The Death of Truth?

Time magazine's April 8, 1966, edition alarmed Americans with a startling red and black cover asking:  is God dead?  Time's April 3, 2017 edition is equally shocking, replicating the same red and black cover, asking: is truth dead?

Not surprisingly, Time zeroed in on the current President, and who tends -- like most politicians -- to have a selective memory and use double-speak.  

But I want to turn the 'truth question' in a different direction, not in terms of 'stretching the truth' -- but the growing propensity of suggesting, there is no truth.  Everything is relative. Thus, my feelings and opinion can override 'whatever'; e.g. whatever the issue, whatever the concern, whatever the debate.

This past week, a serious debate stirred on the seminary campus where I reside and study.  Writing in concern, 'over against' the stance the seminary administration took on a particular issue (and later, partially rescinded) a blogger noted:  "...It’s offensive and, as I have taught my four and five-year-olds to express, it hurts my feelings..."  (emphasis added)  http://www.traci-smith.com/category/church-resources/

I 'get that'' -- and, if I'm honest -- have expressed the same sentiment, numerous times.   But, at the risk of sounding overly pious:  what about God's feelings?  Translated:  what about the opinion, belief, conviction, of the Creator of the Universe?

But there's the rub:  we no longer believe there is any way to know the opinion, belief, conviction of the Creator of the Universe, other than a generic affirmation that God is love (1 John 4:16).

Not a bad starting place.  But beyond, 'God is love,' is there any other conviction/s we can attach to the Almighty?

Now, we're entering complexity and controversy.  

But let me advance a historic notion:  the primary way to discover God's opinion, belief, conviction, is to discover Jesus Christ: God's Word, living and written.  Translated:  by making Jesus Christ -- and not our feelings - our center.

Religious historian Mircea Elidade claimed that ancient people often constructed their homes around a stake in the ground, dubbed a center pole.  Why?  Because at the center of life they needed a daily reminder of divine sovereignty, an axis mundi, providing a place to run to, when disaster came, reassuring them that indeed earth and heaven would hold together, nevertheless. 

We too need such sovereign reassurance.  For as Leonard Sweet notes, quoting Martin Luther, the Holy Spirit (the Living Word, e.g. contemporary Christ)

“‘…is no skeptic…’ The primary work of the Spirit is to bring us assurance, not puzzlement; confidence, not conundrums; to bring us to faith, not doubt….Anthropologists tell us of the cultural importance of the ritualistic fixing of centers…from which humans get their bearings. A prime function of religion throughout history has been to help people move from centers to suburbs...Thus, a serene indifference to the human need for fixed spiritual maps by which we can navigate through life...betrays an ignorance of the major meaning of religion…Unless there is truth that is changeless,” William Ernest Hocking has written...“religion becomes a branch of anthropology, chiefly of historical interest.” (Leonard Sweet, ‘Not All Cats Are Gray: Beyond Liberalism’s Uncertain Faith,’ Christian Century, June 23-30, 1982, p. 721, emphasis added).   

It would be tragic if our faith merely became a branch of anthropology, chiefly of historic interest.  

How might that be avoided? 

1) Come To A Clearer Conviction Regarding The Interpretation of The Word (Jesus) Written.  Most believers are clear about The Word (Jesus) as a Living Word, as the Holy Spirit: e.g. the Holy Spirit calls us to love another as Christ loved us, calling us into the New Community, wherein God’s truth is confirmed.  

But on what basis?  Historically, ‘the basis’ is The Word (Jesus) Written.  But our varied interpretations (hermeneutic) of The Word Written, have ‘tripped us up.’   

And so a question:  is it possible to develop clearer interpretive (hermeneutical) boundaries, as we interpret God's Written Word?  N.T. Wright suggests this is wise, for:

“…How far can a reinterpretation of the text go before it ceases to carry the authority which was the point of interpreting it in the first place? At what point in this process are we forced to conclude that what is really “authoritative” within such an operation is the system of theology or devotion already embraced on other grounds, which is then “discovered” in the text by the interpretative method being used?…The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an existing theology or vice versa. (N.T. Wright, Scripture And The Authority of God, New York:  HarperOne, pp. 67, 71).                                                                                                                                       

2) Come to A Clearer Conviction Regarding An Understanding Of Unity.  A prime reason we shy from naming 'truth' is that we want to keep everyone happy. Translated:  we don't advance anything as absolute (e.g. the truth) for fear of offending and creating strife.  

I 'get this', too -- for I tend to be a 'people-pleaser,' going out of my way to 'keep people happy' and avoid conflict.  

But there is something worst than conflict and unhappy people: a wobbly center-pole and a mushy resolve -- created -- as conviction wanes.  

And then we wonder why stability and flow diminish in life. I remember a preacher who once described a swamp as a river, without boundaries. That's a great picture of life without conviction and truth: it's swampy -- and eventually -- uninhabitable. 

A great way to avoid 'the swamp,' is to commit to a governing maxim: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity." - Marco Antonio Dominis https://douglasbeaumont.com/2013/06/18/the-origin-of-in-essentials-unity/     The premise:  not everything is an essential, but there are essentials, and around those essentials, we must unite.

And what are the essentials?  That deserves a separate blog post.  But in sum:  the essentials are the bedrock truth of faith, inspired by God's Living Word -- defined by God's Written Word (skillfully, and faithfully interpreted). And around these essentials, there is no 'wiggle room' -- but rather -- a call to joyfully unite -- in relentless covenant, and undying devotion.

Now in all candor, there are more non-essentials than essentials; thus, lots of prospect for leeway and generosity of spirit.  But the difficult word is this word: there are also non-negotiables -- essentials -- for we are ultimately accountable not to self or even others -- but to a God, who is Almighty -- and thus -- the ultimate repository for Truth.

Bottom line:  our feelings and convictions are important, but first and foremost are the Feelings and Convictions of God.  Thus, we need to...

3) Come To A Clearer Conviction Regarding The Priority of Pleasing God.  As alluded to earlier, sometimes I sense we are more concerned about pleasing each other – than pleasing God.   But the Almighty should be our primary concern in line with Paul's admonition in Romans 12:

"Therefore I urge you...to present your bodies [dedicating all of yourselves, set apart] as a living sacrifice, holy and well-pleasing to God...And do not be conformed to this world [any longer with its superficial values and customs], but be transformed and progressively changed [as you mature spiritually] by the renewing of your mind [focusing on godly values and ethical attitudes..." (Romans 12:1-2. The Amplifed Bible, emphasis added)

And so, I would challenge us, to lean toward that which is well-pleasing to God.  Not anticipating a 'kill-joy' Divine -- but a joy-full Creator -- who truly wants to assist us in the 'living of our days' -- providing for us not only a roadmap and a compass -- but His very self, as "...a still point [in] an every turning world" (T.S. Elliot, adapted) -- a North Star -- to resolutely -- and truthfully - guide us.