Luc Ferry in his book A Brief History of Thought offers a scathing criticism of materialists and those who follow the philosopher Nietzsche's lead by saying there is no such thing as transcendence. In a nutshell, Ferry calls them hypocrites. No one lives as if there are no universal rules. No one lives as if there is no transcendence. Everyone has some sort of belief in the common good. Everyone.
Ferry is no intellectual light weight, and his criticisms go beyond just this one. I encourage folks to read this tome of Ferry's even though he does not cross into belief in God. Though he finds the Christian narrative very, very appealing, Ferry wants to work out his own salvation. This is his choice.
Yet, his argument about transcendence is very important I think. Everyone lives as if there is a transcendent reality. Everyone lives asking, "What should I do?" Everyone lives as if there is a frame of ethics which supersede individuals, cultures, and nations. C.S. Lewis did some fascinating research finding that nearly every civilized culture has some form of the Golden Rule within it. Why?
Lewis makes his case in this fashion: if there is such a thing as natural law--a higher morality, then there must be a law giver. Hence God exists. While a powerful argument, it is not absolute. Folks can argue, and they do that the discovery of such laws might be humankind's evolution and discovery of what is needed for a fully functional human society. Evolution has produced the Golden Rule; it is not given by God.
The criticism is duly noted, but this does not make the Golden Rule transcendent. In fact, it lessens the universality of the rule. For if evolution decreed that the Golden Rule is necessary for civilization now, evolution could easily lead us to disperse the Golden Rule if it gets in the way of the survival of the species or our own personal survival. After all, evolution is governed not by any transcendence which tells us what we should do, but it is governed by natural selection and genetic mutation. The Golden Rule is necessary for survival now, but what if it becomes a hindrance in the future? Evolution would say, discard it!!!
Those who believe in transcendence would not discard the rule so easily. In fact, they would continue to hold onto it despite any pressure to discard it because it is a universal law. And if Ferry is correct, even evolutionists who are convinced the Golden Rule came about by evolution would continue to hold onto it even if evolution tries to pull us away from it. (I personally believe this is already the case, for in evolution, the weakest members of any species--sans humankind--are dispatched by nature rather quickly. Only human beings care for their physically and mentally ill. Only humans disrupt the natural process in this manner--including many evolutionists.)
The question in my book is: can someone claim there is no transcendence and then act as if there is? This kind of life, in my opinion, would eventually lead to a mental break down. There is just no integrity in it. Perhaps this is why Nietzsche went insane when he saw a man beating a poor horse. Perhaps he felt compassion for this animal, and yet he had absolutely nothing to fall back upon to say why this abuse was wrong. One cannot have one's cake and eat it too.
Ferry argues in his book there is indeed transcendence although his argument and mine diverge at this point. If you would like to read his, I again encourage you to read his thoughts. Mine is a little less philosophical at this point and a little more realistic. If everyone acts as if there is transcendence and has acted as if there is transcendence, then there is transcendence. It's not scientifically air tight. It's not measurable. It just is. Kind of like love. It just is.
But how do we know that this transcendence is God? How do we know this transcendence is personal?
Well, today's blog is long enough. Perhaps tomorrow.
Showing posts with label Universal Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universal Truth. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Is There Something Out There?
In a conversation with a congregation member this past Sunday, I invoked the name of Isaac Asimov. My congregation member and I were discussing the relationship between science and faith and how there is quite a bit of arrogance on the part of both "sides" as they promote their particular points of view.
The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."
For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent! "Science is not about faith!!" they decry. And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God." Their conclusion is logical. However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based. Isaac Asimov is helpful here.
Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher. If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth. His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them. In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:
"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears. "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."
"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.
"What's that?" prompted Donovan.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell signed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed."
(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)
The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates. I have no assumptions. I base everything upon what I can see and measure."
But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"
Just this: you are confined to the natural world. You are confined to only the things you can see and measure. Nothing more. Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?" Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed. One is limited. The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it. One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.
If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith. It is not a statement of science. It is not a statement of fact. It is not a statement of pure reason. It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe.
One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"
From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:
"The human brain runs first class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time. Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."
Think about that statement long and hard. If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption.
On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.
This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. The evidence might be just fine--for both!! However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!
The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe. We will actually never know. (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.) By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there." Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith. We would do well to recognize this.
It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.
At least I can dream, right?
The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."
For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent! "Science is not about faith!!" they decry. And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God." Their conclusion is logical. However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based. Isaac Asimov is helpful here.
Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher. If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth. His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them. In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:
"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears. "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."
"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it. He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.
"What's that?" prompted Donovan.
"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates. We have ours and Cutie has his."
"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry. The storm's due tomorrow."
Powell signed wearily. "That's where everything falls down. Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith. Nothing in the Universe can shake them. I'm going to bed."
(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)
The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates. I have no assumptions. I base everything upon what I can see and measure."
But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"
Just this: you are confined to the natural world. You are confined to only the things you can see and measure. Nothing more. Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?" Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed. One is limited. The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it. One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.
If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith. It is not a statement of science. It is not a statement of fact. It is not a statement of pure reason. It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe.
One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"
From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:
"The human brain runs first class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time. Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."
Think about that statement long and hard. If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption.
On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.
This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence. The evidence might be just fine--for both!! However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!
The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe. We will actually never know. (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.) By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there." Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith. We would do well to recognize this.
It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.
At least I can dream, right?
Monday, May 19, 2014
Exclusive Truth: Sermon on John 14:1-14
Some people get really uncomfortable with Jesus. In this day and age, quite a few get uncomfortable when they hear Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John–the very words of our Gospel lesson today, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
“How can Jesus be so exclusive?” folks ask. “How can He say that He is the truth and the only way to the Father? What about all those other good people who do so many good things? Don’t they have the truth? What makes Jesus so special?” Not only does Jesus’ exclusive truth claim make some people nervous, there are others who scoff from the get go. “Don’t you know truth is relative?” they say. “There is no such thing as universal truth, so what Jesus says is irrelevant.”
These are very good questions, and they deserve much more time than I can give them this morning, but I will attempt to deal with these things as briefly as possible. “Why?” you might ask. Well, because in our day and age, if we truly want to be effective in sharing our faith, we’ve got to be able to deal with some of those things floating around our culture that have become “common sense” ideas. Some of the things I asked above are some of the “common sense” arguments people use to excuse themselves from ever having to deal with questions of truth and questions of faith, and if you try to engage people about faith without dealing with some of these questions, their eyes will glaze over, and they will simply tune you out. The gospel will never have a chance to sink in unless these things are dealt with.
So, let’s begin with the issue of truth. Is truth relative? Does universal truth even exist? Notice I am a long way off from Jesus at this point. Don’t worry, I hope to get to Him before this sermon is done. Since the philosopher Nietzsche, many claim that universal truth does not exist and that truth is simply relative. Truth is simply what any given culture says truth is at any given moment of history. If you want a great example of this, Google Bill Clinton definition of is.
But there is a major problem with saying truth is relative. First off, in order for truth to be relative, the statement truth is relative has to be a universal truth. Try to unwind that one in your head. You see, if the statement “truth is relative” is true, then the statement is actually relative, so why should I believe it? You can’t get very far with that one logically, can you?
Second, and probably most importantly, if truth is simply what any given culture says it is during any point in history, then what gives us the slightest notion that we can argue that our version of truth is better than another culture’s version of truth? I mean, think about this: if there are no universal truths, then what gives us the idea that respecting people of all colors, races, or creeds is the best form of living? Can we lift up our model of democratic living in the United States above those living in an Islamic regime? Or a dictatorship? If truth is relative, what reason do I have to give to a person who steals, kills, or destroys? That person can simply say, “What’s true for you is true for you, but what’s true for me is true for me.” We have no basis for declaring something right or wrong. We only have what society says or what we say ourselves. Does anyone want to live this way? No, and we certainly do not live this way. We live as though there are certain truths which are universal and binding to everyone.
Both of these things show, I think rather strongly, that yes, there is such a thing as absolute truth. There is such a thing as truth which is binding upon each and every one of us.
Of course, the next logical progression, and the one I’ve been personally hit with before is, “Okay smarty pants. You say there is universal truth. So, I take it you know it? Why don’t you share it with the rest of us so that we can be just as enlightened as you.”
This statement usually backs anyone into a corner for a couple of reasons. First, it does take great audacity to say that one knows the absolute truth. Remember several weeks ago, I preached a sermon where I showed that each and every one of us has a blind spot and that our brains fill in the blanks? Anyone who has done even a little bit of studying knows, absolutely knows, he or she doesn’t come close to knowing all there is to know–even when it comes to knowing the truth. That’s the first problem. The second problem comes with those who actually claim to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We’ve seen a few of those folks, haven’t we. We’ve seen them fly planes into towers. We’ve seen them kill doctors at abortion clinics. We’ve seen them mutilate women and kidnap young girls to sell into slavery. We’ve seen them treat people of other ethnic groups as less than human. We’ve seen them kill homosexuals without regret. We generally call them fanatics, and fanatics are generally frowned upon these days for good reason. Very few want to be seen as a fanatic.
But here is where things tend to get a little interesting. For aren’t we all a fanatic in some way, shape and form? I mean, aren’t there those who are fanatical about not being a fanatic? Think about that one. Think about those who proclaim the gospel of tolerance. We must be tolerant of everyone. We must be tolerant of their beliefs and practices. We must allow folks to express themselves with freedom. Sounds good on the surface, but have you ever known one of these folks to be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Did you see what happened to Donald Sterling, the owner of the L.A. Clippers? How did the “tolerant” folks treat him? Well, they actually treated him like fanatics treat someone who doesn’t share their beliefs, didn’t they? We’re all a little fanatical in some way. We all think we have a hold on the truth, don’t we? I mean admit it. Deep down, somewhere you probably believe that if folks just believed like you do, then the world would work great, right? Of course, the person sitting right next to you probably believes the exact same thing. So which of you is right?
Let’s return to the illustration that I used several weeks ago about the blind men and the elephant. Briefly, there are several blind men who stumble upon an elephant, and they proceed to touch the elephant to “see” it. After they examine the elephant, they begin to argue about what the elephant is like. One says it’s like a rope–he grabbed the tail. One argues it is like a hose–he grabbed the trunk. One argues it’s like a spear–he touched the tusk. One argues it’s like a walk–he touched the torso. One argues it’s like a tree stump–he touched the leg. All of them are right. All of them are wrong because none can see the whole elephant. None of them can know the whole truth.
As I said before, and so I say again, the only way this story can work is if someone actually sees the whole elephant. We cannot know that each and everyone of us doesn’t have the truth unless someone knows what the truth is. And who knows what the truth is? Who has ever seen it? No human, that’s for sure. No human has ever grasped the truth, the full truth.
But what if the truth came down to us?
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but so that the world may be saved through Him.”
God took on flesh and lived among us. God the Son left eternity to enter into our time and our place to reveal Himself to us–not as an idea or a concept but as a person. Jesus said, “I am the truth.”
And this, I think is important. The truth is a person. Why is this so important? Think about the most important relationship you have–second to your relationship with God, I mean. Think about the person you love and cherish the most either as a spouse or a friend. You may have spent copious amounts of time with that person. You may have talked and talked and talked to each other. Do you believe you know that person fully? Do you know everything there is to know about that person? Do you know that person to the very depths of his or her soul? No, of course you don’t. There are some things you know and know well, but there is an awful lot of mystery as well. There is an awful lot of growing you still have to do in that relationship. And, of course, you don’t own that other person. You cannot claim that you “have” that other person. And you can’t give that person to another. You can only introduce others to him or her. You can only tell others about his or her qualities. You cannot arrogantly proclaim your ownership over another person. As fanatical as you are about your love and care for this person, you don’t shove that person onto another. Do you see where I am going with this?
If universal truth is not a concept or an idea but it is a person, then we live in relationship to that person. We live in relationship to Jesus. We live in relationship with the truth. There are some things we know, but there is an awful lot we don’t know. There is an awful lot of mystery in Jesus. There is a lot of growing we still have to do. We can absolutely be fanatical about our love for Him, but when it comes to introducing Him to others, we do so as if we were introducing our best friend or spouse. And I have yet to see anyone introduce their best friend or spouse by saying, “If you don’t believe in my spouse, you will go to hell.” Not necessarily appropriate. And not necessarily honoring the one whose traits we have come to know. For Jesus came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it. And Jesus came into the world to reveal the truth to us–while we were still sinners. And Jesus went to the cross to die for us–while we were still broken. And Jesus hung on the cross praying for His enemies and asking God to forgive them.
Yes, I believe in exclusive truth. I believe in Jesus. For as the truth, He calls me to be fanatical about love, about forgiveness, and honoring and respecting all those who are created in the image of God. And when I don’t and didn’t measure up to this; He loved me and died for me offering me forgiveness and reconciliation with God. These are the same things He gives to you and to the whole world. Amen.
“How can Jesus be so exclusive?” folks ask. “How can He say that He is the truth and the only way to the Father? What about all those other good people who do so many good things? Don’t they have the truth? What makes Jesus so special?” Not only does Jesus’ exclusive truth claim make some people nervous, there are others who scoff from the get go. “Don’t you know truth is relative?” they say. “There is no such thing as universal truth, so what Jesus says is irrelevant.”
These are very good questions, and they deserve much more time than I can give them this morning, but I will attempt to deal with these things as briefly as possible. “Why?” you might ask. Well, because in our day and age, if we truly want to be effective in sharing our faith, we’ve got to be able to deal with some of those things floating around our culture that have become “common sense” ideas. Some of the things I asked above are some of the “common sense” arguments people use to excuse themselves from ever having to deal with questions of truth and questions of faith, and if you try to engage people about faith without dealing with some of these questions, their eyes will glaze over, and they will simply tune you out. The gospel will never have a chance to sink in unless these things are dealt with.
So, let’s begin with the issue of truth. Is truth relative? Does universal truth even exist? Notice I am a long way off from Jesus at this point. Don’t worry, I hope to get to Him before this sermon is done. Since the philosopher Nietzsche, many claim that universal truth does not exist and that truth is simply relative. Truth is simply what any given culture says truth is at any given moment of history. If you want a great example of this, Google Bill Clinton definition of is.
But there is a major problem with saying truth is relative. First off, in order for truth to be relative, the statement truth is relative has to be a universal truth. Try to unwind that one in your head. You see, if the statement “truth is relative” is true, then the statement is actually relative, so why should I believe it? You can’t get very far with that one logically, can you?
Second, and probably most importantly, if truth is simply what any given culture says it is during any point in history, then what gives us the slightest notion that we can argue that our version of truth is better than another culture’s version of truth? I mean, think about this: if there are no universal truths, then what gives us the idea that respecting people of all colors, races, or creeds is the best form of living? Can we lift up our model of democratic living in the United States above those living in an Islamic regime? Or a dictatorship? If truth is relative, what reason do I have to give to a person who steals, kills, or destroys? That person can simply say, “What’s true for you is true for you, but what’s true for me is true for me.” We have no basis for declaring something right or wrong. We only have what society says or what we say ourselves. Does anyone want to live this way? No, and we certainly do not live this way. We live as though there are certain truths which are universal and binding to everyone.
Both of these things show, I think rather strongly, that yes, there is such a thing as absolute truth. There is such a thing as truth which is binding upon each and every one of us.
Of course, the next logical progression, and the one I’ve been personally hit with before is, “Okay smarty pants. You say there is universal truth. So, I take it you know it? Why don’t you share it with the rest of us so that we can be just as enlightened as you.”
This statement usually backs anyone into a corner for a couple of reasons. First, it does take great audacity to say that one knows the absolute truth. Remember several weeks ago, I preached a sermon where I showed that each and every one of us has a blind spot and that our brains fill in the blanks? Anyone who has done even a little bit of studying knows, absolutely knows, he or she doesn’t come close to knowing all there is to know–even when it comes to knowing the truth. That’s the first problem. The second problem comes with those who actually claim to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We’ve seen a few of those folks, haven’t we. We’ve seen them fly planes into towers. We’ve seen them kill doctors at abortion clinics. We’ve seen them mutilate women and kidnap young girls to sell into slavery. We’ve seen them treat people of other ethnic groups as less than human. We’ve seen them kill homosexuals without regret. We generally call them fanatics, and fanatics are generally frowned upon these days for good reason. Very few want to be seen as a fanatic.
But here is where things tend to get a little interesting. For aren’t we all a fanatic in some way, shape and form? I mean, aren’t there those who are fanatical about not being a fanatic? Think about that one. Think about those who proclaim the gospel of tolerance. We must be tolerant of everyone. We must be tolerant of their beliefs and practices. We must allow folks to express themselves with freedom. Sounds good on the surface, but have you ever known one of these folks to be tolerant of those who are intolerant? Did you see what happened to Donald Sterling, the owner of the L.A. Clippers? How did the “tolerant” folks treat him? Well, they actually treated him like fanatics treat someone who doesn’t share their beliefs, didn’t they? We’re all a little fanatical in some way. We all think we have a hold on the truth, don’t we? I mean admit it. Deep down, somewhere you probably believe that if folks just believed like you do, then the world would work great, right? Of course, the person sitting right next to you probably believes the exact same thing. So which of you is right?
Let’s return to the illustration that I used several weeks ago about the blind men and the elephant. Briefly, there are several blind men who stumble upon an elephant, and they proceed to touch the elephant to “see” it. After they examine the elephant, they begin to argue about what the elephant is like. One says it’s like a rope–he grabbed the tail. One argues it is like a hose–he grabbed the trunk. One argues it’s like a spear–he touched the tusk. One argues it’s like a walk–he touched the torso. One argues it’s like a tree stump–he touched the leg. All of them are right. All of them are wrong because none can see the whole elephant. None of them can know the whole truth.
As I said before, and so I say again, the only way this story can work is if someone actually sees the whole elephant. We cannot know that each and everyone of us doesn’t have the truth unless someone knows what the truth is. And who knows what the truth is? Who has ever seen it? No human, that’s for sure. No human has ever grasped the truth, the full truth.
But what if the truth came down to us?
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but so that the world may be saved through Him.”
God took on flesh and lived among us. God the Son left eternity to enter into our time and our place to reveal Himself to us–not as an idea or a concept but as a person. Jesus said, “I am the truth.”
And this, I think is important. The truth is a person. Why is this so important? Think about the most important relationship you have–second to your relationship with God, I mean. Think about the person you love and cherish the most either as a spouse or a friend. You may have spent copious amounts of time with that person. You may have talked and talked and talked to each other. Do you believe you know that person fully? Do you know everything there is to know about that person? Do you know that person to the very depths of his or her soul? No, of course you don’t. There are some things you know and know well, but there is an awful lot of mystery as well. There is an awful lot of growing you still have to do in that relationship. And, of course, you don’t own that other person. You cannot claim that you “have” that other person. And you can’t give that person to another. You can only introduce others to him or her. You can only tell others about his or her qualities. You cannot arrogantly proclaim your ownership over another person. As fanatical as you are about your love and care for this person, you don’t shove that person onto another. Do you see where I am going with this?
If universal truth is not a concept or an idea but it is a person, then we live in relationship to that person. We live in relationship to Jesus. We live in relationship with the truth. There are some things we know, but there is an awful lot we don’t know. There is an awful lot of mystery in Jesus. There is a lot of growing we still have to do. We can absolutely be fanatical about our love for Him, but when it comes to introducing Him to others, we do so as if we were introducing our best friend or spouse. And I have yet to see anyone introduce their best friend or spouse by saying, “If you don’t believe in my spouse, you will go to hell.” Not necessarily appropriate. And not necessarily honoring the one whose traits we have come to know. For Jesus came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it. And Jesus came into the world to reveal the truth to us–while we were still sinners. And Jesus went to the cross to die for us–while we were still broken. And Jesus hung on the cross praying for His enemies and asking God to forgive them.
Yes, I believe in exclusive truth. I believe in Jesus. For as the truth, He calls me to be fanatical about love, about forgiveness, and honoring and respecting all those who are created in the image of God. And when I don’t and didn’t measure up to this; He loved me and died for me offering me forgiveness and reconciliation with God. These are the same things He gives to you and to the whole world. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)