Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truth

“The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.” -- atheism.com

“An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact.” -- wisegeek 

It's popular in Christian circles to talk about Absolute Truth.  It's spoken of as one of those defining features that sets us apart from the rabble. While all the world is going to hell in a hand basket because they're a hedonistic bunch of Relativists, the Christians sit smugly upon their stack of Absolute Truths which, conveniently enough, can only be deduced directly from the their own religious text, the Bible. So if you were ever to come to the point that you agreed with Christians on their absolute truths, you'd have to first except the absolute truth that the Bible is the only source for absolute truths.  (This has been my experience, at least, when it comes to discussions among Christians on Absolute Truth.  I'm not trying to say this is absolutely always how the topic is approached.  I'm just giving a relativistic (and snarky) description based on my own personal experiences.)

And yet, if there is objective truth, shouldn't those truths, by definition, be evident, not only to Christians, but to all people? For example: “All people will die.”  This is a basic and objective truth that I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with you on. (Of course, Rob's answer was a prompt, "But you can't prove that." I suppose that just because everyone that's gone before us has died doesn't mean that everyone now or to come will also die. So yeah, I can't prove that. Ironic, isn't it? Something that I'm pretty sure everyone would agree to as an absolute truth can't be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. No wonder discussions of truth often end up sounding more like squabbles than revelations.) Though the Bible addresses the mankind and death issue ("There is a time for everything... a time to be born and a time to die..." -- Ecclesiastes 3:1a, 2a), I think you can find those who have never once read the Scriptures who would also agree with this truth. In my mind, the fact that you could find people of all ages, cultures and religions who agree with this statement is a strong indicator that the statement is a universal truth (even if you can't prove it). 

In fact, as much as Christians love to try to prove that there is absolute truth (even to the point of proving that what someone hasn't said is wrong), I think the real heart of the matter is not that there are those who believe absolute truth doesn't exist, but that there are those (most of us, in fact) who simply forget these absolute truths.  

And so, when someone comes along and reminds us of some of those absolute truths, their words have the ability to strike us at the core.  They resonate with what we have already experienced to be true, and they spur us on to remember and live by those absolute truths. 

A friend of mine recently posted Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address, which resonated with me not only because I think it was a well written and organized speech (and because I think Jesus would use a Mac (a computer that Steve Jobs invented)), but because it jived so well with the book that several gals and I have been reading and discussing in our Bible study group on being peacemakers. Here was a man who attributed nothing to God, who very well may never have read the Bible, and who didn't in any way claim to be a Christian, and yet what he said struck me as being true.  It agreed with beliefs (I think of them as "truths.") that I have found in the Bible.  It agreed with experiences I have had in life. In my opinion, Steve Jobs struck upon several Absolute Truths in his speech. 

He had three main points: 

1. The dots will connect.  Trust that and it will give you confidence.
2. Crap happens. Use those times to start over - to redirect yourself again towards what you love. 
3. We will all die. So choose well how you will live and don't get caught up in silly fears and pointless worries. 

OK, so point number one is the most shaky in terms of being "absolute."  Though many people believe in "destiny" or "karma" or "predestination," there are also many that believe life is random.  As a Christian, however, I find it interesting that Jobs would hit upon this point. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."  In Steve Jobs-ese that would read, "Trust that something -- your gut, destiny, life, Karma, whatever -- is connecting the dots in your life.  Looking forward, you won't see how these dots are going to connect, but looking back, it will become clear." (That's not a direct quote from Jobs.  It's a rearranging of things he said into an approximation of the Proverbs 3:5 format.)  Jobs added that, "Believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well worn path. And that will make all the difference."  

Jobs' second point, that loss can bring you around to seeking after what you love, is also something that can be found in the Bible.  Paul wrote that "when you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first." (1 Corinthians 15:36) The bounty doesn't come until after there's been the struggle that the seed must endure - burial, death, and new life from the husk that's left behind. Jobs also hit upon several other ideas under this second point: "Keep Looking, don't settle," "Sometime's life's gonna hit you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith," and "You've got to find what you love." In other words, persevere, keep faith, and don't forsake your first love.  (Jobs sounds like a 21st century echo of Saint John as he wrote to the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)).

Steve Jobs concluded with the point that I've already addressed above: We're all going to die. He says, "Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything -- all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure -- these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart." This is wisdom.  Steve Jobs has stated quite eloquently here what even Saint Paul struggled to get across to the early Christians living in Rome -- "We were therefore buried with [Jesus] through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4) 

When Saint Paul entered a new city and started speaking to the people there, he often began not by pointing out all the ways in which he disagreed with them, but by pointing out a truth that they could all agree upon. For example, in talking to the men of Athens, he referenced one of their own poets, giving support to his words not by sourcing his own religious text, but by referencing something of theirs. (Acts 17) I can only imagine what our own society would be like if Christians stopped trying to prove that they had the corner on the market for truth and rather started reminding others of truths that we all agree upon (as I feel Steve Jobs has done, heathen though he might be). From there could spring other discussions, such as trying to determine the source of those truths.  But rather than pushing a cultural debate founded upon disagreement, we'd be beginning from a point of unity.  How different would our conversations be then?

Absolute Truth shouldn't be a dividing point used by Christians to attempt to chasten the world.  Rather, Absolute Truth should be that which breaks down the boundaries between us and others and enables us to speak with thoughtfulness, respect, and well... truth.

Ask Jesus into Your Heart. Or Not.

I came across a short essay that I wrote in 1996 in an attempt to answer the question, "Where does it say that Jesus is in our heart?"  (It is rather popular in evangelical circles to claim that people must "ask Jesus into their heart" to be saved.  I was wondering where they got this "ask into your heart" thing.)

I found three Scriptures that came as close as I could get to this concept.  You'll notice that not a single one mentions heart... or any other internal organ either, for that matter.

John 14:20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 

John 17:22-23 ... so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God...

I then wrote the following.  (OK, so it's sorta stream of consciousness.  Roll with that bit, eh?)

Saying that "Jesus is in your heart" seems to compartmentalize him, even constrict him. It puts Jesus in a part of us.  And he sits there inactively.  There is no mention of him working through us, of him drawing us to be more like him, discipling us, etc.  It's a completed sort of statement  It's a location rather than a state of being or a position of operation. 

Now consider the similar statement that one needs to "ask Jesus into their heart."  This implies that a finite creature can actually direct the actions of an (the) infinite creator.  In my recent studying of the book of John I see numerous references to belief and that Jesus came that we might believe.  No where do I see that he came so that we might put him in our hearts.  

Add to this the prayer of Jesus in John 17.  He asked that we might be in him and him in God so that we may be completely one, so that 1) the world would know God sent Jesus and 2) the world would know God loves us.  It seems to me that the purpose of Christ in us is in no way tied to our salvation (as "asking Jesus into our heart" would have us believe) but is specifically that the world would have a better understanding of God.

Today people use the "Jesus in my heart" thing as a dividing line.  There's us -- we have Jesus safely tucked away inside our blood pumping organ.  And there's them -- they don't have Jesus anywhere in them.  Not even in their livers or kidneys.  Rather than focusing on the unity that John 17's "they may be one as we are one" should point us toward, we first of all twist the concept of Jesus in us and then use it as a sword point to poke others with. 

The moral of the story?  Christians are dorks.  (Which is another way of describing the doctrine of sin, I suppose.)

One Church

As I pack up our house for a brief move (while we have work done on our kitchen and basement) I keep coming across pictures, notes, magazine articles, etc. that I've had squirreled away in boxes or cubby holes for years. 

I came across an old notebook (from about 1996?) in which I had notes from a book I was reading at the time.  As I reread my notes I hit this great quote:

"Something else you see if you spiritually belong to the church is that belonging to it means being catholic -- it means belonging to the whole church, belonging to all others who belong to Christ.  Being a church member is not the same as belonging to a denomination, or a congregation, or a theological persuasion.  If the church is the body of Christ, there can't be more than one church, because there's only one Christ.  Anyone clinging to him must cling to the others who are clinging to him." -- Taking the Word to Heart (I think it's by Robert C. Roberts.  But I didn't write the author's name down in my notes.)

I think this is something the church is constantly struggling with.  We hold so tightly to our own ideas about what church is or what we have to believe to "count" as a Christian, or what our political beliefs must be to be a "proper" Christian that we forget we all follow the same God, and the same savior, and have the same Spirit and we are, whether we like it or not, all one church. 

The Perfect Pastor? (Understanding and Relating to the Life and Work of a Pastor)

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/33
Click through for a review of D. Thomas Owsley's book, The Perfect Pastor? (Understanding and Relating to the Life and Work of a Pastor).

Got Faith?

"Because when it comes to faith, everybody has it.  People often tell me they could never have faith, that it is just too hard.  The idea that some people have faith and others don't is a popular one.  But it is not a true one  Everybody has faith.  Everybody is following somebody." -- Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis

I typed up that quote a year and a half ago. I don't remember why I never posted it, but I just checked my drafts "folder" and found it there and figured I'd post it now. 

So what do you think? Does everyone have faith (even if it's just in themselves)?

The Velvet Elvis is an SJ.

While reading Dan Kimball's book, I grew increasingly aware that what the Emergent folk were pulling away from was an SJ mentality.  To be honest, I'm not sure yet what personality type they're pulling toward.  I suspect the toward has more to do with the personality types of the Emergent leaders than the personality types of the so-called "emerging generation" or "emerging culture."  (NF, perhaps?)

I started reading Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis today.  I wasn't even 4 pages into the book when Bell stated this point exactly -- except that he doesn't at all attribute it to a difference in personalities. 

Here's what often happens: Somebody comes along who has a fresh perspective on the Christian faith. People are inspired. A movement starts. Faith that was stale and dying is now alive.  But then the pioneer of the movement -- the painter -- dies and the followers stop exploring.  They mistakenly assume that their leader's words were the last ones on the subject, and they freeze their leader's words.  They forget that as that innovator was doing this or her part to move things along, that person was merely taking part in the discussion that will go on forever.  And so in their commitment to what so-and-so said and did, they end up freezing the faith. -- Rob Bell, in Velvet Elvis

SJ's are the protectors.  They value tradition and continuity.  They are the ones who remind us how things have been done in the past, who help us remember and adhere to the rules, and who help us to stay on the pathway that we set out upon.  It makes sense that they "freeze" the faith at a point because that's the gift/personality that God has bestowed upon them.  Without them it would be easy for us to lose focus and wander away from the goals that we set out toward. 

NF's are visionaries.  Their gift/personality type is one that sees new possibilities, new ways of looking at things, new means of approaching old topics.  

NT's are intellectuals.  They analyze the ways things have been done and how they might be done better.  They innovate and challenge the status quo.  

All of these (and SP's as well, of course -- people the Emerging churches are often particularly targeting) are important and valuable perspectives and all are needed to keep a balance.  When a church is made up of all SJ's then yes, it will seem very dry and boring and dead.  It might not seem dead to the SJ's themselves, but to all of the other personality types that are biding their time in that congregation, it could be quite miserable. But when a church is made up all of NF's, anything goes.  You might never know where you'll be from one week to another (theologically, emotionally, etc.) and that might be exciting and refreshing for NF's, but for other personality types, that could be quite unsettling and even disturbing.  

God made us with different personality types so that we can learn from each other, so we can balance each other, so that we can guide one another and so that we can love one another despite our differences.  We need to learn to listen to each other rather than advocating one personality type over and above another. 

Soul Types: Matching Your Personality and Spiritual Path

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/31
In the book Soul Types, the authors, Hirsh and Kise, link personality types and preferred methods of pursuing spirituality. Click through on the link above to read Meg's review.