"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
