| ï
'I see the disagreement to be one of semantics.'
(SEMANTICS IS CONTRASTED WITH SYNTAX) I believe that such an important
distinction will 'bulk large' in forthcoming posts from BTT (Bill the
Theologian). There has been no small amount of haggling over this distinction
and, may I say, much misunderstanding. Please, voice your disagrements now if ya
got 'em.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: December 15, 2004 04:12
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To
Get To The Truth
In a message dated 12/14/2004 6:19:29 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"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 Godâs side is more important than taking manâs
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
The Gospel According to
John smithson
Hi Judy, Welcome back.
It seems
to me that we miss the point of BillyT's comments. As his words speak to
me, I am reminded that the avenue of understanding truth is relational, not
"isolational." Tonight, as the news services were busy
interviewing members of the Peterson jury, there was a question addressed to
one of the alternates: "Did you agree with the
verdict?" His answer? " I really cannot voice an
opinion. I had access to all the testimony and evidence, but I was
not involved in the deliberation -- so I cannot have an
opinion."
Get the point? There the "truth" is, lying
right there on the desk top, in the form of testimony and evidence
-- but a conclusion about the truth imported via this evidence
(read "written word") cannot be arrived at apart from consultation with
others -- static limitations overcome by relational
interaction. And so, what is written will be misunderstood if it
thought it bears "truth" apart from relational considerations (i.e., the
Spirit, preachers, teachers, propehts, apostles, evangelists).
Thanks Bill for trying to put this whole matter into some kind of
context. And Judy -- your responses do not convince me that
you disagree that much. I thought your comments have
merit. I see the disgreement to be one of semantics more than
anything, at this point.
John the
Beloved
|
