the forest of truth

so, in light of the last post:

If language is by its own essence something which constricts reality, then what is it's relation to truth? A question which is more pertinent for myself is, what are the consequences of my opinions of absolute truth in terms of the Bible, or philosophical truth?

Basically, I think that all truth that we as humans speak of is finite, limited, and restricted by the fact that we always feel the need to put it into words. I feel the need to state up front that my concept of truth is not really compatible with the Platonic ideal of truth. I'm not a fan of Platonism, though I know I am infected with it like all Westerners are. I don't think truth exists apart from our reality in some pristine, eternally existing ideal that we know only through the forms that it takes here on earth. Insofar as I ever allude to believing in that, I do so unintentionally as one who unfortunately falls into Platonic ruts which are everywhere in Western culture. I think that truth exists among us, between us, in us, and with us. But, before I get nauseated by my own abstractions, let me return to the point at hand . . .

If we believe in an ultimate truth, then what about language?

Language it seems at least to me, is a means by which we as humans leave marks on reality to let us know where we have been and where we are going. This is significant to me for faith, since I believe we exist within God who is infinite and eternal, and no matter how long we have sought to understand him we will never come close to understanding him. The idea of truth is little more than a discussion of one facet of our experience of God. The problem is that language in this way is like leaving marks in a forest that is forever changing, and what the markers indicate is often quite short-lived in terms of accuracy. Trees fall downs. Paths wash away. Seasons change. Things grow to obscure what used to be plain to see. And all that once signified the well worn path begin to lead us astray. This is not to say we should abandon language altogether, but rather that language is in no way deserving of blind trust on our part. Sometimes it is better to know the forest, to know how to survive, to correct course, to look critically at the ambivalent markers (language) which we and others have left behind.

Why is this significant? Well first off, the Bible is a construct of language. It is not a reality, but only the map and markers left behind, and because of that it is not foundational for me. I have seen this time after time over the past few months. Countless people I encounter are willing to talk with me about anything, so long as it is agreed that we hold the Bible as the unquestioned foundation of conversation. I believe this is done because so many people have proof-texted their existence and found a false sense of security in the Bible as though it contains answers to all the questions that really matter. Up front: I think that such an approach is false and has nothing to do with truth.

I think the Bible has unique and profound things to say about reality and truth, and things that as such are irreplaceable. I don't want to downplay the uniqueness of Christianity or its importance for humankind, but rather to point out that it is not a complete answer to all of humanity's problems. I believe that Christianity has many vitally important things to say, about the future of man; things which cannot be downplayed no matter how others may wish to simply wash over the significance of those things. BUT . . . I believe that the secular world, as well as the religious world as a whole (outside of Christian circles) has a right to read the Bible and challenge it . . . because the Bible is not absolute truth, but rather a series of signs that reveal the contours of such truth to us.

I believe that the contours of truth will always be changing and ephemeral, because truth is as static as God.

This is not limited to the Bible either. In terms of philosophical truth, or even scientific truth, the limits of language are well recognized by the scholarly world at large. In fact most of what we have come to call "postmodern thought" is unquestionably connected to what has been called "the linguistic turn" in all scholarly fields, particularly philosophy and theology. The conversation concerning "absolutes" is far from being settled, but the criticism of the connection of linguistics to such truths is rapidly finding ubiquitous expression in all fields.

In actuality this has been an issue that has consumed my thoughts for some time, as a lot of you have figured out in talking with me. One big reason why is that I have become increasingly aware of the fact that in our world far too often power is asserted by the manipulation of language. Advertising and marketing know that all they have to do is shift the way that words are used, the ideas that they bring up, and they can gain the power to create needs and corral demographics. Televangelists, politicians, lawyers, etc. All know the power of language, and the potential gains resulting from its control.

I can't begin to describe the disgust I feel when I hear Christians relying on 'Way of the Master' or any subtle variety thereof to coerce people into some psychological state by which they are wrestled into belief. The contemporary critique of truth I believe is the 'equal and opposite reaction' to the idolatrous actions of such "believers" who wish to manipulate the world to feel better about the shaky foundations of their own faith.

Concluding, I would say that we have no other option but to approach truth in humility, realizing the vast limitations of our linguistic understanding of it. I believe that the "world" has every right to determine the limits of the conversation as such: should they wish to exclude the Bible, then we must engage in dialogue toward what means would then allow it back into the conversation. I don't believe Scripture can ever really serve as the true starting point or primary foundation for spiritual discussions in secular society. Ultimately the Bible is an irreplaceable voice in our spiritual conversation with the world, but no matter how important a voice, no matter what priority we give it, it is still one voice among many. It is unique in its revelation of God, but far from being the only relevant material. In our contemporary setting it is quite legitimate to say that we need the dynamic input of all perspectives to begin to see what is required of us as a race.

I lay all this out to state more clearly that I cannot accept what Christianity has long held for its foundation: the adequacy of its own language. For me truth is not found in any of our Christian ideas about God or the world, but rather that those ideas are only points of reorientation for us. I trust that the world has adequate reasons when it rejects those ideas, and I where I find orientation by them, I am assured that many others have only found themselves more lost by relying on them. Their distrust, resulting from personal experience, is perfectly legitimate. I find this place to be the point where conversation is the only option: we can exchange perspectives, seeking to understand the reasons for our attitudes toward these beliefs. As a believer I can help them see why I still look to these points for orientation, while they should, and need to, explain how these beliefs have only cause harm for them. But, ultimately, the vital importance is found in truth itself - in finding our way - in walking out our faith, looking for home.