Songs of Praise early in the evening to watch a selected congregation (boosted for the cameras) sing that catchy song about amazing grace to which you alluded.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Just one question: isn't it difficult (and even a bit contradictory) to transfer such a religiously loaded word --- even despite its multiple meaning --- to a 'fresh though ecstatic (like that one ) objectivity'?
• 

  quietlyleaving

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pK4PtJiOPE&feature=related
• 

  Jeremy C

  In the Bible the Hebrew and Greek words usually translated as "grace" ("undeserved kindness" in the NW overTranslation)

  That was a funny description of the Watchtower Bible: over-translation. The only semi-intelligent comments that I can offer in this thread pertain to my observations about the Watchtower's concept of "undeserved kindness" - (as you alluded to) versus the more nebulous concept of "grace" taught in other Christian churches.

  Divine "grace" is somewhat of a foreign concept for many ex-Jehovah's Witnesses to grapple with. The Watchtower's use of the term "undeserved kindness" in its Bible translation; as well as the way it is interpreted in its literature paints a very limited view of this concept; but ultimately serves the organization's interests in promoting the idea of salvation through works. The "undeserved kindness" concept (as taught by the Watchtower) instills in the JW an idea that they did not deserve to exist after Adam sinned; therefore, it is a privelage to GET TO perform "works" in earning one's salvation.

  When we consider Divine grace without the interpretative shackles of of New World Translation or Watchtower literature, we realize that it is a concept that is not so easy to paint in black and white terms or to present in a nice, neat, logical statement. So many questions arise. You raised several of them in your thread.

  At this point in time, the only way that I feel I can sum up this issue to to state that "grace" (in the orthodox Christian sense) was a "canceling out of a dept". On the other hand, the "undeserved kindness" that is presented by the Watchtower is a case of God issuing his followers a credit card whereby the balance must still be paid through their own works.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you all for your graceful replies...

  The first lesson I'm bringing back home (not for the first time, btw, which means I'm a slow learner) is that it is somewhat risky to venture into thinking out of one's language and culture. Sometimes it can be interesting (mostly from the "strange" outlook on common phrases and expressions in a second language), but often it falls flat. In that particular case, I simply had no idea of how worn-out and "churchy" the word "grace" could currently sound to native English speakers. In a much less religious society like France grâce sounds definitely different. I had a similar experience earlier on this forum when I tried to use the word "faith" positively from a post-Christian perspective, as opposed to "belief" (calquing the French nuance between foi and croyance). In English that obviously didn't work, for practically the same reasons (both terms were equally worn out).

  Mr. Ted, welcome!Excellent points about "love". Just a bit too univocally positive for this French mind, but I guess that's the best one can do in English. My problem with "love," I suppose, is the basic problem of theodicy -- that "love" for all its ambiguity covers only a "bright side" of reality. To make it "move the stars," as Dante did, one must poetically expand its semantic potential to the point of meaninglessness... Same with "grace" possibly, but at least the latter is more explicitly contradictory. Grace is only in spite of something (law, reason, justice, merits, etc.).

  Slim, thanks for the links. I have never watched "Seinfeld" (perhaps Derrida hadn't either!) but the transcript was funny and clever. (Btw I must have alluded to that point about "forgiving the unforgivable" recently, it was one of Derrida's pet paradoxes in the last part of his career). And thanks ql for the song (even though it may have contributed to wearing a nice word out ).

  DtM, thanks. I guess the issue of reaching some form of "objectivity" againafter the "linguistic revolution" of philosophy (although certainly not in the same way as before) would deserve its own thread, independently of my ramblings on "grace". It's been on my mind lately -- I just squeezed it here, in waiting list as it were. And, as to hamilcarr's objection, I suspect it can only be done through a new configuration of old language, as has ever happened in the history of thought (although my particular choice of "grace" was clearly not the right one).

  Jeremy, good points. Besides the obvious overtranslation of the Pauline implications of "grace" and its unwarranted extrapolation to other contexts, I feel the main flaw of "undeserved kindness" (as well as your "cancelling of a debt," to some extent) is that it obscures the aesthetical aspect of "grace" and its relationship to the other, including "forensic" meanings, which I find interesting. And I agree with the strange WT dissonance you point out, as much of the JW way of life seems to be about "deserving the undeserved"...
• 

  quietlyleaving

  And thanks ql for the song (even though it may have contributed to wearing a nice word out ).

  oops, sorry

  Your topic led me to so many places on the net - Spinoza, post structuralism and French philosophers, post post modernism and then I happened on the song and I thought omg that song seems to form a better reply than anything I could come up with at this time of the evening - but I'm not any wiser intellectually but perhaps understand grace a little better
• 

  slimboyfat

  Hey Narkissos,

  Could you explain what this means, it sounds interesting:

  And I would surmise it could even play an important role in the next pendulum shift toward a fresh, supra-rational "ecstatic objectivity" possibly lying ahead of our current solipsistic fascinations.

  Trying to get my head round it: am I to read "solipsistic fascinations" as referring to postmodern trends of thought? Does this mean you feel postmodernity is on the wane? How could that be since the party has barely begun? Hasn't there been a deconstructive earthquake that changes things for "good"? Have you got any suggested reading on this because I have difficulty following.

  Does our structure of thought swing on a pendulum? During the Renaissance there was the idea of history as a cycle, what with all the old knowledge coming to light again. Then during the Enlightenment history was viewed more like a steady upward slope, with the expectation that things will always progress for the better. Nowadays history appears more like a random collection of events, with any implied meaning understood as highly provisional and relative to the purpose for the particular construction. There are still some Marxist stalwarts like Eric Hobsbawm who make an interesting story, and then there was the attempt from Fukuyama at the other end of the political spectrum to write "The End of History" when communism fell. But in general such approaches to history are seriously out of fashion. Many wonder if it is possible to write "history" at all any more. I have been reading a lot about the theory of history writing recently: Keith Jenkins, Alun Munslow, Hayden White. Seriously it is enough to make you depressed man! I read responses from anti-postmodernists like Richard Evans and Arthur Marwick, but I did not find them convincing - which just makes it more depressing. Are we at a dead end?

  A pendulum just swings back and forward and doesn't go anywhere, right? If the Enlightenment idea of inexorable benign progress was too sanguine, perhaps the pendulum analogy is too pessimistic in seemingly excluding the idea we are actually "getting anywhere". Is human history just a merry dance between this and that and back again? I fear it might be actually.

  Sorry for going off at a tangent and probably completely miscontruing what you wrote.