I appreciate the thoughtful explanations. I am also a novice at this emergent church phenomenon, so bear with me as I try to sort it out. I am undoubtedly missing things, so please correct me where needed.

I agree with the idea that there are numberless “sub-narratives”, just as there are numberless people and situations inside the big picture or meta-narrative.

It seems intuitive to me that the number of sub-narratives cannot be appreciably greater or less than ever before. So it cannot be some sudden emergence of sub-narratives that gives rise to this idea that the meta-narrative is no longer useful or appropriate.

The meta-narrative falling out of favor must, then, be attributable to something other than the existence of sub-narratives. I suppose it has to do with the fact that some of those who might have accepted the meta-narrative in the past, placing their own stories inside of it, are no longer willing to do so, but want their story to be THE story, unchallenged and unbullied by any meta-narrative.

Now, I am a person who deeply appreciates and loves stories, cultures, ballads, tales and the like. So I “get it” that individual and cultural stories are important. However, I do not see why it follows that the meta-narrative is without value, or is any less valuable than before.

The real question, if I am not mistaken, is “what is True?” If the proposed answer is “nothing”, that is unacceptably illogical, a self-defeating absurdity. If the proposed answer is “there is truth but we cannot know it”, that is easily and demonstrably refutable by a child.

If the answer is, “truth is different for each person”, that seems definitionally absurd. I can handle “perceptions are different for different people” or “opinions are different”, or “arguments.” But truth, defined as that which is consistent with reality, cannot be differentiated.
And the idea that one person’s understanding or argument is as “true” as another’s is ridiculous, unless truth is redefined to mean opinion, whether valid or invalid.

If the proposal is that there is no objective reality, then I wish to see the proof or demonstration of that. Of course, we perceive things differently. I, for example, am color blind. That does not mean the sky is always gray, not even “for me”. It does mean that I have to have a different understanding of color, and simply accept the fact that my color perception is impaired. I have ample evidence for this, such that there is no logical need to question it.

To suggest that my black and white sub-narrative cannot handle the technicolor meta-narrative is a long stretch.

If the meta-narrative is true, then the meta-narrative is correct and appropriate, AND it accomodates all sub-narratives, as long as they also are true. That is, it doesn’t seem to me that a false sub-narrative can justify scrapping a true meta-narrative.

Are we after truth, in the end, or are we after whatever-it-is-I-prefer-whether-or-not-it-is-true? Because if it is the latter, then we should agree to abandon all references to truth and objectivity. If that is what “emergent” is about, I am absolutely amazed.

What am I missing?

Leroy