experiencing truth
April 21I’m one chapter from finishing a paper/e-book by Tim Bednar about blogging and the participatory church.
Tim describes blogging as a process of spiritual formation in which people can share thoughts, ideas, experiences, and struggles with an online community of faith. People read and respond to one another’s writing, build them up, critique them, and join them in their walk with the Spirit.
He also writes that this is a humble process by which individuals offer their perspectives in an atmosphere that invites discussion - rarely as the last word of a propositional truth that solicits only an “Amen!” but instead initiates a conversation among fellow pilgrims.
I’m not sure what form or direction this thought will take. I expect that it will be met with the same discomfort I feel toward it. I also hope that it will be met with the same beautiful hope and potential that I find in it. Such beautiful tension.
As I read Tim’s article, I began to realize that many of my ramblings advocate a position on somewhat unconceding ground. But I’m coming to realize something that I’ve been saying all along. There is a great amount of diversity within the church. And that is an excellent thing. Just as one may be called to share the Gospel in Japan, so another might be called to live their life on a perpetually missional journey. While some might devote significant energy toward environmental sustainability and ecological healing, others might toil to produce an apologetic defense of certain theological positions.
And just because I declare that “something must be done” (see my Uganda post below) does not mean that everyone must do it. It means I believe that some should. And if that “some” is a closed set that begins and ends with me alone, then perhaps that’s fine, too; I’ll share what I have to offer. I’m not here to tell you what to do. And it’s certainly not my place to tell you what to think.
What’s “true” for me may not be true in the same manner or degree that it is “true” for you. And vice versa.
I’m using the word “true” a little differently here…not to indicate an absolute, but to describe truth as resurrection life as experienced by one individual. For instance, I could say something like this:
Steak-n-Shake’s Fried Chicken Salad is the best dinner under $6 on Earth!
I know quite a few people who would quite quickly line up to nail 95 theses to my door concerning the grave heresy that I do not acknowledge the Frisco Melt to be the world’s greatest sandwich. Or maybe even something from Taco Bell (gasp!). Arguing either point constitutes a failure to recognize that this amazing salad is one of many great-tasting cheap (albeit un-nutritious) meals available to you.
When I say this, I mean to highlight the beautiful diversity that flares forth within God’s church. It is by no means a statement of moral relativism and I do not intend it to be. That’s a strong statement and a popular epithet; perhaps it should be wielded with care against only that which warrants it. Like the word “terrorist” (but I’m rambling). Instead of being a relativist statement, it is a celebration of the fact that the catholic church is not a monoculture. Tim notes that there are at least 33,830 Christian denominations. Which one is the “true” church? Are all the others completely “false”? Perhaps Truth is all over the place and can be redeemed anywhere it lies. (This is also the case for falsehood; a minefield, it’s not easy and none of us are exempt). As Rob Bell said, “Why should this surprise us?”
Though I believe it is terribly important to work toward living a sustainable lifestyle of minimal consumption and waste, you may find no higher calling than rationally responding to skeptical inquiry. I may never write a systematic theology (and there are so many of these) and you may never give up your SUV. But at the same time, we can encourage one another to experience our life with Jesus Christ as others do. So I might read a little Strobel, McDowell, and Grudem and subscribe to Ravi Zacharias’ podcast, and you might recycle a bottle or three.
And we’re all better for having shared these perspectives. Doing so allows us to experience, understand, and know Christ in a way we might not have considered before.
So please forgive me for asserting certain positions in absolutist terms. That’s not my desire; I’ll leave it to someone more qualified than myself, as a mere student and amateur writer. But what I do hope to initiate is a conversation about these ideas. How true are they? If, as in this case, truth is a value between zero and one rather than either zero or one, we’ve much truth to celebrate. And much falsehood to discard. We all experience Christ in different ways, all of which unite in Him. How do you experience this resurrection life? I’d love to hear.
This is not to say that there are no elements that are “absolutely True.” I certainly believe that there are; Christ proclaimed Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The purpose of this post is to help me consider which things are absolutely True and that which I merely call true. This seems like a worthwhile task.
So let us purify Truth while redeeming and celebrating what is true. And let us cast off what is false.
This celebration of unity and diversity is the hope of postmodernity as I understand it. It’s not all “existential desert.”
Though I cannot dance, there’s a lot of dancing to be done.
- c. scott andreas
April 21st, 2006 at 2:52 am
This was a well thought-out thought. This happens to be a topic that I struggle with on an occasional basis. It’s quite difficult to ascertain what is absolute and what is relative when you’re on the topic of a system of beliefs that is over 2 millenia old. At first, you’d think that we must adhere quite strongly to our beliefs if they have lasted so long, but that is certainly not always the case. Yes, we still believe you should love your neighbor as yourself, but you don’t see many sacrifices, avoidances of ‘unclean’ animals, and the like when you’re traveling around the country. While some things are ’supposed’ to be taken literally, others have become ‘metaphorical.’ It’s difficult to define that as anything other than relativism.
The problem lies in that, no matter our religious or political affiliations, we are unique individuals with unique systems of beliefs. Based on this originality, it is quite impossible for any point to be agreed upon by everyone. To some degree, there must be relativity or there wouldn’t be 4 or 5 dominant religions worldwide, there would be 6 billion. Therefore, not only will we have a tough time discerning whether the promises of politicians are true, but we can never ultimately agree on what is True, either. I recently tried to make this point on another friend’s blog (here). There may be things that you believe are absolutely True, but there are really very few things that one can proclaim are True above all others. After all, no matter how much research and soul-searching goes into the process, it still comes down to one person’s interpretation of their holy book or the meaning of life as they see it.
In my eyes, relativity is a good thing. It allows us to lose the complex details and focus on the real crux of the matter. I feel like it’s not important if one sacrifices a goat, confesses to a priest, whips themselves, or fasts for 40 days to atone for a sin, the important part is that there is a conscious effort to repent or change. It’s not important whether you pray before bed, 5 times a day, in a church or in a forest, the important aspect is that you pray. I feel like when people search for absolutes, they become trapped in the details and lose their focus. In that regard, I certainly feel that moral relativism is a much better situation than one where we’re all so convinced that we know the Truth that we put so much emphasis on the details and declare crusades upon all who disagree.
April 21st, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Hey guys. I happened to write on a similar topic today, though by no means in reaction to yours (I read it afterwards). Brian, I’m not sure I’m tracking with you–do you believe that Christianity is a religion with claims for multiple ‘truths’ in its midst (such as the Love commandment that you mentioned briefly, though many reilgions seem to try to say this) or one with Truth at its center in the person of Jesus Christ? Let me know what you think. Perhaps if you read my blog post you can see where I’m coming from a bit more. Grace and Peace
May 12th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Hello Fellow Sojourners,
A comment offered here about the nature of that which we call ‘truth’ and our experience of it which, I hope will add to this discussion. The terms ‘absolute truth’ and ‘relative truth’ might best be substituted with ‘objective truth’ and ’subjective truth’.
We live in a world where we accept certain things as objectively or absolutely true. For example, we all participate in the unconscious act of breathing breathable (hopefully)air. The atmosphere we breath must fulfill our physical need for oxygen. I have experienced oxygen, I assume, because I have been told by those who know how to measure its presence that it is oxygen that I am experiencing at every breath I take.
We may all agree based on ‘trust’ or ‘faith’ that we have all experienced oxygen. There are other factors which may effect the level of experience. Altitude, lung capacity, physical training, diet, etc. are all factors which have an affect on the quality of our experience of oxygen. But one’s experience of oxygen relative to others does not make its presence more or less true. We may all agree that without oxygen we will die.
The Scriptures present the propositional declaration about [spiritual]‘Truth’ as fundamentally a matter that pertains to the existence of God as an objectively true fact whether or not we have experienced Him. Then the importance of knowing God is presented as that which carries with it a self-interest. That is, we want to overcome death and God is the One who knows how to do it. The revelation of God proceeds in offering evidences to us hwich range from the simple to the profound. The first evidence is nature including man himself who is part of nature, then the personal Divine revelation delivered through various spiritual means up to and including the progressive revelation of the prophets, the appearing of Jesus Christ, and finally the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Our level of personal experience of God once someone is ‘born again’ is presented as a matter of spiritual maturity in accordance with the level of objective knowledge we gain through study, meditation, prayer, etc. The objectively true God who is there and can be known becomes our teacher through the written revelation [objective] and inner witness [subjective] of the Holy Spirit imparted into our being.
Now that which I experience of God is not only true for me but for all of us who have this shared experience precisely because we have first established that God is true, He is there, and can be known. One who has not experienced God yet is less able to accept that He is objectively and truly there and that He can be known. If we do not establish first that God actually exists and that the Scriptures present us with His self-revelation then we have no further shared basis for communicating much less discussing our relative experience of ‘Him’ at all.
But if we agree on the objective facts we may go forward in discussing the quality of our subjective experience.
In Christ,
Don