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.
March 27, 2008 at 1:49 am
Truth. I used to be much more certain about what that meant. I sometimes feel like the Pontius Pilot example I’ve heard used in a dozen or more sermons, when he said, “Truth, what is truth?” And all the time I was growing up, I thought it was such a strange comment that he made. Now I question so much that I feel like wishy-washy Pilot.
Anyway… I always wonder how we can be certain that the “facts” we learn from those we trust (whether pastors, parents or the most learned scholars) are indeed true when time often shows them to be false. As a Christian, I feel that all but the most basic doctrines change across cultural and time lines.
March 27, 2008 at 9:45 pm
You raise the question, “How can we be certain.”If we are in an environment that allows all the ugly questions to be asked, then we are in an environment that allows the truth to be discovered.
You can see that I assume there is truth to be found, and that truthfully seeking it allows us to find it (but we weigh everything we hear don’t we). Doctrines are statements of what we know to be true by the testimony of scripture. If we come to know something more than, or different than what we used to know regarding the culture and language of the scriptures, then doesn’t it stand to reason that some doctrines might change? Or, wouldn’t it be sad to think that we know all there is to know about God, and that He will not impact our understanding of him ever again until Jesus comes to fully reign? Will God not allow historical discovery that defines New Testament stories and information? Or will God not allow better scholarly examination of Old and New Testament languages and implications of those cultures that might provide expanded meaning?
If scripture is authoritative, and guiding the life of the church, then isn’t it going to continue to change some things? Is there any example of something living that does not change?
Interesting that over a wide community of believers there should be so much divergence. Are we claiming our points of divergence to be the truth, or rather a starting place for better understanding.Truth and faith are interestingly connected in the life of the believer.
March 28, 2008 at 2:16 am
In response, I would like to act in typical postmodern fashion. I will only ask questions.
In so doing, please know that I am genuinely interested in the answers. I find this dialog between two world views fascinating.
Why does an environment that allows for questions imply that any sort of truth can be discovered? How are you defining truth here? What do you mean by “ugly” questions? Whose criteria are we using to qualify them as such? How do we know when we’ve discovered “truth”?
How do we “truthfully” seek truth? Does this imply that we are able to separate ourselves from our presuppositions somehow? If so, how? When we weigh everything that we hear, what are we weighing it against? Our own experience? Some sort of absolute measuring tape?
Switching to doctrine specifically, do you believe that the church already agrees on “what we know to be true by the testimony of Scripture”? If you do believe that, which church holds this view? Where do denominations come from? If you don’t believe that, then how do we have to adjust our definition of “doctrine”? Do we define it as “what our particular community believes to be true according to the testimony of Scripture”? If that’s our definition, do we have an absolute authority at all? Does this imply that every denomination approaches the Scripture the same way in terms of interpretation? If not, then how can we even hope to determine what a doctrine is according to the first definition? If doctrine can change, how can it be said to be “what we KNOW to be TRUE”? Do things that are known to be true have the ability to change? If so, how do we know when they are or aren’t true? What if we hold to something that was once true but it isn’t anymore? Ultimately, can it be said that a “truth” that ceases to be true upon the discovery of more information was ever the truth to begin with? Does this mean that the Mormons may be on to something? What value does truth have if it is simply true until proven otherwise by scientific inquiry or historical contradiction? Isn’t this the definition of philosophy as opposed to doctrine?
When you ask,”Is there any example of something living that doesn’t change?”, isn’t that precisely what the Bible says is true of God Himself? If He is living, and He doesn’t change, shouldn’t the same apply to His words? Aren’t these (His words) merely the containers of meaning for His thoughts…which don’t change? Or, as the process theologians or Open theology has it, does God change His mind? If so, what confidence can we have in His plan and faithfulness?
As you can hopefully see, the issues that are at stake are pretty deep. Feel free to take one, ten, or all of the questions. It would make for interesting dialog!
March 28, 2008 at 6:16 am
Good think Jesus didn’t answer Pilate’s question. If he had, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. (Or would we…?)
April 2, 2008 at 1:17 am
Ummm…I guess I will throw out another possible interpretation for Jesus’ reticence. Perhaps he didn’t answer the question because we wouldn’t be able to deal with the answer…
April 2, 2008 at 1:35 am
Hi, Myrna! I think maybe I was a little brief on my last post. I wasn’t trying to communicate that I think there is not truth – rather that it’s a grand thing, not a narrow thing.
Here’s how I think about it: We live in a realm that is surrounded by a huge privacy fence. There are knotholes in the fence, and when we peek through the knotholes, we get a glimpse into another world. One guy looks through the fence and says, “That place is completely peopled with clowns – curly red hair, big shoes, and all.” Someone else says, “Nope… All I can see are girls dancing around in sparkly skirts, so that’s the kind of person that lives over there.” Another person is sure that the other realm isn’t populated by people at all, but by stately, marching horses that seem to know exactly where they’re going, and what they’re doing. What no on understands is that there is a huge parade going on in the other world. And each person can only see a little piece of the parade through their knothole. That’s like us with truth. It looks different from various cultures perspectives at various times in history. It’s not that we can’t see something for real. It’s that we don’t see the whole thing, and we can’t see it from every angle. So what someone else sees might be just as valid as what I see. However, there is still an over-arching truth. There are clowns. There are dancing girls. There are horses. It is a parade.
April 4, 2008 at 4:23 am
Ah but postmodernism does have a grand narrative to which all must submit. That grand narrative in which all are potentially united is that there is no grand narrative — that truth is narrative variable. It is the perfect grand narrative for multi-culturalism.
Ironically enough, this grand narrative is the same kind of one that the ancients practiced. Remember in Rome all the Gods (narratives) were allowed as long as they were willing to pinch incense to Caesar. Also remember that the Christians were executed because they insisted that Jesus is Lord. How different is that from confessing that Jesus is above all the competing narratives? Rome was postmodern and the Gospel triumphed over it.
In short, postmodernism is a con mans shell game. Those who have labeled it hyper-modernism are closer to the truth then those who see it as somehow the opposite of modernism.
April 18, 2008 at 6:51 pm
This is a good line of discussion. I tend to agree with “Soren”. The label “postmodern” doesn’t actually describe the ideas contained therein. It is virtually impossible to divorce ones self from all “grand narratives” just as it is impossible to separate from presupposition.
At the same time, “postmodernism” raises a series of questions that need to be addressed, predominantly as relates to the notion of epistemology (how we know). Just as “postmodernism” may be a con man’s shell game, so one could argue that modernism was a blind man’s crutch. In our effort to find certitude, we decided to practice a sort of pseudo-intellectualism that results in the illusion of certainty without actually offering much beyond false security. The problem with such crutches is that they don’t provide sight to the blind, only a fake leg to stand on.
April 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm
The word ‘truth’ gets used in many subjective ways. I think when Jesus said of himself, “I am the truth, . . . ,” we know that his hearers knew by faith and experience, that what he said was true. We might say, today, that faith and experience are postmodern ways of “knowing”. The modernist would include with these some element of being correct or logically provable, too. Then if you have read anything about non- western cultures meeting Jesus, they find that he is the overarching truth in their understanding of how daily life works, which are explained with traditional modern or postmodern terms. For example; that evil spirit that is the danger of being attacked by a wild animal, is now under the divine rule of Jesus; so fear is replaced with faith in him and a lot of celebrating.
I find the more I get to know about the postmodern realm of thinking, when it comes to Christians it is still a life of faith that is demonstrated, a common element of all ages. Other world views are maintained by people who have put their faith in the conceptions they have been exposed to. Christians can recognize that non-Christians can logically have the faith they do, because of their understanding of their experiences. So, the only thing that makes us different from anyone else, is that we believe God gave us a gift of knowledge and experience that has brought us to faith in Jesus Christ. Is it even possible to talk about truth without all these words: knowledge, experience, belief, and faith?
April 24, 2008 at 3:02 pm
correction: . . . how daily life works, which are not explained . . .
April 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The only words that are not needed to be used to describe truth are proof and logic. These are used, but do not “clinch the deal.” Many people saw, first hand, the proofs of the miracles of Jesus, but did not put faith in him. Many put faith in him who had not yet met him, or experienced his miraculous powers.
April 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I meant by ugly questions, the ones like: if God is just and good, then why did a toddler get molested, or a Tsunami wipe out a village, or the elderly come to the days where they just wait to die because of suffering. The ugly questions are the ones hardest to deal with, but when people are allowed to ask the ugly questions, sometimes people come to faith in the God whom they thought was an unfair bully. I called them ugly because these are questions we ask ourselves when circumstance prompts, but even we (believers) don’t like the challenge they represent; its a hard part for us.
April 25, 2008 at 8:43 pm
That is a good question Myrna. I wonder what Jesus Himself would say.
He was asked a similar question in Luke 13. As usual He answered a question with a question. Do bad things happen to people because they are worse than others? Obviously not. Enron hurt many people, and for the most part, the people who lost the most were the least responsible. Therefore the question is not “why do these things happen so often?” but “why don’t they happen more often?”
The fact is, we are all sinners who deserve Hell. Every breath that any one of us takes is only by God’s grace. To ask why something bad happened to someone else is missing the point. The point is God is gracious enough to give me another chance with every breath I breathe.
It is natural to question God, I am sure most people do it often, but it reveals that we are ignorant, not that He is not good. It is impossible for us as limited people to understand God, Who is limitless, just as it is impossible for something created to comprehend its Creator.
May 27, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I learned of a very interesting event. An accomplished young Christian women became addicted to prescription medications and found herself fighting a battle to become free of drug addictions. She had been making over $100,000.00 a year, but found herself penniless. She had, voluntarily, tried more than one rehab program, but continued to fall to the addiction. She entered a program with Teen Challenge (she is about 30 years old) where the primary focus of treatment was to have repeated to her how much Jesus loves her, over and over again, day after day. Leaving the program, she had a new understanding of the love of Christ for her, even though she grew up in a really cool, loving Christian family and church. She came to some deeper understanding of Love, one that healed her, and sent her in a new direction.
I think, that I observe, in the Christian community in general, that we realize very little of Christ’s love for us. I think I am correct in noting that a prominent Christian author, from Britain, says that the Church in America is fixated on sin and forgiveness. I think he is right. What would change if we could meditate on His love for us, above all other doctrines and issues? I think we focus on the Isaiah picture: falling on our faces before a Holy God, paralyzed because we know our uncleanness. Or maybe we picture other people falling on their faces. Instead, knowing that Christ has completely paid for our sin problem, we need to feed ourselves with the words of people who have understood His love for us, better than we/I have understood it.
So, as one form of remedy for this, I would like to recommend a book that I found. While looking for books by Rob Bell, I found this one, by James Stuart Bell, printed in the U. S. in 2005. The title is; From the Library of C. S. Lewis, Selections from Writers Who Influenced His Spiritual Journey. In this book, there are many writings about God’s Love. If you find yourself identifying with me in wanting to pursue a better understanding of God’s love, may we be, together, His church, “spiritually delighted” .
June 6, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Hey Denny, are you done posting? What’s up?