"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
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
