Common to the emerging church is dealing with the two terms “objective” and “subjective.” Sometimes it is mere semantics that separate us from critics, at other times there are very real and pertinent differences.
Lately, I’ve had a few online engagements (and a few in person) with the latter kind, as well as one or two of the former. So I’d like to flesh out objectivity and subjectivity, and hope to at least bring clarification to what I (and a lot of others, though no one can speak for the entire emerging church movement) mean when I use these words.
For a general definition of objective, lets just say the state of not being influenced by personal feelings or opinion in representing facts. In casual conversation, a person who is an innocent bystander to an argument could be called in and would be considered “objective.”
I contend that what we really mean by “objective” is more akin to “less biased” in its usage. Recently, for example, when I’ve taken the conversation to the logical conclusion of being objective (unbiased and unblemished understanding of the object), I’ve been told the understanding is not perfect but still objective. I’ve had this happen before when discussing this subject, and sometimes the implication comes with the added emphasis that I’m being ridiculous by suggesting if we can know something objectively, the understanding should be perfect. I’ve never received a satisfactory answer as to why that is so silly, even when the conversation has allowed for us to agree on a similar definition to the one given above. If you cannot claim perfect understanding, why bother clinging to the word objective? From my perspective, the word objective bolsters the person’s point by claiming the person has no bias. But when pressed, hardly anyone will say the objectivity they possess is perfect. So why, then, is it objectivity?
The answer: it’s not. Subjectivity has been taken as a dirty word to mean wrong or misguided. If you say someone’s thoughts are subjective, you minimize their thoughts and gain an argumentative advantage (per se). But I believe subjectivity is not something to be disdained, it is just a description of the human condition. We are the subjects trying to understand the objective reality around us. If asked if I believe in objective truth, I would say, “Absolutely!” There is certainly a reality that actually exists all around us. We live in the object. Interpreting it and understanding it, however, is completely subjective. That is not bad, it is just that we are seeking to understand things, and we are subjects. We bring to the understanding we have our mental capacity, our emotions, our study, our entire backgrounds to the table. Every single person does this. Being aware of our biases can help us to reduce them and see more clearly, but we do not remove who we are and gain a perfect understanding.
Take the person above in our little scenario of the arguers on the street. Let’s say they’re arguing about one person showing up late, causing them to miss the theater performance they had tickets for. The one person’s excuse is say, traffic was out of control. The other says, it’s rush hour in Los Angeles, it’s always bad, and you knew we had tickets!
The objective bystander’s opinion cannot be truly unbiased. Perhaps immediately comes to mind an incident where traffic caused him to be late, and he was reemed by his date. Or vice versa. Or the person is anal to the point of never being late unless Nuclear Winter sets in. Or the person is always late, traffic or not. Or…
Now I know, you’re going to say being late is not equal to Scripture, but how do we not take even more of our experience into the Holy Scriptures which speak to the very purpose of our lives? We bring even more to the table when we seek to understand them.
God gave us a wonderful intellect. Add the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the Scriptures with the illumination of the Spirit to our minds, and we can understand and know God and have an active relationship through Christ. This does not mean we understand perfectly, nor does it have to. We grow in our understanding as we follow Christ. That understanding comes through our experience with God as we follow Jesus. There’s no need to call this objective, and if you do, you are setting yourself up as perfectly understanding the Scriptures. There’s really no way around it. If you are unbiased and unblemished in your understanding of the Scriptures, then your understanding is perfect. If you are not willing to go there, don’t use the word objective to describe your understanding of truth, the object you seek to know.
In fact, by understanding the subjective condition of humanity, you are able to have a more clear understanding of truth as you cease to exalt your interpretation as perfect, which means you should not change it. After all, its objective, right?
Objectivity, the way it is used in arguments over Scripture and truth, is a fallacy. Subjectivity is not an evil, dirty word meaning “relativity.” To say someone is subjective is not to say that the truth changes based on their beliefs, it is to say their beliefs are influenced by being a human being who seeks to know.
A good article on “objective” vs “subjective”
Alan Hartung over at A Different Perspective has written a good article on objective vs subjective. I was going to write a comment there, but it got too long, so I decided to post it here instead.
When people say objective, I think what they really mea…
Dwayne'sWorld
February 20th, 2006
What a wholly reasonable treatment of this issue, Alan. A revolution in my thinking happened when I really absorbed what Paul said about his own limitations in understanding (“we see darkly”), in coping with his sin nature (“I do what I don’t want to, and I don’t do what I know I should”), in not esteeming himself above others (“of all sinners, I am the worst”) and in dealing with physical limits (“when I am weak, then I am strong”). I remember also that he lauded the Bereans for testing his own teaching against the Scriptures… and the Bereans had the advantage that we don’t of hearing Paul in the first person.
More humility in approaching Scripture and less claiming to possess–and then to defend–the whole truth cannot be but helpful to us as we learn and grow.
Zeke
February 20th, 2006
I am more than willing to admit that I approach Scripture with a Bias, and usally when I am writing a post on my cite I state that bias. I never thought this subjective/objective idea through and appreciated your treatment of the subject. I agree with Zeke’s comments on Paul, and I am willing to admit that I, like Paul, see things darkly, that is why the study, and quest for wisdom and understanding is ongoing. There is always more to understand for those of us who are willing to admit that we do not understand it all.
maryellen
February 20th, 2006
When you say here that “Paul” saw darkly and he was aware of his sin nature, you do know He was writing under the inspiration of God about mankind in general right?
If so, then you know “Paul” also told us we have “the mind of Christ.” As such don’t you think God would allow people to understand what it is He’s said to His creations?
Cenna
February 20th, 2006
I didn’t say Paul saw darkly Cenna, he did. And he was writing under the inspiration of God about himself when he said it, unless you’d like to believe differently. I don’t know how you could support the notion that everybody saw darkly except Paul.
Besides, my point isn’t that what Paul wrote should be discounted because he was human; everybody who wrote Scripture was human. I’m suggesting that those who quote Paul assume some of the humility that he repeatedly demonstrated.
Zeke
February 20th, 2006
Alan – excellent and cogent treatment here. I think that often what we’re dealing with in these kinds of discussions is a set of differing definitions. I think you’ve summarized both perspectives quite nicely (and fairly).
I confess that I have to wonder if sometimes – not all of the time – we’re trying to argue the same thing but can’t come to a common definition of terms.
ScottB
February 20th, 2006
Scott -
The differing definitions was a primary reason for writing the post. A secondary reason is the hope that people will realize the usage of their words can be more of a power play than an accurate description of what they really mean.
Alan
February 20th, 2006
The ancient Greeks’ dualism: “flesh” = bad, “spirit” = good. This kind of thinking was behind gnosticism, marcionism, etc.
Today, current dualism thinks: “subjective” = bad, “objective” = good.
Could the separation of objectivity and subjectivity simply be a 21st century example of Greek Dualism?
robbymac
February 21st, 2006
The Power Of Subjective Truth
Objectivity is sometimes overrated. Although objective pursuit of fact, and even truth, during the Enlightenment wrested power from tyrants and the imperial church by establishing that truth is knowable by anyone who observes and investigates rather than
faithCommons.org
February 21st, 2006
Zeke,
Like I said Paul wrote “we have the mind of Christ” who are believers, so as I asked and you apparently didn’t wish to answer, “don’t you think God would allow people to understand what it is He’s said to His creations?”
And Robby Mac,
How about we look at it this way: Today, current emerging thinks: “objective†= bad, “subjective†= good.
Could this reimagined separation of objectivity and subjectivity simply be a 21st century example of Greek Dualism?
Cennan
February 21st, 2006
In comments on Emergent What?, you seemed to state that no person would claim perfect understanding about any subject, which I totally agree with. So I ask you, how does Paul seeing darkly bring out the question you asked? It doesn’t seem to me Zeke says there is no understanding, just noting that the understanding is not perfect, akin to “seeing darkly…”
So the “mind of Christ” to you, based on our other discussion, does not mean we have perfect understanding, right? Wouldn’t this be a great example of exactly what Paul meant in that passage?
And as far as the dualism Robby Mac suggested, it’s interesting food for thought. I don’t think you can swing it the other way, though, as for the emerging church “objective” does not equal bad at all. Objective truth is great. We seek to understand it. Subjectively, of course, since that’s the only way you can understand anything.
Alan
February 21st, 2006
Cennan, Paul’s “But we have the mind of Christ” creates more mysteries than it solves. If two believers have the mind of Christ, then why would they ever disagree? Paul may say that we have the mind of Christ, but God help us if we ever think that our thoughts are his thoughts. I mean, what do you do with “But we have the mind of Christ”? How can you take that verse into your daily walk? What does it mean, practically, to you?
I’m not arguing for anything other than more humility, which will make all of us less likely to presume to correct when we are the ones who need correcting.
Zeke
February 21st, 2006
A couple of thoughts, Alan and Zeke.
First, the text in Greek doesn’t have “seeing darkly” but rather “gazing in riddles.” “Darkly” is one way to try to get at it… but not quite perfect. Already, objectively, the very words we use are unclear.
So let’s try teasing it out some more. “Gazing in riddles…” Maybe something along the lines of “looking intently but not being able to name all of exactly what we see all at once…” or “the glass distorts our vision,” or “maybe our vision itself is distorted, and we can’t make it all out coherently.”
As I see it, subjectively, that’s an elegant description of how I experience “objective” reality, and especially relationships, even between inanimate objects, all the time. Some things appear one way and another all at the same time– and sometimes the appearances to my mind are contradictory– maddeningly riddling!
Two thoughts then on the “mind of Christ.” First, assuming Paul is speaking of Christ as we experienced him in flesh among us, surely he encountered exactly the same phenomenon of a “riddling” perspective. I’m not really sure how he could be fully human and not do so.
Second, I would note that the pronoun about “you have the mind of Christ” is plural– and would further note that this probably (though I suppose one can never be entirely sure!) isn’t an accident of Paul writing a public letter to a bunch of individual people, but rather that he means it when he says (as we say down here in Nashville) “y’all have the mind of Christ.” In other words, the mind of Christ is not located ultimately in the individual, but is discerned in and through the gathered community that makes up his body. We now know from some pretty good statistical studies that groups are in fact far more accurate in their perception than any given individual in them. (Best known example– someone fills a jar with lemon drops and asks everyone in a group of people to guess how many are in the jar… then average the group response– typically the group answer will be much closer than any given answer of the individuals in it).
Subjectivity appears to be our lot, I think. And I have to agree with Alan that that’s not a curse, but perhaps a deep gift– that we really do get to interact with all that we are and with everyone else in seeking to follow the One who is Way, Truth, and Life. It’s not that objectivity is bad– it’s that it’s not all that accessible to us individually, and especially not on matter much more complicated than very simple interactions. Truth is much, much more complex than that.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Taylor Burton-Edwards
February 24th, 2006
Taylor -
Excellent thoughts. Thank you for adding to this topic!
And especially thank you for pointing out that the “you” in the “you have the mind of Christ” is plural. Much food for thought on that alone…
Alan
February 24th, 2006