Having just began reading Total Truth, it is amazing to see the insights that Nancy Pearcey brings in the first couple of chapters.
I had never noticed how so much of the world seeks to seperate the spiritual from the natural and present us with two versions of “truth.” This plays out in so many of today’s debates whether it is gay marriage or intelligent design.
So much of life is based on the classical Greek philosophy that life is tiered and seperated. Virtually everyone seperates life into two categories whether it is today’s break down of truth vs. value, supernatural vs. natural, or the reglious seperation of grace vs. creation.
You see this in every piece written on creation and evolution. Some where in the article, in an attempt to placate both sides, the writer will make some statement like: “The realms of religion and science do not have to be forever in conflict. They both offer much of value and importance to each of us.” I agree that religion and science do not have to in conflict (that is a preconcived bias in and of itself, not allowing for the fact that those who believe in intelligent design have any science with them), but they cannot both exists truthfully and claim opposite realities.
We cannot somehow find “truth” in two mutually exclusive claims. Truth is not and cannot be held down and divided into sections, yet that is what everyone (including most Christians) seek to do.
Take these for example: an editorial, a news piece and a letter to the editor, all promoting the divided truth explanantion.
Delve into any debate on creationism, gay marriage or virtually any hot botton issue and you will hear the vestiges of the old Greek philosophy rearing it’s head. “That may be true for your religion, but not for me.” “Evolution does not have to exclude religion. They can exist simultaneously.” “You cannot legislate your version of morality or truth on everyone else.”
The schism seperating the two “truths” is found even in churches. Where sacred and secular and viewed across inescapeable gulfs. Churches create huge list of “do nots” for their members in order to not appear secular. Those going into “the ministry” are viewed in high esteem.
This tiered approach to reality is unstable and prone to collapse. What happens when two “truths” collide? Do we simply ignore the conflict and sweep it under the rug, content with being accepted by the bulk of our culture? Do we dare committ the unforgiveable cultural sin of judgment and decide between two things that claim exclusivity? Can we venture to violate the one solid command of our current culture – tolerance, meaning acceptance of any and everything? We must if we hope to ever grasp any real concept of truth beyond the vague, shifting mist that our culture loves to claim as “truth.” Do we give up the comfortable, yet inconsistent mist for the uncomfortable, yet reliable rock of absolute truth?
What Christianity needs is to present a unified truth, or “total truth” as Pearcey puts it, that brings together all areas of life and joins them under one banner. The Truth put forth in scripture is not simply religious truth, but socialtal truths.
This does not mean we force everyone to live by the Ten Commandments and Mosaic law. We do not change or convince by force or rule of law (that is the easy way that too many have taken and seek to take now), rather we impact culture with persuasive arguments with reasoned debate. We seek to understand God’s Truth for all His creation and relay that to a world desperate for consistent answers, for Total Truth.
Regarding the proclamation of truth, I think we have two responsibilities:
1. Reasoning from nature rather than scripture. People have little regard for those who make religious claims without any appeal to reason, and rightly so. Faith and reason are partners, not adversaries, and we must make every effort to rely on reason, not just claims at divine authority.
2. However, we must also hold out truth, God's truth, as self-evident, and NOT appeal to reason all the time, but sometimes, only to conscience. We should not depend totally on the limits of reason, but allow the power of truth to transform people and societies directly. It has inherent power which we do not need to always try to make acceptable via man's tainted, limited reason.
I am guessing that seeker has been reading "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" (which is pretty good so far). I think you have to approach it from both angles as you suggest. Yes, we need to be able to argue a position based on Scripture but we also must be able to reason outside of Scripture.
I was struck by the same two-tiered structure that Ms. Pearcey discusses throughout the book. I believe you will find it a fascinating read.
I have not read the book you mentioned. Does it say something similar?
I mentioned that book (and recommend it) because it actually spends the first half of the text making a case for the existence of God without using Scripture as a basis for that argument. Their thinking is that we can't argue the existence of God from the Bible with someone if they don't believe in the Bible's authority. Only when you can lead the person to accept that the Bible has authority can you use it to make your points.
I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist is an incredible book. I have already found myself refering back to it and the way it dismantles postmodern thinking.
I also agree with the two-pronged approach to disassemble the two-tiered thinking. We do ourselves and Christ a big disservice, if all we can do is say, "The Bible says so." But as has been discussed here before Biblical literacy is terrible and we would do well to understand what we believe and why we believe it from the Bible.
Paul used two different approaches dealing with two different people groups. With the Jews he started off with Chrst. They already had the Biblical foundation of believing the OT and he could simply say that Jesus was Messiah and work around that.
With the Gentiles and Greeks, he had to change it up. The classic example is at Mars Hill when he uses what they know – the unknown god – to affirm God. Then starting at creation he moved them to an understanding of Christ.
Christians have done a poor job in both these veins which is evident in our world today, which has little regard for Christianity's claims of truth. We haven't shown the truth and we haven't lived the truth.
Aaron wrote:
"Can we venture to violate the one solid command of our current culture – tolerance, meaning acceptance of any and everything? We must if we hope to ever grasp any real concept of truth beyond the vague, shifting mist that our culture loves to claim as "truth." Do we give up the comfortable, yet inconsistent mist for the uncomfortable, yet reliable rock of absolute truth?"
For one thing, tolerance does not mean acceptance of "any- and everything." That is a total distortion. Tolerance means that, though you may disagree with or disapprove of someone, you are still willing to live together with them peaceably and respectfully. Another problem I see here is just how we come to the "reliable rock of absolute truth." You say we shouldn't do so based on force or legislation but on "persuasive arguments with reasoned debate," which I find commendable. However, this begs the question: what if those who disagree with you just refuse to agree, no matter how reasonably you argue? What if we, too, use reason to come to completely different answers, to different "abolute truths," or to no absolutes at all? What then? How can you establish this "Total Truth"(shudder) you desire if people just won't agree with you? It's obvious that humanity will never (bar genetic manipulation) agree on a totalist view of things. Societies which have attempted this have been horrible almost beyond belief. And it's clear that allowing reasoned debate, openness, and, yes, tolerance, in attempting to create this absolutist vision you desire does the exact opposite: it results in the very "vague, shifting mist" you deplore above (something I think most agree is not comfortable at all).
The fact is that we must resign ourselves to uncertainty, tolerance, and openness to differences – to embrace the "negative capability" Keats wrote of – and maybe even see it as a virtue. "Total Truth" is too like totalitarianism: one view imposed on all.
It is not something to be imposed, but discovered. The total truth is already there, we are simply blinded by other things and do not see it.
I know the actual definition of tolerance is not acceptance of any and everything, but that is the implied definition today. People are accused of not being tolerant because they won't acknowledge that someone else is right, too, meaing people disagreeing about something both have to admit that the other is right even though they are totally opposite ideas.
The "total truth" does not demand agreement. It remains truth regardless if anyone or everyone agrees with it or not. I don't expect everyone to agree with the total truth, but I expect Christians to be able to understand and articulate this. This is not so much a call for everyone to agree with truth as it is a call for Christians to be able to communicate the truth of God into every avenue of life.
Okay, maybe the "total truth" is there, somewhere, but as you say, we don't see it (or can't). The problem remains, how do we find it? The entire history of humanity, I think, is concerned with this question. The answers multiply like sands in the desert. You think you have it and want to communicate it to others. However, I can still say that it's just YOUR truth, yet another truth among many, and that it's impossible to verify one way or the other. I see your point that you intend a call to Christians, but I see nothing new about it. It's good that you advocate reasonable persuasion, though: so many who think they have the "total truth" sees things differently.
It may be that some think of tolerance as meaning a forced acceptance of everything, but I don't. My meaning is posted above and I stick to it. For instance, I don't think you or seeker is right, but I try to be tolerant. I don't advocate legislation banning your viewpoints or your right to practice them.