RE: [TruthTalk] The right way to get to the truth

[ShieldsFamily]

Bill, who ever said that rules are more important than relationships? Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] The right way to get to the truth   "My ex-wife also believed that rules were more important than relationships."  -- John Smithson, December 04, 2004   "Without exception, those who put being right in front of relationships, who separate the two (and that is what I am really talking about) lack the ability to be empathetic . . . The disciples of Christ could not have been more immature, more wrong, [yet Christ] continued to care for them, respect them, die for them. He was a true friend." -- John Smithson, December 05, 2004         TTers,   I began this post with the above quotations because I find them to be utterly profound. So central are they to "getting at" the problem we have here on TT that to miss them is to risk missing it all. It is the problem which has plagued the church throughout its existence. What is that "problem"? It is the problem that Christians have in getting to the truth. What John does in these two statements is identify the root of that problem, the "thing" that keeps us from ever coming together and unifying around our Lord. Christians think that the truthfulness of a statement stands on its own merit; in other words, that "truth" is somehow contained within the propositional form of a statement. This is why Christians may respond to a statement like John's with something on the order of No, John, I am right, because taking God’s side is more important than taking man’s side -- as if the truthfulness of God's truth is somehow a non-relational entity, a static state that stands on its own, the only remaining question being will you or will you not align yourself with that statement.    For far too long, far too many Christians have believed the lie: that truth is more important than relationships. This is wrong -- dead wrong. It fails to take into account the relational dynamic of truth itself. Truth is always personal; it is never strictly propositional. Statements themselves cannot contain truth. Statements approximate truth by pointing beyond themselves to the truth. If you don't believe me then try to make sense of the propositional statement "I am the Truth" without taking into consideration the personifying nature of the statement. Who is making this statement? The only way to know if it is true is to know the person who made it. But the proposition falls apart as soon as you refuse to consider the person of Christ; ah, but as soon as you do consider the person of Christ your propositional claim to truth fails because now the truthfulness of the statement is a relational truth and not a propositional truth.   Or am I wrong? Is their other truth out there that is not His truth, that is not personified in His person? Is that what you're talking about? When Jesus said, "I am the Truth," did he mean to say "I am a truth"?   Friends, it is impossible to pursue truth in an Enlightenment, scientific (and by that I mean an impersonal, non-relational) manner. Truth cannot fit in a beaker. It's not some inanimate object. You can't boil it or dissect it, without destroying it in the process. Nor is it a vaulted concept. You can't dog it out like a bloodhound on the scent of a trail, without destroying the very relationships that it embodies. You can't roll over people in pursuit of "truth," without truth always eluding you.   If you think truth is more important than relationships, then it won't matter how many questions you ask to get to the truth of the matter: truth will always escape you. It will always be beyond you. This is the problem we are having -- TT being but a microcosm of the Church universal.   We are the body of Christ. You think you're in "pursuit of the truth" and so you write back to someone with whom you disagree, and you ask him eight or ten questions intended to falsify his claims. Then he writes back to you, answering these questions to the best of his ability. And what do you do? You shoot him back 8-10 more questions, again all in the "spirit" of this dogged "pursuit of the truth." By this point it is not one thread or one topic about which you disagree, it is several now. Ah, but have you gotten to the truth? No you haven't. You have strained your relationship though. Oh, but it is truth that we are after! So you write him back again and you ask him several more questions and you remind him of the ones previous that he has yet to answer and the whole time you are hot on the trail of truth, your nose to the ground -- and you are oblivious to the fact that you are missing the truth because you are destroying the relationships that truth embodies: the body of Christ.   From where did we get this crazy idea that truth is more important that relationships, and that the way to get to truth is through the sound use of formal Reason? My friends, it didn't come from God. The man most notably "the father of logic" had this to say just prior to setting forth the formal way to get to the truth: "Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth." What kind of a friend was he?   Thank you, John, for putting Aristotle in his place.   Bill