Deepening our story…
In recent years, I’ve become increasingly interested in the way certain therapists make use of narratives, or stories, in order to move forward individuals and communities whose own story has stagnated, causing various deficiencies in their ability to live meaningful and sufficient lives. What is of particular interest to me is the idea of ‘thickening’ or enriching a person’s story in order to counter what has become a way of narrating life in a ‘thin’ and insufficient way.
Though there are various elements needed to enrich a narrative, what is often vital is the notion that one is rooted in a past. Yes, we are storied beings, but our story is not just something that is present, happening now – the product of any given moment. Rather, we are historical beings – we are shaped by history and tradition.
The point is this: to ask about our past isn’t somehow to regress to a place that no longer matters, but it is to be fully attentive to our present and our future. It is to recognise that the ‘answer’ to now is rooted deeply in the past. You only have watch any episode of the BBC’s ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’, in which celebrities trace their family heritage, to know that a deep understanding of the past, and therefore who we are, can redeem and shape the now (and the not yet), in ways that would never be possible without this knowledge. In a sense, Narrative Therapy is playing a similar role by laying the plot lines of the story of what might be, of who we will become. A becoming that grows out of a past, out of the story so far.
Naturally, in this therapeutic age, one needs to be careful not to imply that Christianity is simply another ‘therapy’ for tortured souls, for while it may serve this purpose, it surely has wider aspirations and concerns. That doesn’t dissuade me, however, from suggesting that too often Christians and their churches are telling a story that Narrative Therapists would recognise as ‘thin’, even if at times the language used is inadequately complex. As Andrew Walker has lamented, many Christians are, ‘woefully ignorant about their faith’. An ignorance that has led to a story that is at times meaningless and insufficient for the complexities of life in the early twenty-first century.
Some have tried to address this tendency to ‘thin’ the Christian narrative by seeking to answer pertinent questions, such as, ‘How does Christianity relate to the late modern context in which we live?’, engaging not only the vagaries of popular culture, but also the subtleties of postmodern philosophers. However, while there has been much to value from this engagement, this has also led some to jettison theological and ecclesiological narratives in the worthy pursuit of contextual relevance.
What Deep Church is suggesting, as far as I understand it, is that we ‘find a way to the future by remembering the past’ (Bretherton), but not in such as way as to ‘thin-out’ the narrative in order to prefer ‘doctrinal positions and ecclesiological predilections’ (Walker). Indeed, Walker goes on to suggest that what deep church really needs (and I assume by that he means all of us) is a re-engagement with the Christian narrative – biblical, theological an ecclesiological. A catechism that is, at one and the same time, as contemporary as it is ancient. To restore to Christians and the Church (if I can put words into Andrew’s mouth) a ‘thick’ narrative to shape who we are, both as individuals and as a collective named ‘Church’.
Of course, for some, such talk is anathema. Indeed, they may even suggest that it is culturally irrelevant to speak of the past and tradition, history and a narrative that smacks of the ‘meta-kind’, for as far as the post-modern is concerned, these are spent non-entities. What truly matters is the here-and-now.
It wouldn’t be the first time Christians have been called to resist the spirit of the age, especially when that spirit denies a dimension of what it is to be human and has the potential to rob of us of our futures. If one is hoping to engage the now, then it is a grave mistake to neglect or sever one’s links with those who have shared our faith across he centuries. As Paul Ricoeur has suggested, tradition, far form being an outmoded, spent commodity, is in fact something which has a surplus of meaning. It is the collective memory out of which we build our futures. Provided we don’t fall into nostalgia or fashion ourselves liturgical and hermeneutical blankets to keep out the cold of change, we will actually discover that it is tradition that is emerging. Tradition is not static, it is a dynamic force, which brings forth the future (the not yet), even as it informs the now by drawing on the past. As the Catholic theologian, Terry Veling puts it, ‘the past survives and endures because it leans into the future, precisely because it carries the promise of what could yet be, what is still coming.’
14 comments
9.49 pm on 7.27.2007
I would argue that tradition CAN BE dynamic if one chooses to allow it to be so.
I have never gotten the impression that post modernity seeks to live in the now at the expense of the past - - in fact, the whole idea of “story” is a continuity of narrative, not just a “start now and move forward” concept.
But then again, I’m still figuring out what “deep church” means.
6.49 am on 7.28.2007
Hi Makeesha!
I think tradition is valuable… no matter how much humanity seems to advance, we keep running into the same problems–money, love, purpose…
People who have been there before should have something to say to us no matter how long ago they lived.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
11.40 am on 7.28.2007
Makeesha, thanks for being first up.
You may well be right about the post-modern’s relationship with story and that they don’t have problems with the past.
I guess I’m thinking about the metanarrative and their doubting the usefulness of these - be they based on science or faith. I guess I’m thinking the metanarrative draws on a continuity with the past in a way that isn’t felt necessary by some.
Actually, I do think you’re right. The whole story thing is about continuity, I guess the issue is one of recognising and valuing this rather than ignoring or despising that element of the narrative.
Does that make sense?
3.32 pm on 7.28.2007
Warren - I agree tradition is valuable :) .
Allan - yes, that makes sense. I think though, that metanarrative is more about the suggestion that some “thing”, some “explanation” can explain it all, can seek to define the whole of existence. It’s *that* aspect of metanarrative that postmoderns are loathe to accept. Part of that, at times I suppose *can be* a reluctance to incorporate the past behaviors, past thoughts, past experiences - - but more often, I see people willing to “bring forward” the past as long as it’s not used as a broad scoped narrative for everything.
3.51 pm on 7.28.2007
Makeesha,
I’m finding this clarification process helpful - and it reminds me of something I’ve written elsewhere.
We live in a sea of stories - and because many people are no longer wedded to one particular narrative (except the one that says no narrative should be given priority over and above others) they are open to stories - even ones that have previously been associated with truth-claiming metanarratives - provided they are allowed to encounter them as stories by which they can live their lives and not statements of fact.
What we need to do is become story tellers not proclaimers of proposition. That way, we leave people free to encounter the Christian story in ways that it can become meaningful and sufficient for them and so recognise its ‘truth’ without us having to state it as such.
4.10 pm on 7.28.2007
provided they are allowed to encounter them as stories by which they can live their lives and not statements of fact.
right - and provided they are personal. I agree with your idea of story telling.
6.11 am on 7.30.2007
[…] Mann has a great newnew post for us on our Deep Church […]
6.06 pm on 7.31.2007
I’m surprised anyone would say we don’t like the past or need the past. A great story makes a great dinner party. Friends, even post-modern ones, all sit around and tell their favorite story about so and so who did so and so. We love stories, especially great ones like Braveheart and Rainman. They remind us that there are things worth fighting for and that redemption is possible in this realm. Jesus was a story and a really cool one.
6.23 am on 8.1.2007
yep, I agree. that’s my experience as well.
1.39 am on 8.1.2007
While its been more than ten years since I worked as a family therapist, I spent part of a year studying narrative therapy and constructivist practices, and then applied some of those learnings to my work. I don’t claim to know everything about narrative therapy and would refer those interested to the work of David Epstein or Michael White.
However, your application here is fairly wide of the mark. Narrative therapies, and the constructivism on which they are based, aren’t very interested in our rootedness in the past, and don’t see great helpfulness in metanarratives, but rather are interested in the way we select certain elements of our personal histories to construct — and make sense of — the present. Healthy persons tend to use certain grids or frameworks or lenses that allow them to see even difficult, confusing and painful events as shaping a positive future. When this isn’t happening the therapist conducts a historical interview with the intention of finding dissonance.. elements in the personal history that don’t fit the current (dysfunctional) grid but offer the possibility of building an alternative story that can lead to an alternative future. He/she then uses the dissonant elements.. no matter how small.. as levers to break the person free of the cement, reframing the story and offering a new lens with which to view personal history. This may or may not include a metanarrative. The process has some close ties to the “meaning making” activity seen as essential in the leadership paradigm of Drath and Paulus.
6.22 am on 8.1.2007
that’s been my understanding of that “approach” as well but as a non professional in the field it *is* extremely limited.
10.05 am on 8.1.2007
len
I do recognize your version of narrative therapy, and having looked back at my book, Atonement For A ‘Sinless’ Society, it is closer to my understanding and application back then.
I’ve perhaps been guilty of blurring some subtleties and playing with ideas to make a point, which I think still stands for this particular discussion, rather than being faithful to the actual methodologies of Narrative Therapy.
Sorry if this has annoyed you.
11.44 pm on 8.3.2007
alan, not at all, but hoping to add some clarity and appropriate distinction. Constructivism is by definition subjective and rootless, but there are nuggets of truth and wisdom and with careful application the perspective can be quite liberating. Theological application is perhaps more problematic.
10.03 am on 8.9.2007
Rev 12:11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; NIV
First up I apologise if I am not on the same page as you gents as I do struggle with your culture/language. My first language is English but I struggle with a lot of your terminology. Post modernism for example is not something we use at all in this part of the world even though I know the definition of it.
Secondly, therapy and the different types of therapy is very big in your culture where as here we tend to come from a ‘bring the power of God and it sorts it all out’ angle. Not dismissing the need for people to talk through issues.
What I do find interesting in your discussion is more on the tradition side. I would not class myself as a traditionalist but what is interesting is if one looks at the back-bone (so to speak) of the African culture. The verbal ‘passing forward’ of history, experiences and philosophies has always been a huge part of Africa’s culture. There is great strength in this, both in a positive sense and a negative one. For example, good values passed down from one to another provide a strong moral foundation. On the other hand the passing down of superstitions and beliefs in witchcraft are negative. One is based in truth and the other in error. Tradition when it is not based in truth is bondage. But tradition that is based in truth can have a particular power to it. Tradition for the sake of tradition is stubbornness and folly, but tradition based in truth and experience can be liberating and can prevent people from recreating the errors of the past. I feel that God used this throughout scripture to ensure that the power of the testimony was passed down the generations.
People tend to relate the bible (which is not bad) but they have no personal testimony of a relationship with God. Therefore it becomes just topical education instead of a powerful relating of actual; reality. You see it when you look at the children of Christians and the sound ones have a testimony passed down of a reality based life in Christ as opposed to the sharing of someones view point.
In the constant search for something new and different the past is lost and in particular the first hand experiences past down by word of mouth from generation to generation. This is sad. In Africa this is being eroded by ‘westernised’ thinking and practises (excuse the term.) The result is a ‘thin’ or ‘shallow’ belief system.
Finally. I think this is highlighted by the difference seen in a lot of ‘traditional’ Christians vs ‘charismatic’ ones. A traditional Christian tends to have an unshakeable belief in God. It is not a question of whether He exists or not. He does…end of story, (my wife is like this.) A lot of charismatic Christians run from experience to experience like surfing but when these run out so does the assurance of God.
What am I saying? Simply…good traditions provide good foundations.
Sorry, if I have missed the mark here, but anyway.
Alas, comments are now closed.