The Preamble: I get to have a lot of conversations with a lot of people and they're rarely about trivial or "light" topics. People who know me will laugh at that admission as something of an understatement. I've, often times, wondered seriously if that part of my personality was a flaw in my character and sometimes regret that I can't take a normal conversation to a pleasant and ultimately superficial end. But in these "heavy" or "deep" conversations I get to observe first-hand all kinds of human behavior. Because of the nature of the conversations, I get to observe the way people react to challenging ideas, new principles, or revolutionary theories. One of the most common threads I see with people in these observations is the refusal of any truth (to whatever degree of evidence) because of the messenger. If we, as people, don't like the person speaking - we're that much less likely to accept any truth from them.
The Case: Truth is universal. If it isn't universal then it can't be truth... it's something else. Something less. It applies to all people, all of the time. But there's also another aspect of the universality of truth: if your interest and sole loyalty is to the truth then all truth in the universe belongs to you. My friends have a saying: "all truth is our truth." It's a motto we have that we repeat to each other whenever we have to remind ourselves and each other that truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. All of this is starting to sound kind of academic and "out of touch", I'm sure. Let me unpack this differently.
When a conservative pundit or politician gives statistical, accurate, and/or factual information about the medical dangers and long-term trauma associated with abortion, liberals should listen to that. Likewise, when Al Gore or some credible liberal scientist talks about the dangers associated with global warming (which are statistically proven - this planet is getting warmer) and urge that humans should make it an urgent and immediate priority to reduce carbon emissions, conservatives should listen to that. Liberals - as normal human beings with very normal human reactions - have a nasty tendency to immediately knee-jerk and refuse to hear the information that come from conservatives.This is true of conservatives as well (and we could debate for decades over who does it more, but that would be a complete waste of time.)
When Osama bin Laden says that U.S. foreign policy and our own greed as a nation (and as individuals sharing in the wealth of this nation) is responsible for the hatred we are experiencing the world over - we should listen to that. Not because we like Osama bin Laden or find him to be a credible person, but because the people that are doing the hating are all saying the same thing. If they all agree on the reason for their hate, then we should pay attention (if, of course, peace is something we would like to ever achieve).
When James Dobson says that families function best when you have a man and a woman in a stable, monogamous relationship producing children - we should listen to that. There is statistical information to corroborate that claim. We don't have to like James Dobson or what he stands for in general to accept the truth of his claim.
When Barack Obama addresses a convention of Christian ministers and says that American Christians "aren't reading their Bibles" and that their behavior and policy positions do not reflect the tenets and teaching of the New Testament - we should listen to that. Barack Obama may not be credible, he may not be a good person, he may be a "closet Muslim" (though the idea is truly ridiculous and laughable to anyone willing to see the truth)... he may not be someone we like, but we should listen to what he's saying because it's true.
All truth is our truth. A truth about the life of Jesus is just as easily spoken from the mouth of an atheist as it is from the Pope in Rome or Billy Graham. A true criticism from the outside is every bit as true (even if unwelcome) as a true criticism from within. A scientist talking about evolution is telling the truth, even when it seems to a religious person that this truth violates their traditions or sacred texts. A lesson on the cyclical nature of violence is true whether spoken by Ghandi or Christ. All truth belongs to us.
In this sense those of us that place a sole loyalty to the truth - outside of ideology or preference, or preconception - belong to a kind of fraternity. In a conversation with a friend of mine I described this idea as "the church of truth". We all belong to a corpus of individuals that are trying to approach this singular, universal, and objective reality from totally different places and viewpoints. In this way we're like kindred spirits - it's a dedication to the objective reality of truth that binds us all together. It, also, not only binds us to each other, but to every truth we can substantiate and every truth we can't - the still unseen and mysterious reality. It's a "church", in the original sense of the word, that transcends any kind of division between us. From race, to religion, political affiliation, nationality, economic background, social status, geography, education, and gender.
If truth is truly universal, and truth truly applies to everyone equally, then it is in truth (knowing it and living it) that we are bound together. It is the common foundation of all of the virtues - upon which all civil human interaction is dependent. It is the destination, the path, and the journey - both the means and the end. Truth is the reality which all humankind exists in and the light by which to see it.
"Anyone working and living in truth and reality is constantly drawing closer to the light so the work they do can be seen for what it is: divine." - Jesus (John 3:21)
"You will become increasingly intimate in your knowledge of what is true, and that intimacy with truth will liberate your entire being." - Jesus (John 8:32)
The Question: What truth are you rejecting becuase of the messenger bringing it? How do you respond to the idea of a "church or truth" that transcends all methods of division (including religion and culture)?
The Unvarnished Doctrine
14 years ago
7 comments:
Hey bro, thanks for the last post.
I feel like I must make a point though. When searching for truth you must remember that truth must stay grounded in Christ. Christ is the revelation of God, and the ultimate reference point when one begins their search for the truth. If the search doesn't start there you will be as Paul said in Romans 1 "Claiming to be wise they became fools..."
Jesus is our ultimate reference point with our search for truth. Remember what our Savior said "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." The revelation of truth comes through our submission to live under the rule of God, and in that we will know truth, and the truth will give us freedom. Pilate said "what is truth?" Jesus says, I am. This is truth that I know, I am a sinner, and Christ in His love died for me. You are a sinner, and Christ in His love died for you. When we are out there trying to find truth under every rock, let's remember what Paul the blessed apostle said "I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."
I cannot agree with you there. If you are 'grounding your search for truth in Christ' you have already tainted the search. You have already made up your mind of what truth is supposed to be before you have even begun.
In my humble opinion, if you are to search for truth, you just search. You take it all in and then you work on finding all the similarities until the path appears to you.
I do believe that Joshua has the right ideas and that he even implemented them very well, but I do not believe he had all the answers.
I feel, in many ways, that I would be more apt to agree with Bill in his approach. Rene Descartes' writings found in "Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy" became known as rationalism and deconstructionism. As ideologies these two methods are problematic, but the principles and methods are incredibly helpful.
If you think of your worldview as a building of some kind (i.e. a house), then understand that what we've all built (me, you, everybody) is a structure that functions but - if examined thoroughly - would end up being condemned for instability of structural integrity and foundation issues. What is necessary to fix our worldviews is to deconstruct them.
Self examination and worldview renovation can come in three different stages: superficial, structural, and foundational. All three are helpful in fixing the problem of how we view and exist within reality.
Superificial and structural are important aspects of worldview renovation. It is good to make minor and major corrections in life, but unless you examine, strip down, and rebuild a faulty foundation (which all of us have certainly built upon) it seems that much of it is ultimately in vain. And for a Christian, there is no foundation more central than all preconceptions, preferences, and assumptions made about the relationship between objective reality and Jesus Christ.
The good news for Christians is that if there is any real truth to the existing beliefs about Jesus, then they will stand up to even the most rigorous, critical, and scathing examinations or challenges.
Thought I'd respond, first time long time. As to your 1st question. I'm probably a bit prejudice about who I'll accept "truth" from. I think mostly because I'm not convinced that the evidence offered in support those "truths" is reliable and accurate. I could make a lot of claims that aren't true and be very convincing if I sound authoritative and offer data as evidence that others don't have access to. If you can argue with my data then, you can't argue with my version of the truth. So for me, I tend to believe the truth as presented by people I trust. Which brings me to a couple of questions I'd like to offer. I have my own answers, just wondering what all you bloggers think. These questions are targeted toward moral, ethical and spiritual contexts. Scientific truth is boring.
1. Is truth absolute? Does it exist?
2. Can you and I determine absolute truth? If it exists can I know it?
3. Can the acceptance of truth be legitimate if based solely on faith?
4. If so can truth be accepted without empirical evidence? Careful here, remember Heb 11.
As to your second question. The church to which Jesus calls us to belong to already transcends religion, culture, politics, race, gender, age and every other divisive category that can be named. This is an old concept. Obviously not embraced by many contemporary churches in America. But then American churches fall far short of many of the standards Christ calls us to maintain.
For me the most important truths are the simplest. Like the truth of the power of love and forgiveness, the truth of the destructiveness of sin and lawlessness in society, the truth of our need for relationships, and the most important truth of all our need for God.
These truths not only transcend religion and culture, but social, economic, and intellectual strata. Important truths are the ones that can be taught to all ethnos.
There is a place for debating truth. We all owe a great debt to Academia's pursuit of complex truths. Kind of like who who appreciate the internet, laptops and microprocessors owe a great debt to NASA and the space program. You may not care that we went to the moon (or depending on who's truth you accept, you may not believe we ever went, sorry couldn't resist) but you do care about the technology that got us there.
Then there's the working truth. This is the stuff we use every day while we're debating the finer points. I don't think we can suspend life truths while debating the finer points. But keep debating, keeps the mind sharp and the heart honest.
Thanks for the post and the opportunity to comment. You might just drag me into the on-line age yet.
Here is where your logic doesn't work Jeremy:
What happens once we have "deconstructed our ignorant "isms"" and come to what you call "truth"? Then what? All we are left with is more "isms".
"The Case": Deconstructing all of what we know to be truth, only leads us to build more truths, of which we are to deconstruct again, leaving us with no standard origin for truth, and no conviction on which to stand.
I agree with Terry, 100%! In two years from now, you may have "deconstructed your isms" and come to what you know is "truth". But then shouldn't you deconstruct that to form a more accurate "truth" according to your theory. Who is to say a follower of Christ hasn't already gone through this "new" process of "deconstructionism" and after being battered and tormented by the plagues of postmodernity, only been left with the cross. For me, I know truth, cause I know Jesus and Him crucified.
Maybe that is after I have sifted through all of the crap that this postmodern culture vomits from the heresies of the 16th century to become the wolves among the sheep.
But then again. .all of this may not be true in the future, according to your theory.
Walt - Thanks for the comment! Glad to see you giving your input and it is always appreciated. Let's kind of address some of the questions/ideas you put out there.
It's understandable (and some might even say "natural) for one to be more discriminate about who they are willing to accept truth from, especially if they don't initially consider the source "credible", "unbiased", or "friendly". I say that these things are natural in the same way that Jesus said that it is of "natural" for people to only love their friends and not their enemies. I don't mean to say that it I passively accept this status quo of human nature but, like Jesus, I am challenging this as a part of human nature that must be purged. Truth will come from the most unlikely sources - ever from the mouth of an ass (literally and figuratively).
Truth is just as true if its spoken by someone that is incredible or biased as it is when it is spoken from someone that is objective. Truth is true on the merits of its own standard, not the standard of the speaker. If the speaker is making claims that do not flush with reality (like the Universe is only 10-20,000 years old) then we may need to take greater pains to flesh out the evidence behind the claim to determine its credibility. But to outright knee-jerk and shut off one's ears to anything coming out of the mouth of someone that doesn't represent your own point-of-view is potentially dangerous and counterproductive.
In whether or not the truth is "absolute", I tend to not use that particular term because there's a percieved stigma that surrounds it. To me the truth is objective, universal, and is consistent with empirically informed or rationally derived facts. Truth is reality. That definition only leaves for the possibility that the there is only one grand cosmic reality that does not change from person to person (even if the perspective does).
Perception of reality is not absolute - it simply cannot be by nature: no two people are the same or have identically shared experience. But perception of reality is not reality actual and that's where many "relativists" get hung up and go wayward.
The objective reality of truth can be determined to varying degrees by the average human - and some are better at doing that than others whether it be by pure intellect, experiential wisdom, education, or some other criteria. The empirical and rational faculties are capable of aiding in informing us of reality, but they are not the only ones. There are spiritual dimensions and faculties (seen mostly in Eastern cultures) that seem to be of use as well. Experience has its uses as well but brings with it a whole host of baggage and problems to overcome and, often times, become obstacles to the effort of seeing truth. In that sense bodies truly heal quicker than minds and spirits.
Faith is a dimension of the process that can help as well but it is not the end-all-be-all. A critical element? Yes. A cornerstone element? In many cases, yes. But the only element? No - and that's where many religious or spiritually informed individuals run into trouble. Uninformed or "blind" faith is incredibly dangerous (just ask Galilleo or Copernicus) and horribly misguided. Can truth be achieved if the only element available is faith? I honestly don't think so. If faith is all there is to the equation I would suggest that the faith is probably wrong. If something is true in a universal scale, it tends to leave evidence that can be picked up by other (tangible) dimensions.
Where faith can be helpful in such a situation is when it exists in lieu of empirical or rational proof. Newton couldn't immediately prove his scientific laws but he had faith that what he had believed to be true was, in fact, true. Where Newton and the average religious person diverge is Newton was willing to accept the possibility that he was either partly or totally wrong about his assumptions on the nature of physics. He was willing to adjust, correct, or abandon his ideas if they didn't flesh out against reality. He wasn't content to leave it at "faith" and call it a day. He pushed until he knew. He studied... perhaps to show himself a workman approved before God? His belief informed him - but it was not the end of the line. Neither should it be for any of our beliefs about the great cosmic reality.
In regards to the "church", that was the point I was hoping to drive home. But this church we have all become very comfortable with is not the church Jesus talked about. It is the archtype or model he talks about that informs my ideas of a "church of truth", not the traditional institutional nightmare we've all come to know and love.
"Anonymous" - thank you for your post. I understand that the questions I ask, conversations I hope to start, and ideas I provide and discuss are very troubling for anyone that has hitched their proverbial trailer to the very traditional and classical understanding of Christianity. Since I'm not sure who I'm talking to I would like to, briefly, explain my background on this path I'm sharing with all of you.
I was raised in a protestant Christian family. My parents were active "seekers" when it came to Christianity and they - like so many of us - ultimately bought the package of Christianity as it is available to us in our modern, western (American) culture. I was raised in church and Sunday school, I was prone to independent Bible study from the age of 16 and it led me to a very "zealous" and, ultimately, narrow-minded and dogmatic view of God (and everything that can be associated with him). My friends that knew me then and even up to about a year or so ago would have described me as the most outspoken conservative Christian they knew. If you would like to view any of those writings you can visit my old blog (jeremymprince.blogspot.com) and read my posts starting in March of 2006. I was, in every sense of the word, totally sold out to "kingdoms of the world" and everything associated with them.
But I had some really great friends that I love like my brothers and we would regularly get together and discuss the nature of Jesus, the Church, the Bible, and our traditions and customs as Christians and Americans. (DISCLAIMER: I don't mean to insinuate in any way shape or form that these friends of mine share all or any of the viewpoints expressed by me or by the postings of my blog... I'm sure that they don't.)
But it was in our discussions and in the wisdom of these brothers that I began to see that my worldview - my culturally informed ideology - was not at all rooted in truth. I would routinely and regularly ignore the facts evident in reality when they opposed my ideology and the neurotic isms I had allowed to become constructed. What I also began to notice was how pervasive these ideologies were in the people I knew, saw on TV, read about and from, etc. In many ways when my mind began a process of renewal, it was a very spiritual liberation... a very powerful paradigm shift. But it wasn't just my mind that had changed - it wasn't just a mental repentance, but I could feel my "heart" changing. I started to soften towards people that I had taken a very hard stance towards in the past - both intimately and abstractly. I started to allow myself to empathize and sympathize for people. I had a very real change of heart.
Yet, as with anyone who experiences such a profound heart-change, I started to share my ideas and thoughts with people. I started to recognize that I didn't see what Jesus talked about in the Gospels as just "pretty words" but as instructions to be taken very seriously. But I also started to notice how resistant people were to looking at the New Testament outside of the traditional lenses that have been culturally provided over the last 1500-1700 years.
Since I'm not much of a "fighter" and I've always been fairly non-confrontational with people, I found an easier output for my ideas in writing than speaking so I began loading up the inboxes of my friends with emails of my thoughts... bad idea (sorry guys)! Writing became a much better output for my ideas and thoughts because my conversations would usually turn into bitter arguments and I could not trust myself to retain a Christlike attitude in those arguments and remain in peace and love. So I started, very recently, to blog again and express my thoughts here as a way to encourage dialogue, contemplation, and self-examination - all for the purposes of growth.
As anyone can see from the range of postings, I include everyone: from "seekers" to atheists/agnostics to devout Christians to people of other religious persuasions. It is part of my conviction (as I said in this post) that truth is true for everyone - even if it comes from someone that you don't like or doesn't share your worldview.
Now - as to what you offered in your comments: thank you. I'm not sure that I can expand much more on why I consider "isms" and ideologies so dangerous and counterproductive outside of what I've written in my previous posts. Even "deconstructionism" as an ideological framework is dangerous as well as "rationalism" or "empiricism" or "idealism" or "realism", etc. What you will see in what I write is that I incorporate elements from all of these philosophical ideologies to my postings without elevating them to a systematic framework of beliefs. Truth can be seen in the process of deconstruction, with rational faculties, empirical faculties, ideal conceptualization, and - very importantly - in the light of reality. There are many other elements of "isms" that can be helpful in the process of moving towards reality and - dare I say it? - truth, but when we take those elements, processes, methods, or concepts and elevate them to the status of "the one path to truth", it is very dangerous and - ultimately - divisive.
If you want to believe that the only way to arrive at the truth of this reality we all share in is by way of a very traditional or classical interpretation and inherited ideology of protestant (or Catholic) Christianity, then that's your prerogative. I can assure you of two things: 1. That classical interpretation offers you no true picture of the historical or Biblical Jesus... only those parts that are convenient for your belief structure, and 2. That Jesus would be the first person in the Universe to encourage you to dig under every rock for truth because, if Jesus is who he says he is, you are digging under every rock only to continually find him!
It would be infinitely easier for me to "tow the party line" (as it were) and simply relent to the talking points of Christianity and check my questions about reality at the door. I'm not being contrary for the sake of being contrary! It is difficult for me to see wedges driven between my friends and I, my family and I, my loved ones and I because I will not give up on a conviction that I must (and we - as a race - must also) never stop searching, never stop seeking, never stop scratching and clawing and digging for the truth in every single place it can be found. I've been called unpleasant names behind my back for sharing this process with all of you, I've been cut off from some friends for this. I feel very unable to talk openly about these things with my loved ones because of the arguments it causes and the division its creating. I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining or that I'm being picked on or any such nonsense. It's simply important for me to explain that what I'm writing has begun to cost me intimacy and relationship with people I've been close to for some time and, so, I don't do any of this lightly or cavalierly.
I seek only to owe an allegiance to the objective, universal, factual, cosmic reality of truth. If you think that we should just stick to the traditions that we've inherited (including Biblical ones) without diving deeper and trying to challenge those assumptions and beliefs against what we can substantiate and empirically prove, then I would ask if you reject the notion that the Earth is round, revolves around the Sun, or exists in a Universe governed by physical laws and only explainable by the very same "crap that this postmodern culture vomits from the heresies of the 16th century"?
Post a Comment