Jesus amazingly showed little regard for the belief systems he encountered. He neither felt the need to correct every little “error” nor did he spend time detailing the way to “truth.” He simply said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.”
Now, one of the defenses of our current situation regarding truth is that we do not physically walk with Jesus. Evidently, not having the physical body of Jesus around changes the scenario so dramatically that, in order to follow, we must have everything right in our intellectual understanding of Jesus.
And of course this extends beyond what we believe about our Lord and goes into the specific actions of everyday and not-so-everyday life. If you break certain rules, it will be difficult if not impossible for some to believe you truly follow Jesus.
Whenever you challenge the idol of truth, accusations about how you are “relative” or “postmodern” or “just trying to justify your life” abound. Killing a sacred cow is the most difficult thing one can endeavor to do. But I suggest, any way, that many in the Church today have turned intellectual truth into an idol. Systematic theology, expository preaching, doctrinal dogma… these things have become central to the lives of many Christians.
Is that a problem? I say unequivocally, yes. The idea that we can ascribe to certain theological statements and that those ascriptions are the most important factor in our spiritual development is the main reason the church is in such a sad state today. The very people who worship at the temple of the intellect and present themselves as those truly concerned for the state of the Church are at best the symptoms, and at worst, the cause, of a church in shambles.
Just in my lifetime, I’ve seen drastic changes in the attitudes of the common man towards religion. And by far, the biggest criticism is that Christian belief can’t be worth much if the Church seen is what those beliefs produce. While the war is being waged through apologetics, Christians are not even in the right conversation. Why, people want to know, should they put their faith in a system that produces very little of value today? Even if the intellectuals are spouting perfect doctrine (which everyone at least gives a tentative agreement that no doctrinal system is perfect), the results of those beliefs simply are not compelling enough to inspire belief for most people.
And for those of you who think I rail only against the established church, I say the emerging church fares little better. A postmodern concept of truth has replaced a modern concept of truth, but we’re still worshipping at the temple of the intellect. Why is it that the practical ideas many or most emerging churches put forth receive little attention compared to when Brian McLaren makes a statement or two about homosexuality? Why is it if we talk about differing theories of the atonement, there’s an uproar, but when churches seriously take to heart their calling to be missional, no one notices? And why don’t we shift the conversation that way?
Possibly because we’re too busy fighting for our concepts of truth. I’m guilty as well. Esteeming intellect above all else has been so ingrained within me that I find myself feeling satisfied just knowing that it’s not all about the intellect. Without putting the principles into practice, I already feel like a better Christ-follower… without doing any actual following.
I admit, I find resistance deep within when I don’t speak up about things I disagree with. Relating to others who you disagree with about seemingly major doctrinal issues is challenging to say the least. But until we can set aside our differences of doctrine and intellectual approach, we will find few churches producing followers of Jesus. Unless by follower you mean someone who reads a lot and learns to say what they believe in just the right formula. We have plenty of those followers. I’ve been one of them, and I confess I still struggle with it, albeit in different ways than I did before. I’m not content with following after truth. I want to follow Truth; the One who said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
added: if you liked this post, listen to my podcast, “War on the Sermon”
Also, I just did another podcast regarding this post in particular:
http://www.alanhartung.com/podcasts/a-different-perspective-15.mp3
And one more addition… Emergent No Critique Lacking – If you happened to come here from the Emergent No blog, I published a rather lengthy post to explain some things and point out the misguided critique which brought you here.
Yes, it’s a difficult struggle. Even Jesus gave in to the temptation to correct differing belief systems in Matthew 22:23-23:36. So don’t feel so bad.
Call Me Ishmael
January 31st, 2006
Heh. Perhaps I should add the disclaimer: when confronting persons who idolized truth, Jesus had no problem correcting them mostly with abstractions showing their lack of action.
Alan
January 31st, 2006
Alan,
You expressed this very well.
As usual, I agree with you completely.
I especially like your admonition to the emerging church to not get derailed in doctrinal debates and lose our focus on encouraging one another in learning to live missionally.
grace
January 31st, 2006
Yes! You well put into words what I’ve been struggling with.
When Jesus walked Judea, Samaria and the Galilee, one of the big arguments was about WHERE to worship. To the woman at the well who asked this question of where, Jesus said: “But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.â€
I know most of your readers are familiar with these verses. But how many have considered that Jesus blew away temple worship in two sentences. Can’t we say that Bible worship, or truth worship as you so saliently put it, is merely a rebuilding of that same idol? In other words, we worship ourselves when we build something and claim that God lives therein. The canon is a man-made temple—an idol.
bill
January 31st, 2006
What a load of blind, sin filled garbage. Jesus used truth to CONFRONT man’s twisting of it…
Man did not idolize truth or else he would see how sinful he was (which is something you seem to be missing also)…
Satan really had become creativve in how he leads sinful man into deeper sin. Unbelievable
Renee
February 17th, 2006
Did I understand you to use the word ‘unequivocally’?
Both feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Phil Rich
February 17th, 2006
“…I write so that you my know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15
“…you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.”
1 Tim 4:6
“…as our beloved Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.” 2 Peter 3:16
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” 2 Tim 4:3-4
“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayer.” Acts 2:42
“Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.” Romans 15:14
“Now I urge you brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. Romans 15:17
“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome word, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing…” 1 Tim 6:3-4
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15
(There are too many other verses similar to print here)
Belinda
February 17th, 2006
In case you’re interested, I see today that this post is referenced at A Slice of Laodicea, which seems to be a site dedicated to maintaining the status quo in the church. Thus, the comments are not very complimentary. But then, I’d actually consider that a compliment, if I were you.
Dwayne
February 17th, 2006
I love those who denigrate the Scriptures while citing them.
If Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, and I love the Truth, then I am “idolizing” Jesus.
Of course you would know nothing about Him had you not rtead it in the Bible first.
As for His giving into temptation;
Hebrews 4:
14Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
I also give you this Jesus’ own words no less:
Matthew 5:
17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
I suggest you take both if these passages to heart.
As for Slice of Laodicea, which I happen to contribute to; we do not stand for the status quo, as it is the staus quo which gave birth to the mutant spawn you all so capably represent.
Chris P.
February 17th, 2006
How about the idol of relevance?
Skip
February 17th, 2006
I would have to kindly disagree. The most important thing about you is your concept of God and everything flows from that. Everything. This is why the study of theology and expository preaching is so crucial to Christians. How can you truly know God and know the “Way, Truth, and Light” without a proper knowledge of God? If you think God is love and feed on that, yet do not equally meditate upon His wrath or sovereignty, you do not have a full picture of God and thus have a small view of God, and by default, a large view of yourself. An incomplete picture of God means we do not truly know Him or know Him as we ought.
Brian
February 17th, 2006
Dwayne – I just saw that Slice linked over in my stats right before I read your comment. Thanks for the head’s up.
Although I was not specifically referencing Slice in this post, the attitudes of the posters and commenters at that site were in mind when I wrote this post.
From reading their comments, they have entirely missed the point. But I would not expect anything else, actually. The many references to John MacArthur on the entire site and in that post and comments already shows me most of these readers are close if not already worshipping the idol of truth.
I have first hand experience as I pastored a church in the city where the Master’s College resides. You’d think Jesus’ call was to be unfriendly to anyone who thought differently than you. By far the meanest people I have ever had relationship with. There were few exceptions, and those exceptions generally left the college or ran far, far away upon graduation. You can stand up for what you believe without being a jerk. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of people involved with the emerging church do not have a problem with someone standing up for what they believe. The problem is when you are a complete jerk about it. I wish MacArthur’s proponents would learn the difference.
And one last thing. When James wrote that “Love covers a multitude of sins,” I’ve developed a deeper appreciation for what that means. We sin when we value being right in nonessential matters more than we value a person, created in the image of God. Those from the Master’s who I developed friendships with… we were able to look past each other’s differences and were both changed in the process. Unfortunately, agreement was a prerequisite to friendship for many, so those who became my friends were few and far between.
Alan
February 17th, 2006
And one note, although the apple does not generally fall far from the tree, I only have experience with MacArthur’s proponents and not the man himself.
Many have pointed out his friendship with Jack Hayford, which the two are clearly from two opposite sides of the spectrum. If the charity Hayford and MacArthur model in their friendship with each other would be carried out by all of their proponents, the Church would be a much better place.
So, I open this up to any Slice reader. If you want to carry on a dialogue in private or on the blog in the spirit of nonnastiness, I’d love to converse with you. Just don’t start out hating me because of what you’ve read.
Alan
February 17th, 2006
Honestly, I don’t know if I have time to dialogue much on this, but I wanted to offer up an alternative view. It’s a little chain-of-thought; I hope it’s clear enough.
I think this post (and several of its responses) contains the same fault I’ve seen in debates with Doug Pagitt (sp?) and others of high visibility within the Emergent movement: definition. The “conversation” is held up as a model for what the movement is about. That’s fine; I like conversation. But unless everyone involved in that discussion understands the terms being used, there *is* no conversation. Only talking at each other, usually with great frustration that the others “don’t understand what I meant.”
Bill’s response is a case in point. He describes Jesus’s words to the woman at the well, calling us to “worship in spirit and truth.” Then he goes on in the next paragraph to deride the idea of “truth worship.” Until I understand what Bill means by “truth,” how he defines the term, I can’t get past the seeming contradiction in his argument. I don’t think I agree with him anyway, but I can’t really tell.
This process of defining terms and boundaries is an inherently intellectual one; to discard reason in favor of an accepting “dialogue” is to risk spiralling into a madness where nothing said means anything, and everyone’s “experience” becomes equally valid and equally good. I don’t think that can be supported Scripturally, without denying its inspiration and inerrancy. And doing that is taking one’s church or movement or conversation outside the bounds of biblical Christianity. At that point, we may still have reasonable discussion, but we do not have fellowship because we don’t share the same faith.
Yes, it is certainly possible to get sucked into an intellectual consideration of Christianity, using that to distance oneself from the call to go out and make disciples, to be salt and light. I’ve struggled with that personally. But such behavior is a misuse of theology, not its inevitable result. Christians are called to grow in Christ, to become more mature spiritually. Development of discernment is at the core of that process, and discernment must have a rational component.
Alan, you write “Relating to others who you disagree with about seemingly major doctrinal issues is challenging to say the least.” Agreed. But without knowing what you mean by “seemingly”, “major”, *and* “doctrinal,” I can’t say whether I understand you, let alone agree with you.
Absolutely, cultural or personal preferences can become false doctrinal points, whether it’s a deification of tolerance or a banning of any music with a backbeat. *True* unity in Christ must be rooted in the truth: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” I don’t mean uniformity; there can be differences in opinion and practice. But a superficial unity arrived at by sacrificing the core tenets of the faith (read: objective, propositional truths of God) is a flawed foundation; no lasting good can be built from it.
Cyrano
February 17th, 2006
Cyrano -
I was just working on another comment I’ll have to rework, as I’d love to give a quick response to part of what you’ve said. Hopefully, I can come back to it more later.
First, thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully respond. I agree with much of what you said, which may surprise those who have just treated this blog like entering someone else’s house and going to the first door on the left and urinating in the room because in their house the bathroom is the first door on the left. I’m all for dialogue, but a few of the persons commenting here exemplify the reason there is an emerging church through their nastiness. To them I say, you created us.
First off, I am not very Emergent in my emerging church-ness. I don’t agree that it’s all about a conversation, and I think the movement is pigeonholed to be about Emergent’s brand of rethinking theology when it is limited to a conversation. I think it’s actually more about the practical nature of restructuring the local church, which sometimes has little to do with doctrine (so a church, in my opinion, could be an emerging church without all of the docrtinal debates the Slice readers so oppose). That being said…
You wrote, “Development of discernment is at the core of that process, and discernment must have a rational component.” I agree. The problem I’m addressing is that many Christians treat the rational like it is the only component. This is idolatry of the intellect, idolatry of a human concept of propositional truth.
You also write, “But without knowing what you mean by “seeminglyâ€, “majorâ€, *and* “doctrinal,†I can’t say whether I understand you, let alone agree with you.”
I understand what you’re saying, but given the attention this post is now receiving, I’d prefer to wait to have that discussion as I will get jumped on for nearly anything I say by this crowd. Suffice it to say that I believe saved by faith does not mean saved by faith and perfect understanding of doctrinal truth. One can be misguided, to an extent, and still trust in Jesus. While I think we can teach what we believe to be true, we must be careful in the line we draw to say who is in or who is out.
One last thing, “But a superficial unity arrived at by sacrificing the core tenets of the faith (read: objective, propositional truths of God) is a flawed foundation; no lasting good can be built from it.”
Until you wrote about objective, propositional truths of God, I was with you. Without getting into a huge discussion on how we process information, no truth is objective once we process it. Or better said, truth is objective, but our understanding is always subjective. We can have a flawed foundation based on propositions based precicely on the misunderstandings you wrote about in your comment. Just because the words are there, does not mean we mean the same things by those words. It is interesting to me that you would recognize that, and then write about a foundation of objective, propisitional truths of God. I honestly don’t quite understand where you are coming from with this.
Alan
February 17th, 2006
Hey Brian,
Best be careful, you don’t what to make an “idol” out of your “concept of God.” It is amazing how the influence of meditation and Zen koans to shut off the reasoning process has become so effective within the EC. Can’t you people see why Satan would want that? You can’t test for truth if you have no regard for it. It’s no wonder you guys won’t address the issues in articles like “The Gospel According to God: Sin” http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/02/the_conversatio.html You can’t…
Cennan
February 17th, 2006
To all Slice visitors: Please note that if I had commented with your tone on Slice, I would not get my comment posted. In fact, I posted a comment with no harsh words, and it may not even get posted.
Also, I apologize for the delay in getting your comments posted. I recently upgraded to WordPress 2.0, and my moderation settings were changed and emails were not getting to me letting me know comments should be moderated.
Brian – I’m not saying that our concept of
God is irrelevant, not in the least. But how do you understand 1500 years of the common Christian not having access to the Bible because the printing press had not yet become available? I think a good portion of the church is idolizing their teaching of truth, rather than Truth which is Jesus Christ.
I find it quite ironic how Slice can post on the one hand about Paul teaching nothing but Christ crucified, than rail on me for not lining up with all of their other doctrines. I think it shows how spot on this post of mine actually is.
Skip -
I agree relevance can be made an idol. That may be a future post of mine.
Chris P. – May the standard by which you judge me be used upon you as well.
As far as to the other comments, I may or may not respond to you. I don’t feel like getting into an argument, and so I will want you to tone it down a notch so I know we can have a decent discussion befor engaging.
added: I also added this to the body of the post, I have more on the topic of the place of intellectual truth in my podcast, “War on the Sermon“
Alan
February 17th, 2006
Alan, thanks for the clarification. I’ll respect that further definition in some areas wouldn’t be productive right now and just give two thoughts.
First, your comments about your “emerging-ness” (isn’t English a flexible thing!) or lack thereof seem to underline my call for clarity in definition. I’d hate to get in a discussion where every time I say something about the Emergent movement, my “opponent” says, “That’s not what *I* mean by emergent.” I’ve tried climbing that rhetorical sand dune with other topics.
Having said that, I’m curious about what you meant by “restructuring the local church.” Some other time, then.
Second, regarding “objective, propositional truth” I think we may be saying similar things in different ways. I very deliberately added those modifiers to nail down a tighter boundary around what I meant by “truth.” Just looking through this post I’d bet I could find six or seven different meanings for the term, some of which may contradict others!
Briefly, I’d accept your assertion that we are unavoidably subjective in our handling of anything, including truth. We are limited and flawed humans, after all. However, the truth itself as given us by God is objective. Truth, period, no asterisk. One of our calls as Christians, part of the maturing process, is to strip more and more of our own subjectivity away, to see and live more and more in line with that pure, perfect standard given to us. Put another way, our inability to be completely objective does not validate or excuse our subjectivity. Such validation or excuse is what I mean by sacrificing the core tenets of the faith.
(BTW, I believe this has enormous ramifications within church practices (e.g., mysticism, etc.). But that’s another conversation.)
Cyrano
February 17th, 2006
Cyrano -
I think my definition of the emerging church helps in understanding why it is difficult to define the emerging church by theology. In my opinion, critics want to group the emerging church to attack it. The problem is, the emerging church does not organize the way denominations have in the past, by doctrine. So the assumption gets made that when someone identifies with the emerging church, they are agreeing with the doctrine of leading proponents of the emerging church. People are not being evasive when they say, “But I don’t believe that,” they’re just being honest about what they believe.
If you’re interested in what I think about church structure, the podcast “Radical Church Structure” covers a lot on my thought about church structure.
There’s a lot more to it than that, but that would be a good place to start a discussion as you would hear it (literally) straight from me.
On your second point, I do think we are saying similar things. My only observation would be that you do seem to see subjectivity as a bad thing. I don’t see subjectivity as bad, but rather just the situation we have. Truth is the object, we are the subjects. It doesn’t mean we can’t be accurate, it’s just the way things are. So when you write, “One of our calls as Christians, part of the maturing process, is to strip more and more of our own subjectivity away, to see and live more and more in line with that pure, perfect standard given to us,” I can agree with what I think the essence of what you are saying is, but not the actual words. I feel that stripping our subjectivity away is not the right idea, rather understanding our perspective and biases. We probably mean the same thing, I just think that subjectivity should not be viewed as a negative.
I have never said anything which means the truth changes based on my perspective or what I believe, nor will I. That’s crazy talk. Few people, even the dreaded postmoderns, actually believe that. The words get lost in translation. What they are really talking about is their understanding of reality and not reality itself. Though there are some philosophers who go there, and I think that as “smart” as they are, its crazy talk.
Alan
February 17th, 2006
I just did a podcast about this post. Please listen to it for an explanation of how I feel about this post and the greater issues at large.
http://www.alanhartung.com/podcasts/a-different-perspective-15.mp3
Alan
February 17th, 2006
Truth is what it is. All your efforts to change it, manipulate it, or ignore it will be fruitless. Are you one of those to whom God has sent a strong delusion that you should believe the lie of “relative” truth. Sounds awefully pious of you to want to follow Truth, but you are so eager to pass by the truth of the doctrines of the Word of God. It’s a package deal, you take it all on His terms or you get NOTHING. Search your own heart, don’t you know that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are reprobate?
Darrel Denham
February 17th, 2006
Alan–
My exposure to your thoughts is restricted to just this post. I’ll try to take a look at the other things you referenced, but we’ll see if I get back; tyranny of the urgent and all. But ’nuff said until then about
I wouldn’t say that I see subjectivity as bad, though I can see where it comes across that way. As you said, it is simply an unavoidable reality. In the realm of theology, though, I would consider complacency about subjectivity to be bad and considering it a desirable thing to be worse. With that in mind, I do tend to react strongly against any tendency to do that, or any establishing of a precedent that downplays the striving for the perfect, objective standard God has given.
I wouldn’t claim postmoderns or whomever state that truth itself changes based on perspective or belief (though I *have* been told “well, that’s your objective truth, not mine;” a truly mindboggling conversation-stopper, that).
I *have* seen an agnosticism regarding truth from many across the church landscape, however. Sometimes it’s specific and undermines core doctrines of Christianity. Other times, it’s more general, a replacing of truth’s standard with one of tolerance. We may be ranging far afield now, so I’ll stop with the comment that I would reject either result.
Cyrano
February 17th, 2006
Are you one of those to whom God has sent a strong delusion that you should believe the lie of “relative†truth.
Uh, no Darrel. That’s me, not Alan.
Zeke
February 17th, 2006
‘But until we can set aside our differences of doctrine and intellectual approach, we will find few churches producing followers of Jesus.’
Ermm…. which Jesus are you talking about here? And what followers?
‘not content with following after truth. I want to follow Truth; the One who said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.‒
how do you follow after Truth when truth is idolatry? How do you know you are not following error/Error? Do you know that by your feelings? Why should I trust your feelings?
Daniel Chew
February 18th, 2006
Ok, I saw your piece referenced on Slice, and then again on Chris P.s, and then I read the article itself and the comments, and I am very confused. What’s the big deal? Your piece is well written, and well thought out. I’ve long contended that Truth is not a concept, it is a Person. I wanted to say something on Slice, but my comments are not usually allowed there. I wanted to comment on Chris P., but couldn’t for personal reasons. The fact that your article sent shivers down someones spine…the fact that this piece merits a comment like “mutant spawn” these are the very things that turn people against Christians. Write on Brother, may the Lord bless you and keep you.
maryellen
February 18th, 2006
Cyrano made a good point about easily misunderstanding when we don’t know what definition another is using. However, when I looked back at what I wrote, I realized that the more likely reason for misunderstanding was my flippant tone. So I’ll try to avoid that.
Cyrano said this:
“Bill’s response is a case in point. He describes Jesus’s words to the woman at the well, calling us to “worship in spirit and truth.†Then he goes on in the next paragraph to deride the idea of “truth worship.â€â€
I wanted to contrast worship IN truth with worship OF truth. But I must have failed. That chapter of John is one of my favorites because I see Jesus offering a “truth†to a person most people would consider unworthy. He’s telling her: you don’t need a temple to worship God. This is brilliant.
Then Cyrano correctly notes that:
“Until I understand what Bill means by “truth,†how he defines the term, I can’t get past the seeming contradiction in his argument. I don’t think I agree with him anyway, but I can’t really tell.â€
Truth for me these days is not something I can distill into propositions. It is an unfinished quest for knowing God. Or at least, a quest to know His will. However, I don’t think that this is what Jesus meant when he said: “true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.â€
What I think Jesus meant by “truth,†in this case, is the reality of God. In the next verse he says: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.†So I think he is contrasting the “true†nature of God with the assumed nature of a god trapped in a temple and belonging to a nation. Because God is spirit, we must worship him that way. But I think there’s more here.
Even though this will make some people really angry, I’ll write it anyway because it’s important that we get beyond our temples to the place that Jesus wanted us to go.
I think that Jesus wanted to say that God is beyond temple and scripture and rules and sacrifices. He was saying, I think, that the way to knowing God is spiritual and has nothing to do with temples and human things. This “truth†sets us free from these things. It is like “living water†that springs forth from within. It is beyond scripture. But scripture is one of the ways that we come to understand. They are not an end in and of themselves. Scripture, like the Law and Temple before, is a means to an end. And that end is the “Truth†or reality of God.
I am not against scripture, I love it, but I see it as a means to understanding God (in as much as that’s possible) and not a god. Scripture is something that I must savor and digest. It is not something to argue over. I will never understand all there is to understand. How could I argue that I have it all figured out? We should not argue over the meaning of scripture. That sort of argument is fruitless. Scripture speaks to use individually. If I force others to accept my understanding then I rob them of “truth†rather than giving it to them. Belief is not something you agree to and put on a shelf and argue over. Belief (and faith) is a way of life. It determines who I am. That’s why James said that “faith without works is dead.†Because the things I do (works) come from my faith and what I believe. If my works, or fruit, are rotten then my the creeds I fight over mean nothing because they haven’t improved my walk.
bill
February 18th, 2006
All you Slice readers should note the differences in approaches we take. I have approved every first comment (after that I don’t need to approve them, they just get posted), in spite of the fact that several of you have attacked me personally, but on the Slice site my most recent comment was not posted. I did post it at the corresponding thread at Emergent What?, so you could see what would not get through. No personal attacks just engaging the commenters and responding to the personal attacks against me.
Some of you are commenting over there and addressing me or addressing my one comment that did get approved. I can’t respond there, and I’m not going to cut and paste ad nauseum to respond. If you want to dialogue on this issue, post it here, because I can’t respond there. But you are all free to post comments here as you like.
Alan
February 18th, 2006
Cyrano -
Thanks for taking the time to flesh out the conversation a little. I hope you do find the time to look at some of the other posts and such, as I think we could have profitable studies. I do believe Christians sharpen one another, even when the end result is not full agreement, and engaging another person who thoughtfully and respectfully works out their ideas is part of this sharpening. Thank you.
maryellen – thanks for the encouragement!
Daniel – I’m not going to answer your questions directly, but I’m going to speak to a problem I see in your questions. You, as others, seem to have assumed I place no value on the Scriptures whatsoever. My assertion is not that the Scriptures are not inspired by God, but that many in the Church are lifting up their interpretation to the same level of the Scriptures and that has made their intellectual truth an idol. They revere their teaching as though it were God, which is evidenced by the difficulty some are having with separating words about Jesus from Jesus himself.
It seems many who have read this post so closely align their ideas with the Scriptures, that a challenge to any part of their ideas means a challenge to the whole of Scripture. That alone should merit some consideration to the ideas I’ve brought to the table in this post.
Alan
February 18th, 2006
Hey Alan,
It’s not always a bad thing being mutant spawn. If that ‘s’ were in a different place, and we weren’t allowed to think for ourselves, we might all be … mutant pawns.
;]
Vince
February 18th, 2006
Alan:
I could be very harsh, but that probably won’t advance the ball with you so I’ll try (really) to temper my remarks.
Let me go to Peter for the basis of the question I want to ask. You make much of subjectivity, but in some respects, I think you’re drinking the PoMo Kool-Aid on this. It’s true to a point, but there is a way that the world really is. There is a way that Jesus was and the way you present it leads me to think that you have a low view of Christology.
Back to Peter. In his epistle, Peter notes his experience at the Transfiguration. That had to be an awesome experience. I would think that such an experience would be definitive. Yet, Peter notes that now we have the “more sure word of prophecy.” I don’t think there is any question but that there he is referring to scripture. “More sure”? Compared to what. Well, certainly his experience. but the key is more sure. More sure than his subjectivity.
I don’t understand why you guys don’t just read the whole story. You need to get rid of the cultural baggage.
JohnH
February 18th, 2006
“It’s true to a point, but there is a way that the world really is. There is a way that Jesus was and the way you present it leads me to think that you have a low view of Christology.”
John -
I agree with you that there is a way that the world really is, and I’ve said that often. You recognize that what I say is “true to a point,” but you take my words to places I never took them. I have always said, and plan to continue to say, that reality does not change based on what we believe.
I am not sure how recognizing that human beings have perspective gives me a low view of Christology. I feel those who subject Christ to their interpretations (not saying we can’t know Christ, I’m just saying nobody has it perfect) have a lower view of Christology than I. I have my interpretation, but I believe Christ goes way beyond what comprehension I have.
My view is that Jesus Christ has revealed himself through multiple means, primarily in Scripture, through the Holy Spirit, and through the Church.
On the Peter reference, I find it interesting that you choose a highly debateable passage to make your point. If you translate the Greek consistently with other areas of the NT, you come across with the experience of Peter’s witness making the prophecy more sure, or confirming it. I don’t think I buy that interpretation, but it is actually the better translation as far as the Greek text is concerned. You actually have to interpret the Greek in light of the context around it to see that Peter speaking of Scripture is probably a better translation. So while I would say your take is the better translation, it’s a perfect case of our subjectivity. We are the subjects approaching the object. The object does not change. The Scriptures are what they are and do not change based on my opinion. But when I go to them, I unavoidably must interpret what they say. I must seek to understand the words. That is subjectivity. It is not something to be glorified or disdained, it is simply the state of being human and seeking to gain knowledge.
So, you don’t move magically from subjectivity to objectivity when you move from interpreting an experience to interpreting a text. Now, for your example, I would say the Scriptures are more sure than the experience, but I don’t feel that any biblical writer would esteem someone who affirmed what they wrote and yet their lives showed nothing of the truth of those words. Another way to say it is that affirming the truth of the words of Scripture has no value unless you experience the truth of the Scripture.
“I don’t understand why you guys don’t just read the whole story. You need to get rid of the cultural baggage.”
I think we do read the whole story. And my personal opinion is that there is just as much cultural baggage in your approach to the Scriptures as mine, only you do not seem to be aware of it.
I appreciate you holding back and not throwing biting remarks my way. Because of your consideration, I took more time in responding to your post and more care in trying to understand what you are saying. Obviously we’re not ending up agreeing out of this, but it’s much better than name calling and being purposefully irritable to the other person, don’t you think?
Alan
February 18th, 2006
Alan:
Just a couple of quick comments (I’ve got to finish the stuff I’m going to impose on people at church today; they’re just going to have to sit there and take it, I guess -D) ).
If I accept your view that everything (well not everything, in particular, your blog post is apparently not intended to be taken subjectively given your reaction to the reaction to it) is subjective, then why are you so upset with the people at Slice for stating their subjective views as to what you said? It seems that you don’t like those views because you don’t think they’re “nice.” But, in the end, what I really think you are saying, at least in my subjective interpretation of it, is that the people at Slice are wrong. But, how can they be wrong if they are merely stating their subjective views? I mean, should I take as true your statement that all things are interpreted subjectively? Is that a true statement? Are you describing the way the world is?
I wish you would point out the cultural baggage I’m lugging around. I hope you don’t think it’s modernism, because I personally view that as a heresy, a heresy that gave birth to the “mutant spawn” of postmodernism. Really.
I take seriously (and by saying that I don’t mean you don’t) Paul’s statements in Colossians 2 about taking every thought captive and tearing down strongholds. What do you think he was talking about.
On a related subject, I know what motivates people at Slice and part of that comes from the words of Jesus who himself warned us to be on the lookout for wolves in sheep’s clothing who would come into our midst and lead the flock astray. It’s always been a problem, and in a culture that champions being nice over being true, I think it’s a problem that is unmatched in human history. At some point, there are people who claim to be in the church that we have to identify as enemies of the cross because they are. That’s never going to be nice, but they’re wolves who are leading people astray and people need to be warned.
Listened to the podcast (in fact, I’m going to use part of it, rather than give my subjective feelings in quoting it). I think you need to stop reading Doug Pagitt. What is so bad about teaching in the sense that people listen and learn from it? (and if that is Pagitt’s point, why does anyone bother to invite him to speak anywhere; why should we have to sit there and listen to him; or you for that matter). To be sure, some people just accept the teaching and are not good Bereans, but you come across as deriding teaching (and blaming the teacher and not the listener), at least teaching that may be inconsistent with what your feelings are (BTW, differing views of the atonement ARE important). But, isn’t teaching one of the gifts, along with others that deal with proclamation and, for lack of a better term, ones that will come across as intolerant (in terms of today’s culture)?
As for the passage in Peter, I don’t think it is all that debatable frankly. Remember, this is the same Peter who stood up in Acts 2 and told the people they could know Jesus for certain. Peter’s experience is there, but what Jesus left behind were his words and the words of the apostles that we can know for certain. I just don’t accept that everything in language is subjective. It’s not the way the world is.
Well that’s back to where I started so enough for now.
JohnH
February 19th, 2006
I wonder what Paul meant when he said we “see darkly.” Maybe it’s because he never had the benefit of reformed commentary.
In all seriousness, in admiring Paul’s apparent vigor in rooting out heresy, we should remember that this is the same Paul that surprised the Corinthians by the strength of his language in a letter to them:
By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away! (1 Cor 10:1)
It’s fascinating to me that people who experienced Paul in real life were surprised by the boldness of his letters. This is probably because Paul repeatedly hammered on his own ego and refused to even hold himself equal to others. The Paul who worked for his own meals. The Paul who referred to the “meekness and gentleness” of Christ. The Paul who said that of all sinners, he was the worst. The Paul who learned that when he was weak, then he was strong.
When we approach Scripture, we take all our weaknesses and limitations with us. We do what we don’t want to do and we don’t do what we know we should, and this doesn’t stop when we engage with the things of God. Some more patience and humility when weighing the Scriptures would be beneficial for all of us… isn’t that something we can all agree on?
Zeke
February 19th, 2006
Thanks Alan for your thoughts. While I think that certain formulations of truth have the potential of being viewed as more important than the actual understanding or living of them, you seem to pit living missionally against studying doctrine which to me is uncessary. I’ve posted a more thorough reponse at my site: http://www.smerickson.com/articles/2006/02/19/truth-and-life
Steve
February 19th, 2006
Steve -
I posted a comment at your blog (accidentally twice, I think, there’s an error showing up when someone tries to comment).
Briefly here, I did not mean to pit missionality versus doctrine, only pointing out an overemphasis on doctrine can lead to setting it up as an idol.
John -
We are clearly using “subjective” differently. You seem to equate “subjective” with “relative.” I am not a relativist. A perspectivist yes, but not a relativist. I most certainly do not believe the truth changes based on my beliefs.
So, in no way do I mean in the word subjective that you cannot be right or wrong. It is merely a description of the human condition as being interpretive. We are subjects, things we seek to understand are objects. The Bible is an object, so if you want to call it objective, that’s fine with me. I would just say simply that once you interpret it, you are being subjective. You cannot completely remove bias from your mind.
In fact, the proof of subjectivity comes in any teaching whatsoever (except the text of the Scriptures themselves). If we did not have to interpret what the Scriptures say, teaching would not be necessary. We have the objective truth in the Bible, right? It would seem to me that all teaching that is not the words of Scriptures should be considered false if you were to logically play out the belief that we can understand objectively.
As far as the verse in Colossians 2, I have no idea what verse matches your description. I don’t see anything about tearing down strongholds in the chapter. Maybe it’s the translation (I use NAS most of the time). Do you mean Colossians 2:8? “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
I can share my thoughts on that if that’s what you are referring to.
I understand the motivations you’ve described for the people from Slice. I just wish they placed as much value on the gentleness and correcting in love as they do their place in being the guardians of the church. Yes, correcting someone is loving them, but being nasty and rude is not a prerequisite to correction. And if the goal is to actually help someone understand their error (or warn others who may be predisposed to believing the error as well), the attitudes by some displayed here and frequently in the comments and post on slice are counterproductive to that goal. It seems that the average participant on Slice is more concerned with their being right than actually producing anything of value in other persons.
I’m glad the podcast is useful to you, even it if is to probably completely rebut what I say
I don’t think I’ve ever actually heard Doug speak. He’s a good guy, though. Met him a couple of times, briefly. My friends know him better than I do. I couldn’t get through his book, Re-Imagining Spiritual Formation. Just wasn’t my cup of tea, I guess.
Any way, I’m not directing this entirely at you, but I’m tired of getting lumped together with all things Emergent. I’ve never been a “Friend of Emergent” (their designation on the Emergent Village site), though several Emergent Village folks I consider to be friends. The emerging church is much bigger than Emergent, and I have my own body of work through articles and blog posts, which as you all can see from here give you plenty of room to critique me based on what I believe, if you take the time to read it and not just read into it.
Okay, end rant about Emergent and back to replying to John.
Language is entirely subjective, but I just have to refer to the above part of this comment. Words are symbols that stand for something. They mean something to us. Words are used to create shared meaning. That is called communication, i.e., creating shared meaning.
You could make the argument that the words are objects and thus objective. In and of themselves, absolutely. Of course, you interpreting those words… subjective.
And as far as cultural baggage… your views of language are just as much cultural baggage as mine. Do you think you understand language the way people did 2000 years ago? Maybe you do, but you would be wrong in that assumption. The methods of teaching you probably desire the most have not been around all that long in the scope of human history. That’s cultural baggage. Not all cultural baggage is bad, especially when you recognize it for what it is.
Alan
February 19th, 2006
The Roman Empire had a very well developed entertainment industry (drama, music, theater). God could have chosen those things to communicate the gospel, but he did not. He chose teaching and preaching. Foolish things to the world, but sufficient to show the power of the gospel (in addition to living it out).
I know that the EC is not a monolithic movement, but your podcast on the war on the sermon sounds a lot like what Pagitt says in Preaching Re-Imagined. Your focus on subjectivity leads sounds like any number of Emergent writings. Your sort of flippant reference to different views on the atonement sounds like them to. Just not sure where to make the division.
I don’t agree that things have changed all that much.
And the reference should have been 2 Corinthians 10:4. Sorry ’bout that.
JohnH
February 19th, 2006
Doug must have said some good stuff, then, in Preaching Re-Imagined
I “focus on subjectivity” only when talking about truth and understanding. Other than that, I don’t think about it all that much. It’s just the way things are, and I accept it as the human condition. Doesn’t bother me in the least.
I’m not sure what to say about the 2 Cor. 10 passage (I’ve missed the mark on chapter and verse before, so no worries… I very recently sent someone to James for love covering a multitude of sins… it was Peter).
I do believe the power of the Spirit is able to tear down strongholds and bring our thoughts under the authority of Christ.
Alan
February 19th, 2006
‘Daniel – I’m not going to answer your questions directly, but I’m going to speak to a problem I see in your questions. You, as others, seem to have assumed I place no value on the Scriptures whatsoever. My assertion is not that the Scriptures are not inspired by God, but that many in the Church are lifting up their interpretation to the same level of the Scriptures and that has made their intellectual truth an idol. They revere their teaching as though it were God, which is evidenced by the difficulty some are having with separating words about Jesus from Jesus himself.’
Prove it then. From Scripture. Otherwise this is just an empty assertion with as much validity as the statement ‘I can know absolutely that all truth is relative’.
Daniel Chew
February 20th, 2006
Daniel – The burden of proof is not on me, unless your contention is that only graven images can be idols. Do you feel that things other than what were described as idols in the Bible be idols? If you don’t, we can discuss that, but I don’t have to “Prove it then. From Scripture.”
It’s a rather simple proposition: intellectual truth can become an idol for some. Even some of the harshest critics have acknowledged that. I might as well say prove from Scripture back to you that my statement only has validity if I can prove it from Scripture.
Alan
February 21st, 2006
Alan:
You have originally written ‘Systematic theology, expository preaching, doctrinal dogma… these things have become central to the lives of many Christians’ and then you have equated this to be intellectual idolatary. Doesn’t this imply that those who commit what you term the ‘idolatary of truth’ refers to people who esteemed these things, regardless of their own personal godliness or lack thereof? Doesn’t this mean that a person who is living the life of Christ, as long as he esteems those things you seem to hate, is guilty of the so-called ‘idolatry of truth’?
Secondly, who can a person live a godly life, a ‘missional’ life, whatever that means, without knowing God? And how can a person know God except through the Word? And how can a person know the Word except by these things you so despised? Are you trying to make a case that orthopraxis is possible without orthodoxy? And if you are concerned about people with heads puffed up with knowledge and living lives contrary to Scripture, may I ask have you ever considered that they may not know truly know the Scriptures? Especially if they are the typical modernist American pastor like Rick Warren. I hope that you consider this, as the true Gospel is no friend to the modern-day modernist church either, and by going the post-modern direction, have you thrown out one unbiblical paradigm and replace it with another?
Daniel Chew
February 21st, 2006
“Doesn’t this imply that those who commit what you term the ‘idolatary of truth’ refers to people who esteemed these things, regardless of their own personal godliness or lack thereof? Doesn’t this mean that a person who is living the life of Christ, as long as he esteems those things you seem to hate, is guilty of the so-called ‘idolatry of truth’?”
I never said I hated them, I said they should not be central. Repeatedly I’ve emphasized this point in various ways. Do you just not believe me?
“Secondly, how can a person live a godly life, a ‘missional’ life, whatever that means, without knowing God?” (corrected who to how)
One can’t.
“And how can a person know God except through the Word?”
By the Spirit of God, for starters. The Scripture is a part of knowing God, but not the whole package.
“And how can a person know the Word except by these things you so despised?”
Are you saying systematic theology, expository preaching, and doctrinal dogma are the only ways to know the Scriptures? What about just reading them? I am not saying those means are not used to bring understanding to the Scriptures, to say it yet one more time in another way.
“And if you are concerned about people with heads puffed up with knowledge and living lives contrary to Scripture, may I ask have you ever considered that they may not truly know the Scriptures?” (deleted duplicate ‘know’ from the question)
I would say that it would be accurate they do “not truly know the Scriptures.”
“Have you thrown out one unbiblical paradigm and replace it with another?”
No, I have not. In fact I have not even put forth a paradigm for which to be unbiblical. I have merely stated that one’s intellectual concept can be an idol, and that this is a problem in the Church today.
Alan
February 21st, 2006
Hello Alan, just to ask you two more questions, if you don’t mind
Do you say that a person, who is living a godly life and bringing people to Christ BUT places the Word of God central in his life, has committed the ‘sin’ of ‘idolatry of the truth’?
Do you believe that the Spirit of God can and will ever work independently of, or can work before, the reading (ie. Bible study, QT etc.) or proclamation of God’s Word (ie. in sermons)?
Daniel Chew
February 28th, 2006
Question #1 – We’re all capable of sinning, no matter how godly the life. I don’t think it’s good for me to answer that question, as we may define centrally differently. I would say that someone who is placing their interpretation up as God has made it an idol. Fortunately the grace of God and the Holy Spirit are able to work with our misconceptions and shortcomings and be active in our lives.
Question #2 – Yes.
Alan
February 28th, 2006
Hang in there Alan. You know you are actually saying something of value when there is opposition.
Brian
March 12th, 2006
I just came across this post. I know it is probably a little late in the game, but I have a few observations I’d like to make. (Please give careful consideration.)
1. If Jesus is “the Truth”, then there is only one truth, not many different truths.
2. If Jesus is the truth and Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the the truth is the same and does NOT change.
3. Jesus said that at the end false teachers will come to him saying that they preached and ministered in his name, but Jesus will send them away.
4. We will be held accountable before God for even our careless word. So no matter what camp you find yourself in, you had better know that you are in line with God’s truth and his word.
At the risk of sounding cliche, I don’t think God grades on a curve, nor does he give make-up exams.
Pastor Jody
May 8th, 2006
Pastor Jody -
I’m honestly not sure who you’re directing you’re comment at, because each question or statement you make could be pointed at many different persons in this conversation. I’ll give it a shot, though.
1. Yes, I agree.
2. Yes, I agree.
3. Yes, I agree.
4. Yes, I agree.
Of course, on the fourth one, I don’t think being “in line with god’s truth and his word” means you’ve accepted someone’s theological system. Those systems can help us understand, but remember, we see though a glass darkly. God doesn’t expect perfection, but God does expect obedience. God grows our understanding and shows us areas of glaring fault when we are open, but God has given no one on this earth the ability to perfectly understand truth, Jesus Christ, in all of his glory.
Alan
May 9th, 2006
Brother, some of this is thoughfull, stimilating. Rom 12:1 & 2 says we need to “trasform our mind and our heart”. WE need to inernalize as well as intlelectualize the Scriptures. Jesus siad IF you lvoe me , YOU will keep my COMMANDMENTS. Pretty obvoius, no ? JUst a comment in the Body.
mike lamagna
September 1st, 2006
Yes, Mike I agree.
I just pray we don’t turn our intellectualizing into an idol as we amaze ourselves with our understanding of God’s Word.
Alan
September 1st, 2006
This is a comment from one of the common men. I read your statement, “Christians are not even in the right conversation” and I think this brings into focus the issue of the idolatry of “truth” very well. Thank you for writing this article! I am going to explore that phrase a lot.
Richard Harty
February 4th, 2007
Paul said to Timothy: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15). In the same chapter, he also said, “24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness.” Jude said, “… that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3). So we have a passionate commitment to the truth combined with gentleness. It’s too easy to miss the truth, or to miss the gentleness. We need both.
Alan, Regarding your comment, “Why is it if we talk about differing theories of the atonement, there’s an uproar”: if we get the atonement wrong, forget it. If we preach the wrong gospel, we’re anathema. When you say “theories,” if you’re talking about fine points, fine–let’s not worry so much. But if by “theories”, you mean whether Jesus took God’s wrath or not, then that’s foundational, something we *must* be passionate about and divide over. But again, people don’t need to resort to name-calling.
John Warren
June 5th, 2009