TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN IT USED TO BE

One of the big (if not biggest) debates happening in philosophical/religious circles is the nature of truth. There are all kinds of complex words one could throw in at this point . . . but that only caters to a select few. Suffice to say, the discussion of truth is paramount . . . especially if a church is serious about entering into culture (where people are currently "at") to offer a word of grace, forgiveness and hope (Paul called this "the ministry of reconciliation").

Let me use a baseball analogy here to illustrate how different people perceive truth. I did not come up with this, it's pretty common.

The first umpire says, "I call balls and I call strikes." Let's call this the naive objectivist viewpoint. This view is as arrogant as the next, though most in this camp would not admit this the case. The naive objectivist believes that truth is universal (for all times and places), transcending "particularities." For instance, for many years, sophisticated culture believed that the universe revolved around the earth (how convenient!) . . . now we know better for the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun.

The second umpire says, "It's not a ball until I call it a ball. It's not a strike until I say it's a strike." This is the arrogant subjectivist perspective. In this view, truth is always relative, contextual to my own understanding and/or experience. This understanding of epistemology (how we know what we know, or how we arrive at what we know) is suspicious of overarching stories (sometimes called metanarratives) which make absolute claims about reality. Why? Because for too long, these overarching stories have been used (e.g. science, religion) to silence minority voices, kill innocent people, inflict pain upon people who would not "convert" to a particular system.

The third umpire says, "I call it like I see it. If I think it's a strike, that's what I'll call." I like this view because it offers a third way. It rises above the first umpire because it admits that I make truth claims out of my own experience. I cannot NOT be me. It critiques the second umpire because it ultimately wants to make some kind of conviction about reality and life; some kind of moral structure to one's life.

One wise thinker is often quoted (at least by me) for his summary of this entire discussion. "I believe in absolute truth (also known in Christianity as God) but not in my ability to understand God absolutely."

If you think the previous is "bunk" at least this might provide you a framework for understanding how many in North America approach religion and values. How people arrive at "truth" means everything for how Christians do evangelism, church, gospel, faith, and community.

More on that to come.