"You know what really becomes a problem for me?", my friend asked.
I listened intently. My friend and I had been discussing Christianity and its historical claims. He is a skeptic. He told me straight out that he does not believe Christ was the son of God. I wanted to know what his stumbling block was, so I nodded as if to say, "go on".
"Agendas", he said.
"Everyone has got agendas. I see agendas in the Catholic church. Organized religions all have agendas. The writers of the Bible had agendas because everyone has agendas. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened."
Everyone does have agendas. Those who try to pretend they don't have agendas have agendas -- because having no agenda is an agenda, right? My friend had an agenda in telling me that his issue is with agendas -- agendas, like worldviews, are inescapable. But where does that lead?
Postmodernism has infected how our culture views history. This is what gave the Da Vinci Code so much traction in our culture. Postmodernism perpetuates the belief that everything is about power and oppression. Read Leigh Teabing's speech to Sophie -- look for those themes of power and oppression.
"Nonetheless, establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel---the Roman Catholic Church."
Leigh Teabing, The Da Vinci Code
Power. Oppression. Control. Agendas.
All postmodern themes. Instant traction. Welcome to our culture.
(BTW, the Vatican did not exist in the fourth century nor did the notion of the Roman Catholic Church)
Should we just throw our hands in the air and admit that we can't know anything about what happened yesterday or the day before yesterday? Is eye witness testimony so unreliable that we should not admit it in a court of law? Is written history so clouded by agendas that we should abandon history as a legitimate subject we teach in school?
This kind of skepticism about the past is unlivable. Why? Because it presupposes that we can know true history in order for us to know that we have been fed lies as part of a power play. In other words, if we were unable to get to true history, how would we have ever discovered that we were fed false history as part of some power grab? Without a straight line somewhere, how would we know when a line is ever crooked?
The fact is, we know we can know history. The fact that historians have agendas does not block us from the truth. When it comes to world history, there are plenty of things that people know about past events -- agendas or no agendas.
What I love about the gospel writers (Luke in particular) is that they give us their agenda in their book -- in fact, in Luke's case, it is the very first thing he does.
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
To give us certainty concerning the things you have been taught. In other words, to know the truth. I like that agenda.
We are all so afraid that someone around us has a hidden agenda. I think the two words should not even go together. One may think his agenda is hidden, but truthfully you can read it in his actions, his beliefs, who he is on Sunday versus the rest of the week etcetera.
I have an agenda...to love more deeply, to advance the kingdom of Christ, to raise a God fearing son, and to prepare myself for eternity. Eternity is an awful long time.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | June 19, 2006 at 07:27
Is eye witness testimony so unreliable that we should not admit it in a court of law? Is written history so clouded by agendas that we should abandon history as a legitimate subject we teach in school?
I don't think anyone seriously argues either of these things. They have the smell of straw men. Of course we should admit eyewitness testimony, but we should also temper our acceptance of such testimony with our knowledge that such testimony is mistaken remarkably often. As such, we should never be compelled by eyewitness testimony alone.
Of course we should teach history in schools, but we should also make it clear that history is written by the winners, and that no single source of history can be considered fully authoritative.
The argument shouldn't be about whether there were underlying agendas, or even that such agendas should render everything null and void. Instead, it should be about uncovering, to the best of our ability, what those agendas were, stripping them out, and trying to get to the underlying truth. (We are still concerned about truth, aren't we?)
Also, I think you miss the difference between stated agendas and actual agendas, and the fact that these two things are often very different. You need look no further than the ever-changing justifications for our current war to see this in action.
Posted by: tgirsch | June 21, 2006 at 01:16