Truth…or…um….

I find the nature of blogging so interesting. A particular post will generate many responses. Then, inexplicably, it just stops. It’s like a train. The post itself is like the locomotive. It pulls all of the comments along. Suddenly, that ONE LAST COMMENT is too much! The whole thing grinds to a halt. Fascinating. Perhaps I’ll write a stinking book. “Blogging: A Sociological Critique”. Could be a big hit.

Anyway, my last post got some basic conversation started about modernism and its apparent nemesis, postmodern relativism. One major aspect of the dialog had to do with truth and its determination. How do we know that something is true?

Bear in mind that, in order to answer such a question, we have to agree to some definitions. First, what does it mean to “know”? Second, what do we mean by “truth”? Third, what is the role of culture in both knowing and the determination of truth? Finally, for the purposes of this blog, how do our answers to these questions relate to faith?

I want to present a couple of scenarios. First, I’ll endeavor to explain the notions of knowledge and truth in a simplistic (perhaps overly so) modernistic model. Then, I will equally simplify to the point of absurdity the postmodernistic construct ( or, lack thereof!).

Within modernism, knowledge may be defined as the accumulation of provable, repeatable information through experience, testing, or study. Again, it is important to note that this is a debated topic. Nevertheless, most Modernists would be comfortable with this summary. When one is able to point to a reliable source or the scientific method, one can have certainty. This idea of certitude is known as “truth”. It is objective. It tends to be quantifiable. It can definitely be duplicated. It is able to be stated in the form of a proposition, a statement that accepts or denies a premise. For example, one can state that two times eight equals sixteen without debate. It simply is. For all people in all times in all places. Language is used to articulate knowledge and is inherently tied to universal truth, or “reality”.

Postmodernism defines knowledge from the perspective of something called”narrative”. This word, for the purpose of the discussion, can be summarized as the stories that explain a people. For the Postmodern, every cultural manifestation, whether at the Country level or within a family unit, primarily frames and discovers knowledge within the context of their own story. “Grand narratives”, such as a country’s particular political system, are critiqued. Smaller narratives, such as faith communities or a small town’s commitment to morality, are celebrated. At the end of the day, one’s community ultimately informs one’s knowledge set. One’s language can only be understood within the confines of that community. Even the usage of particular words may have radically different meanings. One’s truth will be a reflection of the values and ideals of this inherited narrative. Propositions may apply in limited contexts. In other words, it can be said that 8 x 2=16 only if you subscribe to a narrative that affirms the existence of whole numbers in the first place. When we reject that premise (after all, what physical evidence do we have of their existence?) then we can’t hold up the conclusion as infallible. Thus, the notion of propositional truth is itself called into question.

Hopefully, the readers of this post can understand some of the implications, especially in the area of faith. When we discuss the ideas of the Bible, natural revelation, ethics, and so on our understanding of knowledge and truth are paramount. Take the idea of inspired Biblical truth. A modernist Christian will make the case that intelligent design is provable through science. It is only logical that, once we accept the science, the God who made us would want to introduce Himself. The Bible is simply the story of this introduction and relationship. It contains a lot of propositional truth that will come to bear upon your life whether you like it or not. Disbelieving truth doesn’t eradicate its truthfulness.

A postmodernist Christian will discuss this from a different vantage point. First, I can’t come to a knowledge of a Creator through evidence. If that were, by some strange possibility, possible, there is certainly no justifiable reason to assume that the Christian God is the intelligent designer. In fact, the notion of any entity overseeing the affairs of men isn’t implied at all by such a step. In order to embrace God, Christ, or the Bible, a leap of faith is necessary (here is the tip of the hat to Kierkegaard). It will never come by reason. It will only come by the whole hearted jump to a particular narrative tradition. My affirmation of a particular narrative (in my case, Christianity) is generally a result of my previous association with the narrative in question and my own particular views of its efficacy (usefulness). Once I embrace the narrative, I embrace its value sets and truth symbols. I may believe and completely affirm its tenets and claims to exclusivity. So, in effect, when I say that the Bible is completely true, I completely mean it. For me, this is the case. However, I am not able to say that it is true for everybody…only that it should be. Until I am a trained initiate, I can’t even understand the seeming code of the narrative I am becoming a part of.

Here is another silly example that may help clarify. I might make the statement: It is completely true that if I exceed 80 MPH on an interstate highway, and I pass a State police officer while doing so, I will likely be pulled over. This would be affirmed in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois. However, if I was driving in Montana between 1995 and 1998 my “truth” wouldn’t apply. Most State police officers used a 100 MPH high end to determine that someone was driving in a manner that wasn’t “reasonable and proper”…their defined speed limit in the State. In this case, truth is determined by narrative. Such statements exist all around us and are passed off as “true”.

Test the definitions by applying them to propositional statements. Tell me what you think.

Emerging Conflict

I want to make a statement about the world that we live in. I am thrilled to live here and now. As a sometimes student of history, I can imagine life in a lot of other eras in a lot of other places. Movies help with the mind pictures. No time or place appeals to me like the 21st century in the good old USA. I could elaborate for quite some time on my reasons for thinking thus. Above all, I find the interconnectivity of our global culture fascinating. The sharing of ideas…the expansion of human rights…the opportunity to engage other perspectives in meaningful conversation all get my blood pumping. Sadly, my doctor tell me that this leads to high blood pressure…I find it strange that so many are afraid of new cultural perspectives. They fear the change that inevitably comes with globalization. Of course, they find my view of things equally confusing. They see my willingness to consider other viewpoints as a challenge to the loyalty I have to my own nation or heritage. I am not saying this from a negative standpoint. It is the obvious result of transition. Some are on one side of a cultural bridge. Some are on the other. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, moving slowly out of fear that we may fall into the chasm of uncertainty that yawns below us.

The Church is highly affected by these opposing perspectives. On one side of the chasm stands the stalwart bastion of traditional Evangelicalism, with its historical connections to Fundamentalism. Its foundations are made of solid stone…the “objective truth” mined from the quarries of Scripture through literal, grammatical, historical exegesis. Its presence is reminiscent of the castles of old; it seems to protect its adherents while offering certainty and stability. When one encounters its walls, it radiates permanence. But a closer inspection may reveal crumbling and a subtle whiff of decay.

On the other side, the bridge leads to a flowing and meandering river. Its very fluidity forces those wading in its currents to abandon permanence. This is the Emerging church. Ideas and conversations fluctuate, governed only by the “banks” known as “language games”. The concept of stability is washed away in the ever-changing experience of the individual’s moment. The concept of “objective truth” stifles the rush of water. Why dam up the energy and creativity of God’s people? It is par for the course that those who bathe in this brook’s depths are often confronted by the raw sewage that finds its way into the eddy. After all, how can one keep the river “pure” when “purity” is merely the construct of the individual who desires to define it?

Clearly, something has changed in the basic assumptions of Christians these days. The Emerging Church hopes to re-articulate orthodox theology in terms that are culturally relevant to those who are already on the far side of the bridge. Terms like postmodern, relativistic, pluralistic, multicultural, post-liberal and post-Christian are more important than language that represents a typical Evangelical Sunday morning sermon. If we start with the idea that our cultural mentality is changing, then it is sensible to change our focus as Christians.

Prior to delving in to the particulars of the Emerging church and its detractors, do we believe that a general cultural shift of the magnitude described above is taking place, especially among our younger generations? If not, what caused this tension in the first place? Many in the Evangelical camp are content to write off the Emerging church as a childish response to fundamentalist conservatism. Are there deeper issues at stake? Will the church remain relevant and evangelistic if the culture changes around it but it remains rigid?

Reanimation

Well… a little time has passed since my last post. Not to mention that the participation in dialog sort of trailed off. I am back from my absence with a hunger for discussion! Please respond to this post with ideas for topics that you’d like to see brought to the “table”. FEED MEEEEEEE!!!!!

The Sickness

So,  my wife and I have a home in the middle of downtown Detroit. It’s kind of funny. Detroit has a pretty serious stigma.  Some of what gets said is earned and some isn’t.  I mean, you don’t get to be the murder capital of the U.S. AGAIN without some serious effort.  On the other hand, the city is doing some amazing things to move into the 21st century.  If you haven’t been downtown lately you should definitely check it out.  The new Riverfront is beautiful.  The real estate development is highly encouraging.  The cross cultural participation is great to see.  And, above all, as long as you stay where things are happening, it is really quite safe (contrary to urban legend, the weak are NOT killed and eaten in Detroit anymore!).

The bad news is that there is one ever-present pall that shrouds the city and its suburbs.  It is the specter of racism.  The tension is sometimes quite palpable when you move throughout various regions of the Metro area.  Segregation is a way of life.  No single group retains the guilt. It is seriously spread around.  One of the saddest commentaries on the mental oblivion that saturates the Church is its participation in this corrupt culture.  Christians throw around the racially charged barbs and perpetuate the separation as much or more than everyone else.  The churches themselves rarely have multi-ethnic congregations.  The notion of social outreach is impeded because of cross cultural fear.  Grudges that were formed decades ago are protected and nursed like some kind of bequeathal for future generations.  And nobody seems to notice.  Nobody seems to care.  Except Jesus.

What do we mean when we speak of this thing called the “gospel”?  It’s kind of sickeningly amusing that we are so quick to argue over the meaning of the word “justification” (the NPP) while entirely ignoring the heart of the matter.   “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” These are the words of Galatians 3:28.  I submit that they are not hard to understand.  I fail to see ambiguity or cultural relativism. Am I missing something? 

The problem is pretty apparent.  It is the reason that the gospel is necessary to begin with.  There is a sickness.  We, like the people depicted in “I am Legend”, are infected with a fast acting virus.  It’s called sin.  It ravages our minds.  It causes us to look to ourselves before looking to the needs of others.  It convinces us that we can stand alone in the world… our own saviors, our own providers.  Above all, it amplifies our fears.  It traps us in despair and self-loathing.  At the same time, it cannot be blamed for our transgressions; our stupidity.  We bear our own responsibility.  We actually CHOOSE to wallow in it like pigs in slop.  We roll around, luxuriating in its stink. When we smell like a trash heap, we CHOOSE to parade around in puffed up arrogance. All the while, our grasp upon reality slips.  Our vision gets darker and darker.  We descend into blindness.  We are all of us guilty.   Nobody has immunity… there is no Robert Neville, no colony of survivors. African, Native American, Caucasian, Asian; welcome to our common lot. Welcome to humanity.

Enter the cure.  Enter the light in the darkness. When you take the leap of faith it’s like a miracle surgery that restores your completely devastated sight.  The bandages come off and YOU CAN SEE!!!  At least that’s the rumor. That’s what the ad’s say. Sadly, real life doesn’t look anything like the commercials. “I’m not a Christian, but I play one on TV”. The surgery is over. The bandages are off. But like scared little kids we squeeze our eyes shut ever tighter. Why don’t we take refuge from our fears?  Why don’t we realize that Christ’s mission wasn’t to give us Heaven or eternal life?  Those things happen, surely.  But they are byproducts.  We have a calling.  We are supposed to live out the Kingdom here, now.   How is it possible that we miss the fact that the gospel transcends culture? How do we ignore the explosive truth that Christ’s redemption literally destroys the walls that divide us?  How can we desire a segmented half-life instead of the feast of joy that comes with true cross cultural community?  Above all, why do we still reek of the trash heap?  

I am including myself in these indictments.  I am a disgusting hypocrite.  But, I want out.  I want to actually live this thing we call salvation.  Racism is a clear rallying point.  There are myriad like issues within the church.  We need to take real, decisive steps.  We need to live in the cleansing waterfall that is Christ’s righteousness.  The stink and filth and perversion must give way to purity.  This isn’t a call to legalism. It’s a call to reconciliation.  Remember this… we are one people under sin.  We can be one people under righteousness, so help us God. All we have to do is open our eyes… 

On Being Human

It was around nine months ago. I sat on the balcony of a penthouse in Mazatlán, Mexico overlooking the glory of the Pacific ocean. The warm night breeze caressed everyone who had the good sense to be outside. It was picture perfect. The situation was only improved by the conversation that I was having with my good friend, Rob Boden. Our dialog ranged all over the spectrum of ideas. One theme kept recurring… the distinction between our understanding/quantifying of the physical universe and our experience while we unwittingly (or otherwise…) interact with the metaphysical universe. So, this post is a hat tip to that idyllic scenario. Not to mention that our post on world view keeps massaging the same idea.

Let me begin by trying to define the terms. When I use the word “physical”, I mean the realm of our existence that pertains to our five senses. It may be quantified and analyzed. The scientific method can be used to research it. Some argue that it is comprised of objective laws, though this is debatable. En la otra mano, the word “metaphysical” has several meanings. For the purpose of this post, I intend to use it to describe those things within our experience that cannot be described in terms of the physical. Some examples are faith in the unseen, psychic phenomena and other extra sensory issues. I will primarily focus on the complex aspects that makes our species unusual. More precisely, I want to focus on what it means to be human.

We can begin by asking several questions. Does a reality outside of the scope of our sensory experience exist? If so, is it a significant factor in human existence? If not, where do the myriad stories and countless commitments to religion originate within the scope of human thought? Of course, all of what is written here is theoretical. Bear in mind that I am not educated. I am simply an observer of behavior, a dweller in the land of ideas, and a partner in the human experiment. So please take everything I say with a serious grain of salt. I appreciate all analysis and critique.

My experience and limited research leads me to several presuppositional conclusions. First, I believe that all human beings are attached by strands of common existence. In other words, when we elect to call ourselves “human beings” we mean to say that, regardless of race or culture, something immaterial makes us inherently the same. This is is stark contrast to our other title, homo sapiens. One name describes our essence, the other our physicality.

One of the things that unite human beings is a tension between the physical and the metaphysical. We all live and breathe within the sphere of the physical universe. Much like the animals we require food, shelter, and clothing. However, something sets us apart. There is an aesthetic (beauty sense) aspect to our existence. Regardless of our cultural background, we seek to improve our world. The nature of those improvements are as different as the cultural contexts that exist among humankind. Nevertheless, we have an innate sense of betterment and beauty. We have a desire to order our lives. Whereas animals appear content to live by instinct alone, we overcome and act in opposition to instinct every day. Any time we act in a manner that isn’t rooted in our own preservation sense, we demonstrate this. I submit that this unique two fold existence is what we mean by “human being” as opposed to “homo sapiens”. I further suggest that this, with all of its implications, is what is meant when the Bible declares that we are made in the “image of God”. More on that another time. These concepts cannot be borne out by science or quantified by sensory means. You can’t put faith or honor or self sacrifice in a test tube. It isn’t possible to place a video camera into the minds of those who spend their time feeding the poor or comforting the sick without reference to their personal safety or needs. This immaterial aspect of humanity has to be evaluated as something wholly other than the physical frame work within which we build our societies.

One of the significant aspects of Enlightenment ontology (beliefs about the nature of existence) and epistemology (beliefs about how we know things) is that the development of scientific method and practice flew in the face of the Medieval spiritual environment. Until the advent of 16th century humanism (a rediscovery of the creative and positive aspects of mankind), the Catholic church dominated all discussions pertaining to art, science, politics, economics, et cetera. So, everything was controlled…the Church’s spin doctors ensured that nothing innovative got hold in the populace. Those who tried to innovate (see Galileo or Copernicus for examples) were promptly persecuted.

While it was necessary to challenge the Medieval intellectual construct, Enlightenment thinkers often rebelled completely against the ideas of faith or spirituality. Those dedicated to science tended to adopt a high skepticism which became agnosticism leading to atheism. These trends gathered momentum from generation to generation. In the end, they result in the perspectives embodied in the writings of Dawkins and his crew. The idea of spirituality being a crutch that the weak minded plebes rely upon to strengthen their resolve to live pitiable little lives caught on nicely.

The sad part is that such an ideology results in a dehumanizing process. Those who hold it fail to see that it is precisely the immaterial part of humankind that makes us unique. While we don’t have to belittle science in terms of its explanation of the physical universe, to deny our spiritual selves is to deny our better half. We are not merely complicated biological systems with so many chemical processes that stimulate the illusion of independent thought. We are, in fact, the link that provides a bridge between two dimensions. In humanity, nature finds its connection to the divine. We, like Christ, exist as the incarnation of God’s image. Of course, as a Christian I recognize the intrinsic differences between us and Him. At the same time, we cannot be afraid to recognize an amazing connection to another reality that transcends, or more precisely, that defines all which we experience here.

At the end of the day we need to recognize that science contributes a lot to our understanding of the universe. It is imperative that we don’t confuse this truism with the notion that science possesses ALL or, for that matter, even MOST of the understanding within the universe. The more we learn about our surroundings, the more we see resonance with what we always knew about our selves. There is a lot more under the surface than meets the eye. The Newtonian model of the Universe (highly mechanistic and predictable due to natural processes) is being replaced by a model that shows just how little we comprehend. Science serves a purpose that is necessary. But, the worship of science is just one more religion that is ultimately moored in the metaphysical. It simply fails to answer the larger questions and will continue to do so if it ignores the two fold nature of our existence.

World View And Honest Dialog

There are changes afoot within the environment in 21st century America and the rest of the Western world. I’m not referring to the physical climate and its changes (although we will touch on that, I am sure). I am talking about that all-pervasive concept known as “world view”. Basically, everybody who ever shared a stake in the human community has an infrastructure that informs their thoughts. In fact, these “idealogical I-beams” (to belabor the metaphor) are no less important than the skeletons that support the weight of a sky scraper. Essentially, they are formed from our earliest days by a combination of our hard-wired personalities and the things that our culture tells us are normative. The way we see the world, its people, its sociological interactions, its religions and so on doesn’t just happen. Our “life mixture” colors literally every viewpoint that we have. A fancy word for this concept is “presupposition”. We start with premises that are usually passed on to us from our chosen cultural leaders (parents, teachers, politicians, cultural icons, etc.). We believe the claims made because of our implicit trust in these individuals. No scientific method is applied to quantify the reality of the claims they make. Point of fact is that we will expend an immense amount of emotional energy defending a position that we really don’t know why we hold. We “presuppose” these things to be the truth without any outside, objective criteria supporting them.

For example, here in America a lot of assumptions are made by many of us who grew up within the traditional American cultural paradigm. A case in point is that we assume that we have certain inalienable rights. It is said that my rights end where your nose begins. If a foreign power decided to attack our country, it is highly likely that a citizen army the likes of which has never been seen would emerge to take the fight to the enemy. Anything to protect our all-important personal rights. This particular aspect of our cultural identity leads to numerous implications. The most significant issues probably pertain to our country’s foreign policy. Our tendency to project the American version of representative democracy upon other cultural contexts may stem from the American presupposition that every human being feels the same way about how personal rights should look. It is possible that we ignore the idea that other cultural milieu may produce other perspectives toward “inalienable rights”. Within our own cultural context, our presuppositions allow us to thrive. As a direct result of growing up here, having my thoughts formed here, and having received the advantages of living here I am entirely convinced that our country offers the best opportunities for a fruitful life. France may disagree. Germany DEFINITELY does. Iraq…the jury is out…

The bottom line is that every decision we make, every idea we accept or reject, everything we hold as normative and dear are directly informed by our presuppositions. Nobody can escape this. Nobody can stand in the position of true objectivity. Nobody can separate their analytical process from the very fabric that makes them who they are. We are all indelibly stamped by our particular version of the world. This “law” influences our thoughts and commitments politically, religiously, economically, sociologically, and so forth. It determines our perspective of family. It creates our position and dedication to work ethic. It makes us who we are.

If the above is viewed as accurate, one must take presupposition very seriously when attempting to discuss any idea. It becomes imperative that we try our best to identify as many of the variables that will color our perspectives as possible. This is harder than it sounds. The value of going through this process is huge. It allows us to consider alternatives that we haven’t looked at before without emotional backlash or dogmatism.

Setting the Stage

So, it falls to me to fire the opening salvo. It seems that the world is changing before our very eyes. Most philosophers and members of the academy agree that the Western world (which may be defined for the purposes of this conversation as that which is encompassed by Bertrand Russel’s “History of Western Philosophy” ) is in some stage of paradigm shift. It is probably appropriate to begin dialog by trying to grapple a bit with the whole notion of Postmodernity. A mere trifle intellectually. Of course, it is important to set a few ground rules first.

It is imperative that participants in this discussion try, at least to some extent, to keep their thoughts on point and rooted in some semblance of reality. Naturally, your reality may differ from mine…. Nevertheless, let’s try to keep things on an even footing.

Additionally, it is quite important to keep things “family friendly”. There are other spots for those who are drawn to the obscene to participate on the net. Have at it. But don’t leave it here.

Finally, try to keep the ad hominem stuff to a minimum. I appreciate sarcasm and intellectual dogfighting. But let’s remember that ideas are like balloons floating through the air. It’s our job to try to shoot the idea down…not its proponent. If the idea stays afloat, it must be given respect. Quid erat demonstrandum, until proven otherwise. Saying somebody has a big nose, therefore they can’t be trusted may be viewed as a suspect line of reasoning. This also pertains to differing presuppositional bases. Not to mention, baldness. Don’t make fun of bald people. They have feelings too.

And So It Begins

After years of friendship, we have finally decided to join forces and create an online conversation. So grab your favorite beverage and join us as we talk about all sorts of things (and trust me, our minds gravitate to all kinds of various things).