"The" Truth about God

What is the difference between a truth and the truth? The social constructionists (post modernists) posit that there is no "the" truth because there is no such thing as objective truth. There is no essence of a thing that isn't a social construction of language. Essences do not exist in "reality" except in the mind of a social construct. There is, for example, no such thing as "bookness" In fact a book is a socially constructed word we use for convenience. If it were socially acceptable we could call a book word pages. This social construct is a convenience for a description not an essence that prescribes what a book is to be. So there are books, a book, but not the book.



What is not so obvious is when the truth is applied to a "concept". As in the truth about God. Here the truth implies an absolute, a final answer, definite conclusion. Something happens that turns a description called God into a description called the one and only God. This something is a socially constructed God that the three major world religions adhere to as the God. The people ( the church, for example) who believe thus and so about God all have socially constructed an experience God into the God.



Postmodernists believe differences and diversity are socially contrusts not essences. Why does more than one world religion proclaim their their God is the God (of all Gods?) Modern thinking wants certainty not differences. If you are different from me (or of another race or ethnicity) how can I then be certain that my way of thinking is the correct (read predominant) way? You can't. There is no way except to socially construct our way into the way. (By the way social construstionists go so far as to say the word differences is also a social construction. One person's "different" way may not be someone else's.



"The God is different to different groups. And within these groups there are individuals each of whom have their definition of the God. Further there is no objective God named the God because there are no "external realities" beyond what we call external realities. (Genesis xx)

What can be said about God from a postmodern perspective is this: God is subjective. (Not esoteric nor emotional though it may include these.) Subjective reality is a postmodern word for that which we construct socially. We are subjective constructors of our own reality of God. Therefore we can say that different subjective realities allow us to freely say "our" God or "We believe in God..."



Our God is socially constructed out of our language as a people. God is seen through relationships. (or "in with and under" according to Luther's understanding of Christ's "real presence" in the community sacrament of the Lord's Supper) God is socially expressed. How else can God be known other than through the words of people whether it be spoken prayer, worship, Holy Books, Sunday School, etc.. Language ("In the beginning was the Word...") and relationships are two sides of the same subjectively constructed reality.



God is not an objective being. God can be worded that way. God becomes objectified through our language and use of words. This is a threatening belief too many. As if God is whatever we say God is. Actually the prior sentence is another possible postmodern example of differences. Not relativism but differences. The context of our language is what "creates and "co creates"God.



Is it not amazing that God entrusts to us the pronouns our, ours, their, etc. to describe an intimate relationship with God?

This will lead to an article on the theologically postmodern turn from the God to our God and the changes that potentially makes. It is a move from Christian hubris, to Christian humility.