In a time where some critics are getting nastier and nastier, R. Scott Smith seems to go out of his way to be gracious without sacrificing one bit of his criticism. Also, he rightly focuses on the writings of individuals without always blowing that up into what the whole emerging church must believe. He does not hold back on the problems he sees, but in my opinion, he does it with grace. This is a writer we should not mind engaging.
That being said, there is a fatal flaw that runs through several chapters of the book. Smith clings to the word “objective” in such a way that it certainly does not fit the usage of those he criticizes and falls far short of the majority (if not all) of how those who read those he criticizes think. I find myself often agreeing with his thoughts and wondering why this is criticism. Then he seems to make completely contradicting statements through his examples (not the paradoxical kind).
Several of his illustrations display beautifully the idea of perspectivism. For example he speaks of walking down the street and seeing many people with ice cream cones. He notes, that he could assume there is an ice cream store nearby and be very probably right, though there could be other explanations. If he saw a Dairy Queen, that would further justify his belief that there were an ice cream store nearby where people were getting their ice cream. He even notes that a person with an ice cream cone could know he actually got the ice cream cone from home or somewhere else and not the store, but that information would not be available to the observer. He shows that certainty is not the best response for knowledge, even with compelling evidence, through this example.
I would not be surprised if much of what Smith writes on certainty would line up with McLaren and Jones actually think about knowledge. Whether Smith knows it or not, he frames a beautiful argument that knowledge comes from experience. In my opinion, both McLaren and Jones would agree with this assessment.
I do believe Jones and McLaren do not feel we can have as much certainty as Smith eventually leads to, but as Tony Jones even notes in an endorsement of the author, “we’ve all got some things to figure out” in today’s postmodern world.
The most difficult chapter of the book for me is the last, Objective Truth: Is There Such a Thing? Can We Know It?. Even if, and I do mean if, his use of “objective” can be acceptable in philosophical circles, his use of the term for a broader audience causes difficulty. The content of the book shows that Smith, whether he would accept the term or not, is a perspectivist. A perspectivist does not believe reality changes but that our understanding of the reality is determined by our perspective. Smith clearly falls in that camp (along with those he criticizes, I believe).
Over and over through his illustrations and direct statements about the nature of truth he shows that learning and comprehension is completely a subjective enterprise. In my opinion, he combines understanding with reality in a way those he critiques do not. While “language games” and other developments in postmodern thought often seem to lead to a changing reality, they can also be interpreted as more extreme forms of perspectivism. Reality changing for us and objective reality, as Smith would call it, are two totally different things. One is about comprehension, the other is about changing matter and substance outside of ourselves. Few, if any, in the emerging church advocate the latter, and I do not believe McLaren or Jones, as the main sources of Smith’s critique, do either.
Smith’s arguments that our thoughts do not form objective reality are accurate. Though I do not find him explicitly stating our knowing of objective reality is objective understanding, the idea is implicit throughout the book and especially in the final chapter. This completely contradicts all of his (often profound) illustrations showing how perspective influences understanding.
The core issue is not whether McLaren, Jones, and others believe in an objective, unchanging reality, the issue is to what level we can have confidence in our perception of that reality. By framing the issue as objective versus relative, Smith no doubt will garner support from much of the established church. Unfortunately, those in the middle ground who are not quite sure will get a biased and inaccurate view of what the emerging church (and specifically Brian McLaren and Tony Jones) believes about truth and reality.
The really sad part, for me any way, about this book is that framed just slightly differently it could have been a tool for emerging church persons to use to help guide people in a postmodern culture into a solid understanding of truth. His examples of perspectival thought display the relationship we have with truth accurately and informatively. As it is, the book brings more confusion and bolsters the whole objective vs relative conflict which constantly has us arguing about the wrong things and talking around each other. The circle continues.
I really appreciate Alan’s thoughtful critique, especially in his tone & attempts to carefully interact with my ideas. I really have no desire to be nasty in any kind of criticism; I really want to embody grace & truth, so I am grateful that that spirit came across.
Still, I think Alan misunderstands me when he says things like I believe that “our understanding of reality is determined by our perspective,†& “comprehension is completely a subjective enterprise.†But I do not think that our understanding of reality is “determined” by our perspective, nor do I think that understanding is “completely” a subjective matter.
But, I do agree with him when he says that I think perspective (point of view, historical setting, etc.) does *influence* our understanding. While I do think knowledge is primarily a first-person matter, & not a third-person one, that does not mean I am a perspectivist, especially in light of my two quotes (above) from his post.
Lots of other philosophers in the past & present also have held that knowledge is primarily a 1st-person matter (e.g., Chisholm, Husserl, & Willard), but surely these people are not perspectivists. In the case of Willard, whom I follow, & Husserl (insofar as Willard uses him), they are trying to explain how we know reality as it truly is (ie, the metaphysical sense of the term “objective”). Along with them, I do think that involves the first-person point of view, but the key issue is whether we can (or cannot) know reality as it is, & to what extent.
I also don’t think that these people whose views I am examining are trying to say that we somehow change reality (i.e., objective reality) itself. They don’t want to deny that there is a reality that exists as it is apart from our talk, thoughts, perceptions, etc. What I often seem to understand in such views is the idea that our only contact with that reality is always through our language (culture, etc.).
But, can we access & know reality as it truly is? Here is a key area in which I see myself differing with their views. In contrast, the main idea I am trying to communicate in the last ch. is that we can & often do know reality as it is (with all the nuances I mentioned there). Plus, I am not trying to downplay the role & place for interpretation, which involves our seeing “as” versus simple “seeing”). But I do want to call to our attention that we can (& often do) know reality as it is (there is room for knowledge by direct acquaintance).
However, I think that some views, on their own criteria, end up in a position that we are constructing reality, & not just our understanding of it. For if comprehension is completely a subjective matter, & that our understanding is determined by our perspective, then it seems there is little if any room for our making epistemic contact with (& thereby having knowledge of) reality (i.e., objective reality). While officially some may hold that we do not construct reality itself, but only our perspectives of it, it still seems we are left with being unable to access reality, & compare our perspectives with it. If so, then in effect we are working ‘within’ our perspectives, and MacIntyre’s claims that we can still adjudicate between them will not help.
I try to explain more on these issues with constructivist thought in the Crossway book, as well as in my previous one, “Virtue Ethics and Moral Knowledge: Philosophy of Language After MacIntyre and Hauerwas.” I also address the aforementioned view of MacIntyre in that book.
So, due to what I think is a misunderstanding on Alan’s part, I end up seeming to contradict myself in the book, one the one hand (apparently) affirming perspectivism, while on the other affirming the importance of the 1st-person perspective to know objective reality. But I hope I have cleared up that apparent contradiction.
Thanks again for the very thoughtful & gracious review! I really appreciate that.
Sincerely,
Scott
R Scott Smith
March 15th, 2006
Scott -
Sorry for taking so long to respond. It’s been a crazy week with a lot of travel time and huge gaps in internet access.
Thank you for posting your thoughts on my review. I think the tone in which you engage the emerging church should be held up as an example of how we can all carry on a decent convo about serious issues.
I’m going to apologize in advance, because I’m probably going to make some assumptions you don’t agree with, but I don’t know any other way to get my thoughts out.
It seems you’re saying that understanding our biases and limited perspective can somehow overcome those biases and limits. I completely disagree. Accessing reality does not mean we have to remove those limitations. Accessing reality, for you, seems to mean removal of biases (otherwise, why use the term objective?).
Admitting to our subjective nature, which we cannot escape, it is not an admission that we cannot access the real world. Our access, though, does not mean perfect understanding. Something which your writing on certainty clearly displays. What seems to be at issue is not “objective” or “subjective” but merely how well we can describe and comprehend reality.
Another thing I find difficult in your book, related to access of the real world, is that nearly all (if not all) of your illustrations represent the physical world. If the physical world illustrations show the difficulties of perspective and the lack of certainty we are able to have, how much more difficult does it become when we speak of a spiritual reality? Especially a reality that, as Willard would say, is colored by competing forces? In speaking of the Kingdom of God being here already, Willard notes that the difference is that in the future there will be no competing kingdoms. But now, there are competing kingdoms (our individual lives, groups of people, demonic powers).
I do think that by the power of the Holy Spirit, the shared knowledge of the body of Christ, and our God-given intellects, we can have a working and healthy understanding of reality. But in recognizing our limitations, it can keep us open to Christians with different perspectives and even help us to learn more and develop a better understanding of reality.
While I would not go the full way with “language games,” I do recognize the benefit of communal understanding. We can better understand reality in the context of community because we can access the perspectives of others through dialogue and relationship. The community does not determine our understanding, but it assists us by opening up our limited perspective.
I think Ephesisans 4 points us in a direction of communal growth in understanding of truth:
11 And he gave some as Apostles, and some, prophets; and some, preachers of the good news; and some to give care and teaching;
12 For the training of the saints as servants in the church, for the building up of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come to the harmony of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to full growth, to the full measure of Christ:
14 So that we may be no longer children, sent this way and that, turned about by every wind of teaching, by the twisting and tricks of men, by the deceits of error;
15 But saying true words in love, may come to full growth in him, who is the head, even Christ;
16 Through whom all the body, being rightly formed and united together, by the full working of every part, is increased to the building up of itself in love.
Alan
March 17th, 2006
This is the kind of dialogue we desperately need. Both of you are addressing things that concern me and that I need help understanding. I, for one, would greatly appreciate some sort of debate/dialogue between the protractors/detractors. However, I would appreciate it happening at a somewhat “popular” language level. Some of us have to work up a sweat to keep up with the philosophy lessons.
bill bean
March 27th, 2006
Hi Alan! Thanks again for your thoughtful comments! Sorry for my delay in responding, but my semester has been a bit full of late. I want to make a few qualifications, and I also want to express my points of agreement with you, especially on your points in your last few paragraphs, starting with the one that begins “I do think that by the power of the Holy Spirit…†This may not come out in the order I’d like, but here goes!
You start one paragraph, “It seems you’re saying that understanding our biases and limited perspective can somehow overcome those biases and limits. I completely disagree…†You go on to say that for me “accessing reality … seems to mean the removal of biases (otherwise, why use the term objective?).†I think you have a particular use of “objective†in mind, while I have a different one. When you refer to it, in light of what I have said, you seem to mean neutral, disinterested, or unbiased. In contrast, often I have a metaphysical notion in mind. E.g., when I use “objective reality,†I mean reality that is what it is in a mind-independent way. What it is does not depend upon my beliefs, thoughts, talk, perspective, etc.
Surely we all have our own biases, particularity, and historical location. Here are some of mine: First, I approach life as a follower of the Lord Jesus, and I try to see things in light of His revelation. Second, I have a particular upbringing and home environment that profoundly shaped me, to see my life as requiring me to be perfect, or else … I was raised in a Christian home with a highly anxious mother, and my dad was pretty shut down emotionally and was highly perfectionistic. I caught the unspoken attitude that I needed to carry her anxiety for her, to take care of her. With dad, I caught the attitude that I had to be perfectly in control of myself (feelings, etc.), to get his attention. In that kind of environment, even though they were Christians, I came out being pretty anxious and having a hard time experiencing the fullness of God’s love and grace. Yet, I accepted (believed) the verses that tell us that God loves, and that we are under grace.
I give those two examples to help illustrate how these two perspectives really helped shape me. I have tended to see life from those points of view. Due to various factors, I would try to challenge the views I caught from home, especially about what would make me a good person. When I was teaching in spring 2003, I experienced a lot of anxiety, all at the time when I thought I would be experiencing a lot of joy. My first book had come out, and I was teaching an upper division and graduate level class in philosophy on postmodernism, but I started to get really anxious about sleeping, performing, and more. I won’t go into all the details, but through counseling, the love of my wife, dwelling on some rich scriptural teachings on grace, and the Lord revealing Himself to me in some incredible ways, I started to change. The teachings on grace started to sink down deeper into my soul, and that process was facilitated by healing at the emotional level, of the wounds I had experienced.
Why do I bother to mention all this? One key thing is that grace is not worth a darn unless it is wed to truth. I didn’t need merely to see the verses about God’s grace (e.g., Rom 5:1, 8; 8:1; Heb 10:14) from under a different perspective. I needed their truth to sink more deeply into my soul, at the emotional level. What I needed was healing at that level, so that I could perceive the truth of those verses in a deeper way than I had been able to grasp before. I needed to have my perception (which was deeply affected by my wounds) aligned with reality, that I am really under grace, due to what Christ has actually done on the cross, and by His resurrection.
Did I somehow shed my particularity (e.g., my upbringing, my emotional wounds, my being raised in a home with anxiety), to know and experience more deeply the truth of those teachings? Not at all; rather, I needed to be able to test my fears, attitudes, perceptions, and (mis)beliefs against reality. And, my feelings were part of reality too. Further, I don’t want to talk myself into something just to feel better; I want to know the truth. Since Christ really has taken care of my sins, such that I really do stand in grace, then I want to know and experience the reality of those truths. Otherwise, I don’t think I would have much confidence before Him if I could not know what He really did for me.
Also, I do not need perfect understanding to have knowledge. In regards to God, surely I don’t have perfect understanding of Him and all He has revealed, nor does any human. Yet, I still think we can know truth (i.e., objective, metaphysical truth) veridically, but not exhaustively. How we know it, and to what extent, is, of course, an epistemological matter.
You also mentioned that you had a hard time with my many examples of the physical world in ch. 6, of how we know reality. I chose those since they are examples so many people can relate to, since they are examples from our daily lives, like using an ATM machine, or using a phone. Let me explore these a bit more, in light of your concerns. For one, I don’t think there really is that much uncertainty that we either inputted the right numbers correctly or incorrectly in the ATM machine, or when we place a call. We do that matching up all the time, often without giving it much (if any) thought.
Though these examples may appeal a lot to examples in the physical world, they also can appeal to more than just the physical. With numbers, I can see a particular instance of the number 5 on my cell phone’s number pad, or on the debit card authorization machine in a store. I can see other instances of the number 5, too. But if I stop and reflect about those instances of the number 5, I can realize that the number 5 is different than each of those particular instances of it. That is, if I were to destroy all those instances of the number 5, or every single one in the world, I still will not have destroyed the number five itself. There is something about it that does not seem to be exhausted in all its physical instantiations, or tokens. That is, the number 5 seems to be a type, a universal, and it is not physical at all, yet it truly exists. That is one example of an immaterial kind of thing I can know exists, and I think there are more, including logical truths, moral ones, and more.
Spiritually, I think there are truths we can know, without requiring certainty, and even with all our particularity. I think that we can know that Jesus actually arose from the dead, as an objective truth, and I don’t have to be neutral to know that. In ch. 9, I tried to give examples of how we form concepts from many noticings, like how my daughter learned to form the concept of an apple. I think we could proceed similarly in regards to the resurrection, by forming concepts, and then testing them against the evidence (I tried to give this a fuller explanation in that ch., too).
Paul too seemed to think we can know that Jesus arose from the dead, as a matter of historical fact, and that without it being true in that sense, our faith would be worthless. Also, he wanted Christians to have the confidence that comes from knowing that truth.
Paul also strikes me as interesting in another way. As Saul, he had an encounter with Jesus that revolutionized his life. We also know that he has a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee of Pharisees, and one who had great zeal for the Law, even to persecute Christians to death. He definitely did not see Jesus as the Christ; that was anathema to him. Yet, somehow, he experienced Jesus Himself, and his life was revolutionized. How could that happen? As Saul, he must have been able to see things for what they really are, for this experience was of something radically different than what his frame of reference would explain. On the other hand, if we cannot experience things as they really are (i.e., if there is no knowledge by direct acquaintance, or no direct “seeingâ€), but only from under a certain aspect (i.e., there is only “seeing asâ€), then Saul never could have experienced Jesus directly, for who He really is. But he did see and experience Jesus for who He really is – Lord and God.
That experience jolted his paradigm. He then had such overpowering, strong, persuasive evidence from that direct experience of the real Jesus that he gave up Pharisaism and embraced Jesus Christ. Others also claim to have such encounters with the Lord, ones that are so powerful and clear in their evidence that they turn from their religion and embrace Him. I have read and heard of various stories from Muslim lands, in which Muslims have dreams in which they are met by Jesus, not as a mere prophet, but as God. These dreams are so powerful that many repent of Islam and become His followers. In Islam, they had a context within which to understand Jesus as a prophet, but not as God. But they too, having experienced Him for who He really is, suddenly turn to Him as the Lord.
All that said to make a couple points. For one, from these examples, we do seem to be able to have knowledge by direct acquaintance of even spiritual realities. And, I think we can use our abilities to have knowledge of reality in order to test factual claims like the resurrection. I don’t think you are denying that, but I stress it since there are people who do not think we can have any kind of knowledge by direct acquaintance.
On the second point, I want to underscore what you wrote, that our knowledge of spiritual reality is colored by the forces of darkness, our sinfulness, etc. E.g., we will not be able to just read off of reality, by using our reason without the aid of special revelation, that Jesus is the only way to God. We will need special revelation to know that truth, and many others. But at the same time, I think it is important that we are able to know reality (metaphysical, objective reality). If we can, then we have reason to believe we can test the many religious claims that are out there, vying for our attention, against reality. E.g., did He really arise, as the New Testament claims? Or, according to Islam, did Jesus not arise, since He wasn’t even crucified?
Your points about our needing the body of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and our God-given intellects are very well taken. We can learn from each other, draw upon each other’s perspectives to help sharpen us, and, as you said, develop a better understanding of reality. We are to sharpen each other, & we do need each other – you are quite right!
R Scott Smith
April 4th, 2006
Scott -
I’m thouroughly enjoying our exchange on this, and I feel it would be beneficial reading for either established or emerging church persons in understanding the greater debate around truth going on in the church right now.
You are right in saying I have a particular use of “objective” in mind, and I understand how it differs from yours. To display a personal bias, I am most interested in how understandings of objectivity play out in the church outside of philosophical and theological conversations held by those in and around academia.
The problem right now in discussing truth with many emerging church persons is that we are very close to the concepts of truth and perception you present, but most of our critics use “objective” in such a way that the objectivity passes on to their understanding. When Tony Jones and Brian McLaren write about truth, I believe their views on truth are more similar than dissimilar to what you have written here in the comments. I’m actually going to email Tony, and I hope he has time to read and respond as well. I don’t want to speak for either Tony or Brian on this.
Because of the way “objective” is commonly used in fundamentalist and other established church circles, I have difficulty with the wording you used in your last comment like: “Spiritually, I think there are truths we can know, without requiring certainty, and even with all our particularity. I think that we can know that Jesus actually arose from the dead, as an objective truth, and I don’t have to be neutral to know that.”
If historical event x actually occurred, I have no problem with recognizing the “objective truth” about historical event x. However, our understanding, as I believe you agree, is not a matter of objectivity. The issue for you, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is whether or not we have access to objective truth. The issue concerning most emerging church persons, though I cannot certainly speak for the entire movement, is holding our decriptions and perspectives of the objective, absolute truth as objective, absolute truth.
Are the words, “Jesus rose from the dead” objective truth? I would say, no, they are not. The words are an accurate description of objective truth. I also believe we can know the “objective truth” that Jesus rose from the dead. This does not mean my words describing that objective event are objective truth in themselves.
Words themselves are symbolic and mean different things to different people. Some language is more precise, but those words are still symbols. Words describing the nature of God can be accurate descriptions, but to make the words themselves “objective truth” makes little sense in the practical use of language. If you say, “God is love,” what good does it do to call it “objective truth” if someone has no idea about the nature of love? Or God, for that matter? There is no benefit in acknowledging the truth of words if there is not experiential, perspectival understanding which brings a comprehension to what the words actually mean.
You explain your use of objective truth like this: “I have a metaphysical notion in mind. E.g., when I use ‘objective reality,’ I mean reality that is what it is in a mind-independent way. What it is does not depend upon my beliefs, thoughts, talk, perspective, etc.”
I wholeheartedly agree (and I believe most of the emerging church would also agree) that objective reality is “mind-independent.” Beliefs and thoughts do not change reality. Absolutely true
Your ideas can be of the most help to we emerging types in working out how we know that “mind-independent” reality. The issue for many of us is that we agree with the postmodern critique of modern concepts, but we rarely embrace the solutions postmodern philosophers have offered. We’re desperately trying to work out our relationship to truth and how to understand truth as well as ways to communicate the truth to others.
From my perspective, your views on truth would resonate with most of the emerging church persons I come into contact with through my blog and podcast and being gen editor of theooze. I certainly wouldn’t tell you what to write, but if future writings focused more on our similarities and helping emerging church persons understand a human beings relationship to reality and how we access it, your work could be an incredible bridge between established and emerging churches.
It’s my desire to see the one body of Christ work together, so we do learn from each other’s perspectives and grow into an understanding of the truth which more accurately reflects the reality of all things (spiritual and physical). My position right now allows me to speak out to a good portion of the emerging church, but we need more persons like yourself who are willing to dig beneath the surface, as I believe you have already been doing, and provide guidance and critique from an outside perspective. Your work, then, would also help others in established churches to better understand what philosophies really dominate the emerging church.
Alan
April 7th, 2006
Scott,
If you write a book on helping the “Emerging Church Leader” I will buy it! Great approach.
Alan,
Thank you for being so mature in commenting about such heated topics. I am a 30 year old pastor learning to constantly live in this challenging consept of constant reformation… Christianity by nature (because of God’s design) will never stop reforming and infecting those that need to connect with a real God explained in a very clear way.
Tim
May 19th, 2007
Tim -
I apologize for the delay in getting your comment posted. Sometimes my email likes to think it’s getting better at spam protection, and I evidently was not receiving the emails notifying me of new comments to moderate…
I’m still hoping to do a podcast interview with Scott. We talked about it, but never connected on it. Perhaps some day soon…
Alan
June 5th, 2007