What do you Mean?

While I was driving home from work the other day I couldn’t help but notice something familiar. My journey takes me through rolling hills and wide open spaces filled with many sights and sounds. I always enjoy the smell of the flowers, new mowed hay, and even the occasional “fertilized” field. This particular day I caught the smell of honeysuckles blooming. That rich fragrance not only pleased my nose but it tipped over a bucket of memories in my mind which in turn cascaded across my consciousness. Each memory was suspended like a drop of water before my mind’s eye ever so briefly only to be displaced by the next. Each seemed visible only long enough to capture the context and feeling but each disappeared before the details could be examined.

Some might call this sort of reaction “meaning.” The smell of Honeysuckle brought many happy childhood memories, so therefore, it has a special meaning. Since this word can be used in that way many think that this is the only definition. Is this what post-modernists are talking about when they talk about meaning?

It has been said so often in recent years that there is no intrinsic meaning. “Meaning”, we are told, “is assigned by the observers and participants.” How ridiculous is this? While we can argue about the objective value of an object, truth, on the other hand, stands on its own without debate. Truth stands despite any vain attempts to discount its validity based on contextual or conceptual influences. I watched a Television show recently which I found to rather clever, and after seeing a review about it online I decided to see what the critic had to say. I was amused to find that a key component of the plot (an alleged movie prop bought as a gift which turned out to be a fake) was supposedly an ode to this disjointed post modern mindset. Apparently, if you follow this philosophy, even though the prop was a fake it was real to the person receiving it because he assigned its meaningfulness. In my mind I think that it much more likely that this critic confused value and meaning.

While I disagree with the philosophy, I understand the motivation. “I don’t agree with you therefore I don’t accept the truths you present since they don’t have meaning for me.” While Spiritual truths are not visible, they are empirical in a certain way. Hebrews 11 tells us that there is some evidence of those invisible things, and that one can be convinced of Spiritual things based on truths which must be accepted by faith.

Perhaps that is the real problem. If meaning and value are confused, then it makes it easy to ignore the evidence since the outcomes don’t have any perceived value to the individual. How do we overcome these philosophical obstacles? The clever argument won’t work here. We just need to be aware of the “lingo” and illogical thinking of those we are trying to reach. Only the Holy Spirit can awaken the post-modernist from his/her slumber. It is not the job of the Christian to “win” over unbelievers, it is our job to live in such a way as create significance and meaning which captures the attention of those watching. Sowing the seed will still work and the Spirit of God will give the increase.