Haase_UZ_x007E_DTh (2).pdf - South African Theological Seminary

64
way of teaching, and so on (Olson, 1996:132).
Deconstruction follows Higher Criticism, the modernist contribution that has worked
long and hard to undermine biblical credibility. Where the Bible and similar other
metanarratives are concerned, Higher Criticism and deconstruction seem very happy to
work together in attempting to destroy their foundations. Higher Criticism questions the
integrity, authenticity, credibility and literary forms of all historic texts, yet has especially
targeted the Bible. It has not been an entirely useless exercise, for the criticisms have
compelled biblical scholars to ‘dig deeper’ in understanding the origins of the Bible,
producing innumerable literary and archaeological proofs in the process.
Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that in language there can only be what exists in the
‘downstairs world,’ or natural realm, for that is all that is reasonable and real (Schaeffer,
1990:313). Wittgenstein saw only silence in the upstairs, or supernatural world, another
way of saying that God is silent, or non-existent. Schaeffer argued in response that
humanity needs the upstairs realm -- or God -- from which to get its values. If we live in
a closed universe, as so many humanists argue, then we live the existence of fish in a
bowl. Our morality is based upon our own limited knowledge and experience and as
such, is horribly limited. Humanity has no way to transcend its limited existence. God,
via the Bible, however, offers wisdom, truth and morality that far surpass mankind’s socalled
wisdom. The metaphysical silence Wittgenstein and others sensed, led them and
countless others to reach the point of frustration, or despair, as Schaeffer put it.
For the postmodernist, metanarratives are “mere human constructs” (Middleton,
1995:71). When metanarratives are ‘de-constructed,’ they become nothing more than a
“legitimation of the vested interests of those who have the power and authority to make
such universal pronouncements” (ibid.). The postmoderns argue that the greatest problem
with metanarratives is the way they are used to legitimise violence, and/or the use of
power against others (ibid. 72). Metanarratives have a history of suppressing and
oppressing minority stories. Throughout history, metanarratives like the Bible, and
Qu’ran, have sometimes been used as weapons and tools of social and personal agendas.
These agendas are legitimized using the metanarrative and then forced upon the weak.
Thus, it is [rightly] argued, we should all be ‘sympathetic’ to the voice of the
University of Zululand, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa