The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
22 Apr 2006
Those of us involved with Emergent, have been regularly, and increasingly accused of ‘playing fast and loose’ with the truth, and the unsubstantiated spin is ‘those emerging people don’t believe in the truth any more’. Which is so untrue!
My common reply is that I/we still believe in the truth, in fact we take it more seriously than ever and have a higher view of it. The problem is that we have had too low a view of truth, not too high.
Many people still seem to think that unless you approach the issue of ‘Truth’ as an absolute, that you have to be a raving liberal, and relativist. And in doing so, I think many misunderstand the nature of truth. The fact that we have to put the word ‘absolute’ in front of the word truth, begins to shows us that we have different ways of approaching truth.
Here is an approach to truth that I have found helpful:
1. Absolute:There is absolute truth, and it is Jesus. He is the location of absolute truth. Some of the things I believe about him might be absolutes, but I do not possess, complete absolute truth about him, or I wouldn’t need him. Then I have my theories about that truth, but they are theories, subject to doubt, and question, and are not all absolute. Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and I confirm that absolutely! I don’t follow Jesus because I posses the truth about him, I pursue Jesus because he is the truth, and the one who leads me into truth
2. Relative:Some truth is always relative. Some truth is subject time, place and context. This isn’t contradictory at all to absolute truth. This also doesn’t mean any truth is valid. There is another option to being a fundamentalist about absolute truth, or a relativist who sees all truth as relative. Len Sweet describes this as being a ‘relative absolutist’. This means that absolute truth has to become incarnate in relative time. Absolute truth, has to be made relative to our context, and culture.
3. Relational:And what brings absolute and relative truth together, is relational truth. The idea of knowing truths about Jesus but not living in relationship with him, is nonsense. If Jesus is the absolute truth, and he incarnates the truth of who he is into my relative context, there is only one way that happens, relationally. I can only know about Jesus by knowing him, and by knowing others who know him, and others who knew him.
Brian McLaren in an open letter to Chuck Colson, make some great suggestion about we approach and handle truth.
So how do you see truth, what is helping you, what is troubling you? Does the suggestion above, help ore make things worse?
Tagged: Key-Posts, Theology, Truth
36 comments
Trackback
Comment by Dan Wilt
9.49 am on 22 Apr 2006
J, I agree, and might suggest one step further. As you are, I’m quite open to critique.
I tool would embrace “absolute truth,” but not in the same way many of my evangelical Christian friends would. I contend that “absolute” can be a word embodying the very spirit that has removed the Church from the roundtable of cultural discussion, and I suggest at times, from a generous orthodoxy (to quote a book title).
“Enduring Truth,” is a phrase that I and one and some of my academic friends suggest may be a more beautiful way to approach the term “absolute truth” in postmodernism.
Here is an excerpt from a recent post over at my house:
“Enduring Truth, I suggest, may be a better phrase for postmodern culture than the phrase “absolute truth†that has so riddled Church/culture conversation for the past centuries.
“Absolute†presupposes we know everything, across all time, in all cultures, in all social situations. Given that even our reading and expounding of Scripture involves both unique perception and interpretation, absolute may be a word that has lost its linguistic credibility in the postmodern conversation.
Enduring Truth says that there are truths that have been shown to endure and bring societal health across all time, all people in all contexts. To the postmodern mind, the language of “absolute,†speaks of “we are all-seeing, like God.â€
On planet Xanadu, marriage, for example, may be different both in its history and in its present. We embrace enduring truth for earth life – for example again, marriage between a man and woman, bearing children has proven to be the best long-haul expression of familial commitment, and the healthiest unit for any civilization to endorse and uphold.
The Scriptures uphold enduring truths. Use absolute if you like, but I believe it can be both a misguided and misused term in the present – it means that the bible is to be read prescriptively, and not as it is, a story of enduring truths, with commandments and inbreaking activity throughout (God’s movement on natural law, the inspired slaying of Canaanite families, polygamy, etc.)
I follow Jesus, and embrace the Scriptures, not just because it’s the authority because I say so; but rather because it packed with experienced enduring truth, and therefore I believe it is inspired by God. Jesus embodies it, and I have fallen passionately in love with his way.
Enduring Truth is resilient, it bounces back, and back around to the front of the crowd. It demands attention, and always will. It sustains it’s sound despite the dampening of the culture.
I’m in. Signs, wonders and miracles have just affirmed that God is present and active in this embrace.”
The comments then (on that post), bring clarity to this, and fight for more ebjective strength (other than just human experience – enduring) behind the idea. I don’t want to post them all, but they really sharpened the sword.
Comment by Melody Unruh
6.09 pm on 22 Apr 2006
Jason,
“Relative Truth” is an oxymoron. My husband and I are avid sailors and often sail out of sight of land. We depend on truth when we are out there. We accept as true the undeniable fact that our compass will ALWAYS point to magnetic north. Imagine how easily we could lose our way if our compass pointed to a “realative” north that changed with the context of the storm we were in or the depth of the water. We need to remember that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That is why so many of the cloud os witnesses who have lived before us often referred to Him as a rock; srong, faithfull and never changing. You are welcome to visit my conversation on these issues at my humble blog: http://azusapacificalumni.com
Comment by PurplePastor
6.53 pm on 22 Apr 2006
Jason,
Great post. I really like Dan’s suggestion to reframe absolute truth as enduring truth. That subtle shift has a lot of power and eternality that is often lost in our quest for the absolute.
But whether you decide to change your vocabulary or not, I heartily agree with what you said, particulary this statement, “There is absolute truth, and it is Jesus.” Beautiful indeed.
Thanks.
Comment by Jason
8.23 pm on 22 Apr 2006
Hi Melody, I think you missed what I said about Jesus being the truth..and when it comes to longitude, it is a relative reality, not an absoulte one. Your positions is always relative to something else, it’s how you make the measurement in the first place. You can’t measure your position independently of everything else :-)
Comment by Paul HH
12.14 am on 23 Apr 2006
Melody, you propose that it is an absolute truth that “undeniable fact that our compass will ALWAYS point to magnetic north”. Your comment about being in trouble should north move according to context implies that you believe magnetic north always points you to the same position. If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that should this observation only be a relative truth it would have little value to you, and maybe that it would not be a truth at all.
To use Jason’s definitions of Absolute and Relative: Your truth about Norths location is indeed relative as the contexts of location and time vary. The locations of the poles vary by as much as 15km a year ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field) and the earths magnetic field varies according to location, just ask an icelandic sailor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetism ). Many other sailors (in different locations and times) will have experienced different relative Norths to you, yet almost all of you will have found their North to be useful, and as far as most of you are able to perceive, to be (Relatively) true, so true in fact that it seems as if you are all sharing the same Absolute truth, even though many of you have different Norths.
God on the other hand really does perceive a complete Absolute truth about where North is for each of you, with all of the nuances, detail and complexity of just what is going on magnetically through time and space. With no disrespect to any scientists reading, I am convinced that only God has a fully understood detailed Absolute truth about North and the history and future of its peregrinations. Thus we only have a hope of getting a better but still Relative truth of North.
This does not mean that your relative North is untrue in your context, neither does it mean that it is incompatible with Gods larger Absolute truth. Just that you don’t have Gods full view of things, and he understands it all better.
Melody, I have used your metaphor, I hope that does not make my viewpoint come across aggressively. This website text does not allow you to hear my tone of voice or for me too judge if I am communicating poorly. I think we both value the many absolutes that we believe are contained in Jesus.
I am not sure how far Jason may feel I have helped or hindered his definitions, so I wont stretch this example to the Relational. I do see Jesus as my hero who has bridged my relative world to Gods absolute though. Also I see Jesus as the Word, who sent his Holy Spirit who breathes life into the scriptures, rather than the bible as the Word in the way that the Koran is understood by Muslims to be Gods verbatim (written in Arabic) word. Relationship with Jesus is a big thing to me.
I think these definitions are useful to me in trying to make sense of the world, in the machinery of what goes on in my head. Dans description of Enduring Truth sounds useful not only for my attempts to understand but especially for my attempts to communicate. I can imagine how using this phrase may add some beauty to my conversations and relationships.
Paul
Comment by Paul HH
12.41 am on 23 Apr 2006
typo in my comment: please read ‘the Holy Spirit’ instead of ‘his Holy Spirit’. That could trigger a discussion I was not trying to start. Maybe I should qualify that as [Jesus asked the Father to send,..] Aargh,.. I need a proof reader. Its John 1 and chapters 14 & 16 I was trying to refer to. %^)
Comment by Kamsin
1.09 am on 23 Apr 2006
Hi, great post, for what it’s worth the thoughts I am having on this subject.
I absolutely and fundamentally (now there’s a word that’s got a bad press) believe that Jesus is the way, THE TRUTH, and the life. And there’s the thing, truth is not a set of ideas, or theories, or practices or even a religion, absolute truth is a PERSON. I know a tiny little bit about that person and some of it is enduring (to borrow the phrase from the earlier comment, although enduring or absolute is kind of just playing with words), it doesn’t change whether I’m a first century Christian, a white middle class Christian today or whoever, or whenever. But a very large percentage of what I know is trapped within the limits of my experience, my language and my culture.
Culture and language really shape who we are and how we understand the world in ways which are rarely apparent to us. I think to some extent post-modern culture reflects a world in which opposing truthes,( in the sense of ideas, or practices etc.) are highlighted to people, as different cultures and languages meet. The conclusion from this is that because some things are very obviously relative and open to differing interpretations, then everything is relative. And because I can’t understand anything outside the limits of my language I can’t ever claim to know anything absolutely. I can’t criticise the treatment of women in Muslim culture, to use a contentious example, because I’m interpreting it through my Western cultural eyes, instead I ought to be tolerant of culture difference because everything is relative and all culture is equally valid. So postmodern culture has taken the recognition of differing cultural practices and understanding of the world, but has reached a conclusion that Christians, not to mention a large number of other cultural groups, would not accept.
The way I see it is, yes, we are bound by our language and culture which cannot contain or express anything other than a tiny fraction of what is out there to be known. I interpret the world around me through a filter which is made up of language, culture, family background, and personal experience, I read the Bible and understand God through the same filter, and because you are different to me, you will interpret things differently. If I claim I have some kind of absolute interpretation of scripture, then I risk being arrogant, blind to the huge amount of knowledge I lack, and also unwilling to continue learning new things, but maybe that’s just my opinion. The problem is we could end up crippling ourselves, as I think to some extent postmodern culture has, unable to make any kind of meaningful statement about anything. It could also make the world kind of a scary place, which lacks some of the fixed absolutes the modern world seemed to have to offer.
The challenge is to take on board some of the things that our postmodern culture is saying without reaching the same conclusion, that nothing has absolute meaning. Our struggle, or at least my own personal struggle, is to sift the things I fundamentally believe to be true, I do believe Jesus is the only answer for our broken world for example, from the things that are just about me, and here and now. Which brings me back to the key fact that truth is a person, not a set of abstract ideas, so the only way I can even begin to understand anything about the world around me in anything even approaching an absolute way, is through cultivating relationship with Jesus. So to a certain extent absolute, relative, or relational (although I’m really interested to hear more about that last one) or any other kind of truth, is approaching the issue from the wrong angle and only serves to obscure the fact that truth is Jesus, which when you stop and think about it is a mind blowing concept and I can’t even begin to unpack what that means.
Comment by Kamsin
1.12 am on 23 Apr 2006
Ooops, that was meant to be a short comment. Read the first and last paragraph, I could probably have deleted the rest!
Comment by Jason
8.04 am on 23 Apr 2006
Hi Dan, enduring truth, I like the caveat and idea, thank you. That’s very helpful, and allows us to affirm some form of ‘absolute’ truth, without all the abuse it has brought.
Comment by Jason
8.07 am on 23 Apr 2006
HI Paul, that was great, you explained much better than I did how almost everything we measure is relative, but we affirm that God is the only one who sees all aboslutely.
And I’m still let wondering, why so many christians need to hold onto so many absolutes about christianity. What is gained by saying we know aboslutely?
Using the schema I suggested, I’m convinced we have a much better handle on truth, and a humility about what we know, whilst still having confidence in following Christ.
Comment by Jason
8.10 am on 23 Apr 2006
Hi Kasmin, great to hear from you. You said it, Jesus is a person, a relationship, God did not send us a propostional absolute fact, he sent us a person.
Therefore all truth is primarily relational, it always has been and always will be. To lead us into relationship with God and his people.
Comment by David
8.43 am on 23 Apr 2006
Excellent post/discussion, I have been thinking about the issue of truth since listening to the tacit knowing, truthful knowing podcast from emergent. I love Dan’s image of enduring truth. The word ‘absolute’ seems bound up in Greek metaphysics to me – something we need to break free of. It also seems to carry an arrogant message to the hearer – it is unquestionable, but brittle, should it fail a question it will all fail. Something that endures, like magnetic north, suggests that scrutiny only reveals more.
Comment by Simon
5.41 pm on 23 Apr 2006
Great posts all. I think its strange and telling that demands for a foundation on absolute truth are coming from Evangelicalism, whereas one of the most “true” discoveries in the physical world is that of the theory of relativity: both space and time are not absolute, but are relative to certain cosmic constants (i.e. the speed of light).
Similarly, here on earth all our truth is relative … but the are relative to the bearings (great analogy) we get from the fixed points of God.
Absolute truth is an idol we must not worship. Rather we must trust in a absolute God and the relative truths that relate to Him. An absolute truth in itself is anchored to nothing.
Comment by Timothy Wright
9.20 pm on 23 Apr 2006
Kamsin, You wrote:
” And because I can’t understand anything outside the limits of my language I can’t ever claim to know anything absolutely. I can’t criticise the treatment of women in Muslim culture, to use a contentious example, because I’m interpreting it through my Western cultural eyes, instead I ought to be tolerant of culture difference because everything is relative and all culture is equally valid. So postmodern culture has taken the recognition of differing cultural practices and understanding of the world, but has reached a conclusion that Christians, not to mention a large number of other cultural groups, would not accept.”
I think we are confusing the person of Jesus and truth with culture which is man made.
All people are equal in the eys of God but not all cultures. Some cultures are totally and inherently evil: cultures that practice canabilism. These cultures should not exist and it it is within our our moral responsibility to stop these practicies from being perpetuated from generation to generation.
Whic God commanded the Jewish people to do in His early encounters with him much to the pain of many people who read these passages in the Old Test.
Please read and critique Islam, read the Koran and the Hadith.
Truth is truth whether you have a realtionship with it or not. Jesus is unchangeable, you are changeable.
All other religions in their belief structure are wrong. I am not saying that their is nothing to learn and value but their beliefs:
Islam: Mohammed is god’s final prophet
Hinduism: There are over 400 million gods, pick one. Reincarnation, karma, etc….
Buddhism: There is no God
Are wrong !!!!!!
Then there is the JW and Mormons : which are totally amusing aside from all the people being led away from Jesus.
I guess these type on conversations will always go on within the body of Christ.
As for me: Jesus is the absolute truth in all he says and he has given us the bible and his holy spirit for us to know all that we need to know to point people toward him and guide them come to know him and flexh out all that means & avoid eternal seperation from Him
Tim
Comment by brian
1.06 am on 24 Apr 2006
Hey Jason, or anyone, what would be a few good books that really deal with the issues of truth…relative or absolute? What have you found useful?
Comment by Jason
8.11 am on 24 Apr 2006
Hi Brian, so many books come to mind, but this is one i have found the most helpful:
The Journey So Far
Comment by jonny
9.23 am on 24 Apr 2006
thanks jason, thats really helpful.
i find that approach can lead to a humble attitude – which seems to be an appropriate response to the truth I find in Jesus. To be arrogant about the truth – would be be an in appropriate response to truth – in which case who you really *know* the truth. I think a known truth must be a lived truth. To reference Newbegin (& Polanyi) the truth isn’t just something for me to look at but something for me to look through – like a pair of perscription glasses – things which help me see… (and like perscription glasses they often need reparing and refining.)
Comment by bev
4.44 pm on 24 Apr 2006
Hi,
I really like Dan’s term “enduring truth” also. It makes the truth present and relational; I want to pursue it and grab hold of it. The word absolute leaves me cold. :-)
Comment by dh
5.14 pm on 24 Apr 2006
To me it makes things worse. I personally feel Colson was appropriate in what he said MacLaren and that MacLarens response I found wanting. I feel that we don’t knowfully on some things but that many of the things are actually absolute in that the Scriptures state it in an absolute way. As an example when the Bible says a definitive statements on particular subjects it seems weird to “water down” the original intent when the literary wording is absolute.
Comment by Jason
5.38 pm on 24 Apr 2006
Hi DH, dealing with what I wrote, help me to understand how it makes things worse? I have affirmed absolute truth in the person of Jesus, and said that thruth also comes through relationship, the incarnation. How has anything I have written watered down the truth.
It seems that any belief that truth is something more than a list of statements to give ascent to cause people, maybe you, to fear we are watering things down. We are trying to do the opposite.
People can belief the truth, and then do nothing about it, and not orient their lives around those absolutes truths…because they have othe realities they live by.
We are arguing for a higher view of truth, help me to see how it is lower in what I described. And show me how colson’s article relates to what I said here?
Thanks mate
jason
Comment by Dean Whisnant
6.42 pm on 24 Apr 2006
dh,
I have been having difficulty responding to folks who use the term “water down” as it seems to get used so much, but with no explanation as to what specifically is being watered down and how what else is being said is less than watered down. I know that may sound confusing, but can you explain please at least one context that you hear things being “watered down”?
Please take this as an honest request.
Dean
Comment by dh
7.48 pm on 24 Apr 2006
I guess I wasshowing how a prefer Colson’s idea with how to handle truth as opposed to MacLarens idea. When I’m mentioning this it wasn’t in relation to you but to many in the Emergent Christian camp. When I read books from MacLaren he many times never addresses directly truth but gives answers that aren’t specific to things that are specific. (not to get into this but only for example) is the homosexuality thing, MacLaren’s views on Salvation thing, his views on Gospel, eternal life/death, etc. These are the concepts that appear to be “watered down”. “watered down” not only includes changing but adding to any of the other examples from the above list I mentioned.
Again Jason, these are directly addressed to you but to many who consider themselves in the Emergent camp who are the extreme part within that camp. (As a 50% Emergent I can comment on this in that I believe we can address potential changes on issues that are not foundational or don’t go against God’s word)
Comment by Dean Whisnant
2.01 am on 25 Apr 2006
dh,
Thank you for following up, i appreciate the conversation and the forum that Jason allows us. I’ve never really considered McLaren “watered down” on the topics you’ve mentioned, but in fairness I’ll take the examples and re-read the Colson material and a couple things from Brian to check myself.
I have noted that Brian tends to leave things alone that aren’t crystal clear. Admitting that he doesn’t know positively and therefore will not take a condemnation stand on many topics (which I think has been a tendency of many in the past. I interpret this as less about watering down and more about being honest that things aren’t as clear as we would like them to be and that we need to extend grace.
I realise that your message isn’t just about McLaren either and I appreciate the honesty in your statements. “Emerging” being a conversation is a wonderful thing.
Dean
Comment by iggy
11.29 pm on 25 Apr 2006
Kudos!
jason, i get into the same insane conversations… do we know the same people?
I too have found a higher apprieciation of Truth. In fact i have found a higher appreciation of the Bible… and realized that I even seem to take things more literal than I used to…
I point out that those who calim I do not by simply stating, “Is it wrong for Catholics to call their priests, father?” it is most always answered with a yes… I then point out that they call themselves teacher, and to interpret scripture the way they did with that passage makes them as “guilty” as their claim of Catholics. The point is instead of filtering through all the “absolute,relative,relational” verbage I have found Truth is a person. I have found that it is better to not know “absolute” but know Who is the Absolute!
Blessings,
iggy
BTW, pray for us as we have dropped our own church plant and have joined force with a local Vineyard plant in Billings MT. It seems as i have been being groomed for Vineyard without knowing it… as I too am just a fat guy trying to get to heaven!
Comment by Kamsin
1.24 am on 26 Apr 2006
Hello Tim – Thanks for commenting on my comment. I totally agree with everything you said except the first bit, about which I’d just like to say that I’m not sure we’re meaning the same thing by the word ‘culture’ and I’m also not sure you’ve totally understood what I was trying to say, maybe I didn’t make myself very clear.
I’d also just like to say that it may be true that other religions are ‘wrong’, and I am not trying to say that all beliefs are equally valid, but I wonder how useful it is to use that kind of language. How do you feel when people tell you you’re wrong? When people tell me I’m wrong I tend to dig my heels in and refuse to listen and assert my point of view all the more forcefully (but then maybe I’m just stubborn!), often when I calm down and stop feeling personally threatened I realise I might have learnt something if I’d listened, but usually God has to humble me first! Anyway, I wonder if Christians going around saying you’re wrong (and by implication, I’m right) doesn’t have the same effect. So people who don’t recognise the truth of Jesus (those people Christians are calling wrong) end up feeling threatened , (perhaps justifiably) feel ‘who are you Christians to tell me I’m wrong’ and so they are not open to hearing what we have to say before we’ve even had a chance to say anything. Just a thought, and I hope that makes sense. I’m also slightly off-topic (sorry)!
And Jason, thanks for the opportunity to discuss this topic. I’m adding the book you suggested above to the list of books I want to read in the not too distant future. I’m relatively new to the ‘emergent’ conversation, but a lot of what I’m reading is making a lot of sense to how I think about my own faith. Thanks again.
Comment by Timothy Wright
5.17 am on 26 Apr 2006
Hi Kamsin,
Thanks for your response. You are not the first person to point out my absolute lack of gentleness at times. I was speaking to you as a Christian and not someone I was trying to persuade (2 Corinthinans 5:11 NIV) to become a Christian. In your response you wrote:” I’d also just like to say that it may be true that other religions are ‘wrong’, and I am not trying to say that all beliefs are equally valid, ” . I come in talking about Jesus with total confidence that He is the Way. I would never follow someone who was not sure of what they were saying if they were not confident of what they were communicating. It seems to me that Emergents (a very broad sweep) have a propensity to couch the claims of Jesus as tentative. I am so glad that Jesus was not tentative in His proclamation who he was and His mission. When I engage college students with the gospel of Jesus. I don’t verbally start off telling them they are wrong. I know they are wrong but the first thing I do is LISTEN. Mostly listening and asking questions for them to see the fallacy of their belief system. My entire approach to communicating the Gospel is relational. In writing you don’t know the tone of what I am saying. But I speak from experience in trying to find God in mostly all the religions that are out there now.
You say that you are new to the emergent conversation. I think in your early outing you have come across probably one of the most common issues: are the claims of Jesus exclusive or relative and cultural and time specific. I belive they are exclusive. No surprise there. Bless you.
Tim
Comment by dh
3.01 pm on 26 Apr 2006
Sorry, I meant to say “not addressed to you”. This was mention to those who are too extreme within Emergent. Dean, I appreciate your clarification on the post. I still think there is something wrong with MacLaren and others who think it isn’t clear. To me it reveals a particular predisposition. I wonder if he isn’t totally honest because if person was truly honest on those issues you can see how clear it really is especially since he happens tobein the ministry for so long. I agree we need to extend Grace but that Grace isn’t cheep by condoning or believing things that are contrary to God’s word.
As an word diagram: I would say my reaction to MacLaren would be the same as the times I see a parent (pastor) when a five year old child (congregation) back-talks and the parent doesn’t do anything and when the parent is confronted says “he is just showing his independence”. At the same time I understand parental abuse of children. It is a balance and I hope this analogy and word diagram help people understand my and others concern for what God wants us to learn “…profitable fordoctrine, reproff, andinstruction inrighteousness.”
Comment by Jason
5.38 pm on 26 Apr 2006
Hi DH…I think the phrase ‘not being honest’ is a little loaded. Brian is one of the most honest human beings I have ever met. Maybe it’s more that he isn’t saying what you believe, or agree with, which is something other than ‘honesty’.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
6.58 pm on 26 Apr 2006
dh,
I have to agree with Jason on the honesty of McLaren. From reading his writings, listening to his sermons and meeting him, it would be too great a step to say he is not genuine and honest.
Aside from him personally. I would have to say that it is easier to stick to your guns on beliefs than it is to explore the possibility that the truth you hold may have flaws. Not flaws in scripture, but in our interpretation of such. the hard rode, the narrow gate is to challenge your own beliefs, the truth you have been taught and risk learning that you were wrong about some things.
I would reread Jason’s original post at this point to think about truth some more.
Blessings brother!
Comment by dh
7.36 pm on 26 Apr 2006
I have challenged my own beliefs and Brians views seem inconsistent in light of Scripture andthe definitive statements therein.
For someone who has been a Christian for a while to read something that Scripture says definitively and say it isn’t definitive seems strange to me. It isn’t me “sticking to my guns” in that I have read the Scripture and I take it for what it says without any projection.
I think if people who read definite statements in the Bible as not definitive were honest with themselves they would recognize within themselves their own voice saying “I wish the Bible wouldn’t say it so clearly” in such a way that they project additional concepts that are not stated in Scripture . I think they mean well by the attitude but the attitude clouds the truth in my opinion.
Comment by dh
7.42 pm on 26 Apr 2006
“… the truth you have been taught and risk learning that you were wrong about some things.” Could it also be said that this is projecting as well the idea that some truths be thrown away which God would not want us to throw away? I know I don’t know everything but when it comes to foundational issues they are clear so clear that inan ideal Christian world we would move past these things onto greater things like Hebrews says. Just my two cents.
Comment by Kamsin
8.54 pm on 26 Apr 2006
You know what Tim I think you and I are actually basically agreeing. In practice sounds like we’d pretty much do the same thing when talking with those who aren’t Christians. I guess this debate is pretty academic and although it does impact how we witness to others and live out our faith, I reckon we’d both agree that what’s important ultimately is to point those who don’t yet know Jesus to Him. It’s also really true that tone of voice is lost to a certain extent in writing. Also on this kind of forum people are kind of talking into a vacuum, without knowing much about the personal stories of those posting and where they are on their own personal journey with God and without knowing all that stuff it is hard to communicate effectively. You say you talk with college students so, I’m guessing again but, I assume that you do not talk to them in language and expect them to engage in cultural practices which were relevant to society 50 or 100 years ago, because the world you and they live in is very different, I guess how you speak with them has to relate to life in a global society in 2006. It’s not Jesus that is relative, it is how we communicate who He is and some of the ways we live out our faith which are relative to here and now. To me it doesn’t seem that acknowledging the idea of relative truth in Christian discourse is lessening who God is but rather is an attempt to recognise that we are limited humans who do not live outside of time or culture.
Comment by Dean Whisnant
9.11 pm on 26 Apr 2006
dh,
I apologize if I was too general in my statement as to imply that you personally have never challenged your own beliefs, that was unfair of me.
You’re right. If we could just move past our definition of Orthodoxy and onto the Orthopraxis, because one without the other is useless.
Thus the honest effort to get past believing that we are perfectly “right thinkers” and moving on to doing what we believe are good and honest “right practices”. Accepting that some of both may need to be tweaked along the road as we learn more about whom we serve as we are serving and getting closer to him. Keeping the manner of the “right practices” appropriate to the world around us.
You bring up very good points to think about. What we know we are right about, we ought to be practicing it.
In your second comment “Could it also be said that this is projecting as well the idea that some truths be thrown away which God would not want us to throw away?”
I would say that we’ve done that throughout the centuries. We are humans and sometimes we throw things out intentionally or unintentionally. It doesn’t make it right that we have in the past, but it does do more justice for us to be more careful about how and what we define as foundational truths.
Remember, the church taught that the only way to heaven was through Christ. And a couple times in history, the church has sold tickets to heaven or out of purgatory for money.
I’ve gone out of line now and will sign off for the day.
Great conversation though, really gets one thinking.
Comment by dh
9.34 pm on 26 Apr 2006
I see whatyou are saying andyou make some wonderful points. I would say that Orthopraxis with regard to what I’m saying andhow the church operates doesn’t needto change. I will say the attitude needs to change but the theology in my opinion is fine. I perosnally feel that what Brian MacLaren and the like are prescribing is something that is removing truth rather than the opposite. I agree that we should remove things that are mentioned or defined in Scripture but my observation is that Brian and some others are taking something that shouldn’t be removed and stating “we don’t know”. In my opinion that is just as bad as pugatory or selling tickets to heaven for money.
I guesswhen I see the world around me culture especially I see problems and when I entertain the idea proposed to try to have the message conform to the culture it seems strange to me in light of “be in the world but not of it” or “we are a peculiar people”. I personally believe we are called to change the world by the Holy spirit rather than conform to culture by changing the message to culture. (I say this not in the absolute sense but focusing on the truths and values that should never change.)
Comment by Dean Whisnant
11.52 pm on 26 Apr 2006
dh,
It’s always dangerous ground we walk upon, while discussing beliefs. Fair enough in what you see in McLaren and others, but keep an eye on them, not tuning them out, see if the conversation doesn’t grow and mature and slide and mature… And speak what you think in kind words as you have, so that when they hear your voice, God’s truths might reach them and shape them, or teach them how to relate to others and yourself.
We are the vehicles through which the Spirit will change others. We definately should be different to the world, different, but understandable. Seeking to so touch others, by who we are, they are attracted to the Cross, not scaring them away through religiosity and intolerance. (not saying you are intolerant, please a general statement aplicable to myself as well.)
I thank you for conversing with me as it has helped me to see other views as well as to have an opportunity to express my views. You see, this emergent thing is all about a conversation. In this case it is two brothers learning to work together in understanding how we are brothers though we hold differing views.
Peace.
Comment by dh
2.51 pm on 27 Apr 2006
Dean, thanks for the wonderful kind words of encouragement. I hope in this discussion thatwe have both changed in how we view things on this subject. What is hard for me is when McLaren and others want such radical change that it pushes people like me away before the conversation even begins. Also, no care is given to the semantics of what is said by McLaren and others. (Jase is not among the “others” :) )
I have told people that sometimes the proposed solution to observed problems causes greater problems making the proposed solution not a solution at all. We Americans react to problems in such a way that the reaction to the problem is worse than the original problem observed.
I appreciate your advise to let the conversation mature but when people who are so-called Believers propose things we should move beyond like writer of Hebrews says it doesn’t give me any solice.
I will say that with people like you and Jase that I enjoy the discussions. I just hope we don’t get into some of McLaren mentioning problems with the modern that are not actually there. I personally see modern Christians changing like myself we just don’t feel it is as biblical to go asfar as McLaren and others say (that isn’t a judgement on their Faith, it is kind of the difference between Paul and Barnabas we know they had problems between them yet they were Believers)
Comments are now closed.