Army of Priests

Whilst the title of this post is catchy, I can’t guarantee you that anything written here is “the truth”. I have been investigating the effects of post-modernism as of late (what I have learnt will find its way here soon) and some of the questions it brings to my mind are about truth. “What is truth?” “Can truth be known?” “If truth exists why do people have different ideas about what it is?” I read two books in succession about a month ago which greatly disturbed my understanding of truth (Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller and Frequently Avoided Questions by Chuck Smith Jr. and Matt Whitlock). Combined with the worldview given to me during my upbringing in postmodernism the issues and questions which these books and thoughts raise have greatly reduced my confidence over the last few months. How can I have a clue that anything I am saying is more than complete junk?

The Problem with Truth

Every religion, and every division, preacher, and follower of said religion, believes different things about life whilst claiming that they have the answer and everyone else is wrong. It is as though we are arrogant enough to claim a monopoly on truth even whilst people smarter than us support a contradictory view. Ask a group of Christians if they 100% know what will happen when they die and they will all say “yes”. Ask the same question to a group of Muslims and they will say “yes”. Ask Buddhists or Mormons or Jews and they will all claim to know the truth. Ask Christians why they believe what they do and they will tell you about the bible, and their experiences, and maybe some scientific facts they have found. Ask Muslims why they believe and they will answer with the Koran, and their experiences, and maybe some of their own facts. Ask Buddhists or Mormons or Jews and they will all use the same or similar arguments to support their position whilst showing the others are wrong. This is one of the primary arguments people have against religion.

But the problem with truth doesn’t end there. Quite a while ago I was pondering scenario which had no clear morally correct solution. For instance, is it morally right or morally wrong to do something wrong to accomplish something right? If a murder brings about positive change does that make the murder right? Is burning someone out in ministry ok if it brings more people to God? Another dilemma involves choosing between two goods or two evils: If two starving children approach you and you have enough food for only one, who is it morally correct to feed? If I am forced by an evil villain to choose which hostage should die who do I choose? Is it right to kill the people of one country in order to defend the people of another country? Is it right to tell the truth when it will deeply hurt someone?

As a Christian, I am taught that the world is black and white. Either a decision is wholly good or wholly bad. But this teaching does not fit the scenarios described above, nor does it reflect reality. There is a big different between a loose woman having an abortion for the sixth time and a traumatised 19 year old rape victim walking into the clinic for the first time. There is a difference between a child who kills the parent who has been abusing him and the dictator who ruthlessly kills an ethnic minority. Accidental sins are surely less evil than premeditated ones.

This raises significant questions about truth. The statement “abortion is a truly evil and vicious attack on the defenceless” may well hold true if you are referring to the loose woman, but surely the same statement cannot apply to the rape victim. That means that the statement is relative. If this is the case, can we be sure of any truth statements we try to make? To solve this dilemma people will try to tell us to “follow God’s lead” but such an instruction is abstract and when it comes time to understanding what to do in concrete terms you will again get conflicting interpretations of what “God’s lead” is.

The bible too is coming under scrutiny. The issue is not if the bible is inerrant or infallible. What I am struggling with is if the bible is ambiguous. If you get 20 people in a room they may well agree that the bible is inerrant, but they then disagree on what it says. There is little point on the bible being inerrant if my interpretation of it is not. In fact, the differences in interpretation are so broad that Christianity may best be described as a group of religions with a common root rather than a cohesive whole. This gets the crux of the issue: in the end I have to decide what I believe is true. However, I am human and have no place in deciding truth. Where then does that leave me?

Truth: Some possible answers

I am now going to provide some possible answers to the issues raised above in a Q & A style. I don’t know if I am absolutely correct but this is where my thinking rests at the current time.

Is truth relative?

That depends more on your definition of “relative” and on your truth statement than anything (a relative answer if I ever saw one). The statement “I am at my computer” is true now, but soon it will cease to be. That statement’s trueness is relative to time. True for one time, false for another. The statement “At 5:43 pm on Tuesday the 31^st of July I was at my computer” is true irrelevant of when it is said. This however is more about how universal and specific a truth statement is. Some statements are true for some people and not to others. To one person Jesus said “follow me” and to another he said “go home”. If your definition of relative is to do with the specificity of truth then yes, truth is relative.

If, however, relativity is viewed as the opposite of objectivity than, no, truth is not relative. The statement “I am at my computer” is objectively true regardless of your perspective. Whether you know it or not, it is the truth. Now that statement may not be true for you, but it is still objectively true regardless. In similar fashion “abortion is bad” is true regardless of the sorry circumstances of the mothers involved in the issue. “Murder is bad” and “starvation is bad” are equally true statements. However whilst “abortion is a truly evil and vicious attack on the defenceless” may be objectively true for the loose woman (it is true whatever your perspective of that scenario), its specificity prevents the same statement from being true for the rape victim. I am going to summarise this view by saying that truth is objective, but not universal.

Is truth knowable?

In light of the above answer the next natural question is “Can a human with a relative perspective know an objective truth?” The crisis indwelling this question is evident in the numerous interpretations of the bible. As humans we each have individual experiences, thinking patterns, and base assumptions that define our worldview. Our worldview affects the way we analyse everything that we observe. Two scholars may have very good arguments for why they believe contradictory theologies based on analyse of the same bible text. Now both scholars may think they derived their opinion without bias and a “biblical” worldview and that the other scholar need only better understand the evidence. In reality their human worldview, or their perspective, has a greater effect on their belief than the evidence. This is a reality we cannot escape. We are myopic (short sighted) because we do not have the benefit of an omniscient (all knowing) mind. Because we are myopic we can only see a small part of the picture at once and draw conclusions about truth based on what we see rather than what is.

Imagine ‘truth’ as a massive, abstract shape in the sky. Now imagine you are looking through a telescope at the shape so that you cannot see the full object but only a small part. What you see is red. Therefore you claim that ‘truth’ is red. Another person has their telescope pointed at a different part of the shape. What they see is blue. Therefore they claim that ‘truth’ is blue. Both you and the other person think you have come to unbiased conclusions about truth, but in reality both your conclusions were based on your perspectives. An omniscient observer (say God) may see the whole truth and know it is, in fact, a multicoloured ball and have a good chuckle at us arguing.

But this poses a serious problem for us. If our perspective so affects our understanding how can we have any certainty of what we believe? All I can know is that what I saw was red; I cannot make any further conclusions. This is terrifying. My knowledge has huge effects on my life. If I make an incorrect conclusion about God my soul may be in danger. If my perspective causes me to choose Christianity over Islam when Islam is correct than I am doomed. At the same time I cannot throw in the towel and try to live without making truth statements. This is completely impractical. Everything you know, down to your very existence, is based on assumptions about the truth based on our limited human perspective. Unless we make those assumptions we would cease to operate as functional members in our society.

Therefore we have no choice but assume truth is knowable, even with a limited perspective. This leaves us back where we started, with different people claiming contradictory views are the truth. But at least with an understanding of our perspective we can try to be a bit more humble in the way we deal with truth whilst standing firm upon our (shaky) convictions.

How can truth be known?

This is where the differences between pre-modernism, modernism, and post-modernism become most apparent. Pre-modernism believes that reason is subordinate to revelation (that God reveals to his people the truth). Modernism believes that truth can be understood solely through reason and logic based on observable evidence. Post-modernism believes that truth can be understood through a variety of methods, and take a holistic view to truth. Thus God may reveal truth to the spirit, use reason to teach truth to the mind, or engage emotions to show it to the heart. For an example, consider the flood in Genesis. The pre-modernist Christian (fundamentalist(?)) would consider it true because it has been ‘revealed’ regardless of the scientific method. The modernist Christian (liberals(?) and fundamentals trying to convince them) would consider the flood real only if science supported it, otherwise they may disregard the biblical text as myth. The post-modernist response is less predictable – they may believe it because God said it, they may refute it because science doesn’t support it, or they may consider it to be an emotional narrative designed to engage them directly in a relationship with God and not to teach them history.

Let us return to a previous analogy. If we wish to understand truth objectively, like God does, then we would do well to widen our myopic perspective of it. Post-modernism does this well, but it comes at a cost. If God truly loves me, then reason and logic should prove it from what we can observe in the physical and spiritual world, God should reveal it to us in his word and during our time with him, and my emotions should confirm it over the length of our relationship. However, in practise, what my heart, mind, and spirit tell me are often not complimentary but rather conflicting. I may see red with the perspective of my mind, blue with the perspective of my heart, and yellow with the perspective of my spirit (what God reveals). To the post-modernist this is not so much a problem as they enjoy mystery and hold contradictory ideas in unison with ease. A modernist or pre-modernist, however, would be greatly bothered by the conflicting observations. Even for the post-modernist mystery is not always satisfactory. Thus we must ask what mode of perceiving truth takes precedence over the others – which is what separates pre-modernists, modernists, and post-modernists in the first place! In the end our worldview once again decided through what lens we shall use and each is as bad as the other (much like listening only to a person’s words whilst ignoring their tone or body language).

Fortunately, there is another way to increase our “field of vision” and that is to take advantage of other people. The people who disagree with me have likely seen a different part of truth than I have. Thus I would do well to humbly find out exactly what they have seen. In this way I can gather the largest amount of information on the truth as possible. The drawback, however, is the same as it is for post-modernism – confusion about conflicting observations. However, at the very least we can increase the base of observation we make our conclusions off.

Now it becomes important to understand the difference between the analogies we use to understand truth, and truth itself. After gathering as much observable data on truth as possible we must try to formulate a theory, or an analogy (multi-coloured ball), or a poem, or a story, or a parable, to explain it at least to the extent that it satisfies ourselves. The method we use to understand it may not be able to explain all the observable phenomena and thus we may have to use a few different analogies to get as clear a picture as possible. Jesus used many parables to explain the kingdom of God. The parables themselves were not the truth however; the parables were trying to convey a truth that cannot be so easy summarised.

So a method for knowing truth could be summed up as (and I hate formulas, so please remember this is one of many ways): widen your perspective by adopting a holistic view of truth and listening to others, form the best analogies or explanations you can. You need only repeat until you are satisfied (a different point for different people), also if you go too far and the contradictory facts become confusing then you can feel free to slow down and begin to try forming analogies with what you have. The search for truth is not an end in itself. Rather the search for truth should inspire positive transformation, and when it begins to do so you can consider your search a success (admittedly a post-modern idea).

How can I take a stand for truth if I am still not 100% sure?

Although I hope I have dealt with some of the issues I must admit my approach still does not give us an absolutely objective view of truth. Thus we still cannot be absolutely sure that we are correct. If we cannot have that surety, how can we take stands against (what we view to be) moral injustice or clear heresy in this world? Eventually we have to take a stand and be willing to declare what we believe. In my view, if you have done all that you can to understand truth in the relevant area you gain the right to place more certainty in your beliefs but there is a way to go about “proclaiming” it.

Firstly (again, I am using a formula), you have to have done the study/prayer/thinking/experience about the issue before you can stand for it. If there is a pastor preaching what I view to be heresy about the end times, I cannot tell him I think he is wrong until I have done a ‘fair’ amount of research myself. Until then I am better off asking questions of his view as to broaden my own perspective. Once I can state I have worked hard to understand the issue I can begin to ‘challenge’ but this must be done in a certain way as well.

When you do challenge a view remember that neither you nor they can be 100% certain that what they believe is truth. You are both like blind men groping for the light switch. Thus feel free to say “I don’t think you are right, I think this, because I have seen this” rather than “you are wrong”. “You are wrong” is offensive and makes you sound arrogant (I know that I have been guilty of this). When presenting your view to a fresh audience it may be best to use an irenic method. In the end it is important to remember that it is not your responsibility to ensure they are correct. I know I have enough trouble taking care of my own views. It is, however, our responsibility to present our observations and beliefs so that they can come to their own conclusions.

I mentioned earlier about morality not being black and white. The black and white view generally stems for a common understanding of penal substitution rather than direct biblical interpretation (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with this, it is the logical outcome of the penal substitution view). However, in my view there is evil, and any amount of evil is too much, but there is a difference between complete depravity and slight variations from purity. There effects on eternity are the same, but the level of sin still differs. I just want to ensure no one thinks I am dropping morals altogether.

Conclusion

I have tried to give the most thought out answers I can to these issues. The answers aren’t entirely satisfying. In the end different people have different levels of certainty they need to be satisfied. Some people need to be 99% satisfied and they will have to do a lot of research to get there. Some people only need 80% certainty to be satisfied and so they will have less difficulty feeling secure. The key point however is that truth should bring about positive change in our lives. If it does not, it is worthless. As a Christian, that means truth should cause me to love God and other’s more. It should motivate me to action. It should make me more efficient. God (who is truth) does that type of thing.