|
"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
Bill writes - 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"?
Hi Bill: Your standard or proof text
above is not the one Jesus Himself taught; If I remember correctly He said
that it is when we DO the Word that we will know whether or not the teaching
is from God and true. I can't recall His teaching any of this relational
stuff other than in the context of fulfilling the royal Law which is love.
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.
jt: Probably correct Bill, however, it is
not truth we are to be pursuing - it is peace. We are to pursue peace with
all men and holiness without which noone is going to see the Lord. The
way you present it is backward from my perspective. Should we pursue
peace at any price just so we can have relationship ... I don't think so
because that is not the example that has been set for us.
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.
jt: Tell me how one can have a spiritual
relationship that does not center around truth? For instance I am my
mother's daughter after the flesh. However, my mother and I do not have
a spiritual relationship because she has rejected the Truth and there is
nothing I can do to alter the situation other than to pray and wait on
God.
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.
jt: Do you call debate and dialogue on this
list "pursuit of truth" Bill? Also do you believe that just by virtue of confessing
Christ with the mouth one is automatically a member of 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.
jt: From scripture and yes it does come
from God - when Israel
formed relationships with the pagan nations outside of His truth God
called it "spiritual harlotry" and He judged them because of it.
The way of Truth does not have to conform to the rules of logic necessarily
but neither is it illogical.
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.
jt: I didn't see John's post but can say
with confidence that neither Plato nor Aristotle have a handle on the Truth.
They were born and died in the darkness of their age. Hopefully Jesus
preached to their spirits in prison between the cross and the
resurrection. judyt
|
