The Doe of the Dawn: A Christian World View …

WHAT IS TRUTH?

In a recent editorial in the Firm Foundation (Austin, Texas), titled “You and Your Little Bunch,” one of the editors defended an exclusivistic view of truth. He saw only two options: either one stands absolutely for what he believes to be truth or he surrenders to a relativism that has no standard for truth. He said in essence that if one is right, the other person, if he holds a different view, has to be wrong.

Since the editor invites responses, I sent him this note: “One does not have to take either extreme position. I believe I am right (if not, I would change), but it does not necessarily follow that I have to believe that everyone else is wrong.”

Responding, both in his editorial column and in a letter to me, he wrote: “If in the ten unit system of math, two plus two is four, then two plus two is not one, or two, or three, or five, or six, or seven, or any number other than four. Truth is narrow! If any given thing is true then everything that disagrees with that thing is false. Now, dear brother, if that is incorrect, please tell me wherein it is wrong.”

This exchange between two editors reminded me how important one’s concept of truth is to his overall world view. The philosophers call this epistemology, which is in itself a vast area of study in the nature of human understanding. What is truth?, How do we know anything to be true?, How can truth be tested? These are epistemological questions, and they are vital to all religious inquiry. A philosopher would say that we two editors have reached an epistemological impasse, and that we will have to come to some agreement as to the nature of truth before there can be meaningful dialogue.

We must first determine if there are not different kinds of truth, lest he be referring to one kind of truth and I to another. There are mathematical and scientific truths (or facts), historical truths, poetic truths, and religious truths. There are at least presumed truths in these areas, and we might add “common sense” truths, as well as objective and subjective truths. We all know, of course, that even “common sense” can be deceptive. The “dead dog” on the highway ahead of us turns out to be a crushed paper bag and the crooked oar in the water an illusion. Truths (or facts) have a way of eluding us, and they do not come as easily and with as much certainty as we may presume.

When my editor friend responds with a mathematical equation, two plus is two is four, what is he doing? He is implying that his religious views (which is the issue at hand) are in the same category with the certainty of mathematical logic. Yes, of course, he is right that in mathematics if one contradicts the formula two plus two is four, he would be wrong, while the one who affirms it would be right, and that here we have an absolute or an exclusivistic truth.

But even here we must be careful. If a child has two apples and you give him two more, and then ask him how many apples he has, and he says three, he would be right! He might have more than three, but he does have three.

This is why my editor friend is wrong when he says, “If any given thing is true then everything that disagrees with that thing is false.” Not quite! Suppose he and I are sitting in his office and there are knocks at his door. He says, “That’s Mary at the door,” and I say, “It is Jane.” We disagree. Our statements are contrary. But we could both be right. Mary and Jane could both be at the door! Only if I contradicted him (not merely spoke contrary) by saying, “It is not Mary,” would one of us have to be wrong. But even then we could both be wrong! Many a time have men had contradictory views of Scripture and both be wrong. But if they do contradict each other, where one position excludes the other, they cannot both be right —but, and it is a cruel logic, they could both be wrong!

My editor friend is guilty of a harmful fallacy when he transfers questions about religion, which is based on revelation, to the area of mathematics, which is an exact science. No one questions such a formula as two plus two is four. There is no interpreting to be done. It is sometimes called apriori knowledge in that it is accepted as fact apart from testing it by experience. Only a moron would argue with such mathematical propositions.

Are the differences that the editor has with his Baptist and Methodist neighbors in that category? Obviously not, for we have equally sincere and equally intelligent people who interpret the recognized source of truth (the Bible) differently. The difference between two plus two is four, where there is no disagreement, and religion is that religion (or the Bible, its source) has to be interpreted.

The editor no doubt believes that he interprets the Bible correctly while others do not, which makes him right (and only him!) and others wrong. But at least he should be able to see that his interpretations of the Bible are not in the same category with the formula two plus two is four, if for no other reason that everyone agrees with his math but not with his religion. Religious truths are not an exact science, not even when in the hands of Church of Christ editors!

Religion and math differ in that math is to be accepted, apriori, while religion is to be believed. One is science, the other is revelation. One is knowledge, which is what science means, while the other is faith. To equate religious truth with mathematical truth is to miss the point of religion. If religious propositions, such as Jesus is Lord or Jesus was born of a virgin, could be proved or demonstrated like math or science, then there would be no disbelievers. There would be no religion, for it would all be science. God does not ask us to know, like in math, but to believe, like in religion.

Math is based on exact formulae, while religion is based on evidence, as given in God’s disclosure of Himself, which constitutes the holy Scriptures. Some accept the evidence and some do not. Those who do we call believers. This is entirely different from math. There are no believers in math, only knowers. Simple trusting faith is the tissue of religion, not mathematics or science.

I am not saying in all this that God’s disclosure of Himself in the Bible is a hodgepodge of mystery that cannot be understood. There is general agreement among believers on the basic truths of the Christian faith, and unanimous agreement on what the Bible actually says. And here we must distinguish between revelation and interpretation. Revelation is what the Scriptures actually say (here we agree), while interpretation is what we think it means by what it says (here we often disagree).

And let’s not have the asinine response, “It means what it says,” for very often the Bible does not at all mean what it says (such as “If your eye offends you, pluck it out”), and at other times we have to ask (if it means what it says), “But what does it say?”

But I am saying that the Bible is a difficult book that needs to be in the hands of a responsible teacher. It needs to be taught, to be interpreted, and that is not easy to do right. It was not without reason that God placed teachers in the church.

But the problem with the Firm Foundation editor goes beyond these matters, for when he speaks of being right he is not referring to the general truths of the faith upon which most Christians agree. He is speaking, or so I understand, of those things unique to the Church of Christ. His concerns relate largely to things concerning which the Scriptures are silent, such as instrumental music. In the same issue in which he responds to my note, another writer addresses the question of instrumental music and says this: “All New Testament references to music in New Testament scriptures carry the words singing, song, or songs. In context, this means, ‘Don’t play!’”

This illustrates where we are with our good brothers who suppose that if they are right everyone else has to be wrong. The church everywhere around the world would agree that the New Testament speaks of singing, song, and songs. But only a tiny minority, the non-instrument Churches of Christ and a few other small churches, would conclude that those Scriptures mean “Don’t play!” That is sheer assumption. If those verses about singing clearly mandated, Don’t play, then the church at large would not use instruments, for most believers seek to do what the Bible clearly teaches.

This was the area of “truth” I had in view when I wrote to the editor and suggested that one can believe he is right without believing that everyone else is wrong. I was not of course referring to the basic, absolute truths of the Christian faith, but to those areas of opinion where convictions sometimes run deep. I belong to a non-instrument Church of Christ, and I believe we are right when we sing a cappella, but I can believe that without believing that those who use an instrument are sinning against God. We could both be right in such areas of opinion. Our positions are not contradictory, but only contrary, as illustrated above. But the Firm Foundation insists that they are contradictory, which means that if singing a cappella is right, instrumental singing has to be wrong. But my editor friend must see that what is wrong to him (being a violation of his conscience) is not necessarily wrong for someone else. If he has trouble with this, he only needs to realize that there are those to his right (those more conservative than he) who believe he is wrong in still other areas of opinions and methods, such as maintaining an organized Sunday School or using a plurality of cups for Communion. Or on the interpretation of prophecy or speaking in tongues or the nature of inspiration, etc., etc.

So surely in the area of opinions and methods, and this is where the differences are, my proposition will hold up: One can believe he is right without having to believe that everyone else is wrong.

The nature of truth, especially in reference to our standing with God, goes deeper than all this, for truth is not always as “narrow” as the Firm Foundation would insist. It may be all right to refer to truth as narrow, but not all right to pass judgment on who walks within those narrow confines and who does not. If “walking in the truth” were likened to scaling a high mountain, we would need to see that we are all at different levels along the way, with none of us ever reaching the top or even near the top since the search for truth never ends. If my editor friend is plodding along the mountain trail at a high altitude, it does not follow that he is more loyal to the truth than those far below him, for there are so many factors to be considered, such as time, opportunity, abilities, obstacles.

It is the truth-seeker that God blesses, not necessarily the truth-finder. The prophets expressed the principle that stands through all ages: Seek God and live! (Amos 5:4). Thank God, we do not have to be righteous to be blessed, but to hunger and thirst for righteousness (Mt. 5:6). Our Lord promises that “he who comes to me I will not cast out” (Jn. 6:37), and it is just as well that we not try to judge who has come to him and who has not, for in coming to him some may stand at a distance while others are closer. His grace reaches out to all who come and by that grace they edge closer and closer to him.

So, those who are the closest to God may not necessarily be those who have scaled the mountain to a high altitude, as blessed as they are, but those with a broken-spirit who struggle at the foot of the mountain seeking the path that leads upward. While there is the promise that those who seek will find, we all know it takes time. If one is seeking God he has life (that is the promise), and God will lead him home so long as he continues his quest. God has the sincere seeker on radar, and He will bring him in safely.

That is where we should all be, seekers and not so much finders, for when we find some truth the search for more truth accelerates. The ultimate (and only absolute?) truth is God himself as manifest in Jesus Christ our Lord. Only Jesus could say, I am the truth. That is because he reflected the image of Him who is Truth itself. As to who among men draw nigh unto that Truth is not for us to judge. Perhaps it is little children in their innocence or those whom men judge to be “sinners” who stand apart and cry out, “God, be merciful to me a (really the) sinner.”

As for the lesser (but still important) truths concerning which we may disagree, let us be as wise as the old British bishop who dared to urge, “Realize by the bowels of Christ that you might be wrong!” One with that disposition of heart is probably more “right” than those who are “righter.” —the Editor