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.

absolute thinking

- so, i've been going to a new church. they consider themselves part of the emergent "conversation". frankly I think the "conversation" rhetoric is a bit retarded, but that's just my opinion. anyway . . I'm thankful that I've found a community of people who aren't terrified by liberal thought. there's one guy in the group who might actually be more liberal than me . . . that's a very welcome change.

- thanksgiving was challenging this year. on one side of my family i'm the only grandchild, but the other side the only cousin that showed up this year is 14. so basically I spent 10 hours on thursday making conversation with people who at minimum are 25 years older than me.

- one thing that's been on my mind lately is the word "absolute". this word comes from the same root as "absolve" or "absolution". considering that 'ab' = away from, and 'solute' refers to that which is loosened or set free, I think we've kinda screwed up the term in contemporary society. I think we've confused the Platonic ideal of TRUTH, set apart and eternally existing away from all forms of truth here in this world, as though this is a line of thinking that all moral people are required to believe. In fact, to believe in "absolute truth" is to believe in truth that is free and unrestricted. It's funny then to me, that the first thing we do to this absolute truth is try to chain it to doctrinaire systems and the confines of language. Language in its essence is confining . . . i think that basically erodes any possibility for something to be absolute. maybe instead . . . absolute truth cannot be spoken, but only acted out. With language we can approach it with metaphors and analogies, but certainly we cannot map out its structure or its core.

- I finished watching Six Feet Under last night in and 8 hour marathon. It is without question the greatest TV show ever produced. I cried.

- Thanksgiving day it snowed. I saw the biggest snowflakes I have ever seen. I got to live in a postcard for about 20 minutes. that was cool.

- Research is under way: I'm studying the interaction of a paramecium that lets some little algae live inside it, but as it appears there is a virus that lives in the algae that lets this go down. now, i get to rack my brain in my spare time trying to understand how, and why . . . and this matters, because it appears that all the worlds animal and plant cells exist because a similar event happened way back when the world was formless and void, etc.

- musically i've been very uninspired lately . . . that's sad.

- i've been very comforted lately by the fact that the wake of our mistakes, as devastating as it may feel, is the place where we really come to know ourselves. I've found that most mistakes I make come at a point where I am unsure of my self, or who exactly I am, and unsure of what my heart is really telling me . . . so I step out in uncertainty and vulnerability . . . in a mix of bravery and idiocy. I used to think this was something that could be avoided, but I believe that less and less. Not that I think it a great idea to run into bad choices . . . but, I've started to realize that to truly live requires us to live in the midst of the gray areas of life . . . another way to say it: I used to think standing out from the world and carefully avoiding the potential tragedies and dangerous points of decisions, the crises, was a mark of wisdom . . that was what my youth group morality had lead me to believe. thank God that isn't actually true; but rather, wisdom is proved by the way it lives in those crises, amidst all the dangers of life. Thank God for mistakes, and that we may seek him even through the consequences which follow . . as long as we have breath.

Of Meaning and Context

I'm in a general biology class right now. Up to this point in my life I did quite the amazing job of evading every possible science course I could. Of the 129 hours for my bachelor's degree I think I graduated with a blow off earth science course, I CLEP'ed out of general biology and copied my friends work to scrape by with a B in statistics. Then I got a nursing licence which taught me some bare bones science, but which ultimately left me with no college credit. So, now, every monday and wednesday, I crowd into a lecture hall and my local college with a hundred kids who just graduated high school six months ago.

And this was providence.

My biology professor rocks. He's the only science teacher I've ever met who can carry on a conversation about philosophy or theology, and actually appear interested. I don't think he's forcing it either. Anyway, most of my thought has been veering off towards science lately . . . which is one of several reasons I haven't written much lately. Being a novice at science makes it rather difficult to write down any thoughts which amount to much. Nonetheless, one of the three readers I have who actually leaves evidence of having read this stuff has implored me to write . . . here goes . . .

So, a few weeks back in biology we were learning about proteins. Proteins basically do everything in your body. Anything that does anything at the cellular level in your body is a protein or is touching a protein. Proteins are made up of about 20 different amino acids that our bodies generally steal from the remains of other things that were once alive. These 20 amino acids are combined in certain sequences, and based on these sequences they form three dimensional shapes and it is these shapes that determine how they work and what they are capable of doing. These shapes rely on certain parameters to remain functional. Meaning if things aren't just right, their shape will change and the protein becomes useless, or worse, becomes harmful. These parameters are things like temperature, pH, and probably lots of other things I'm not aware of. This is why you aren't going to live very long if your body temperature jumps higher than 105 degrees for an extended period of time: the proteins in throughout your body, especially the ones in your bodies core, controlling your vital organs, will "denature", become dysfunctional, and you die.

And this intrigues me because . . . .

There are 26 letters in our alphabet. We put these letters together in sequence, and they form sentences and paragraphs and books, which form and express the ideas by which we understand the world. These ideas, formed by language, also rely on specific parameters to make any sense at all. We live in an age where we are increasingly aware that context is everything. The introduction or absence of single words into a sentence can change the entire meaning. Changes in syntax, order of clauses, variations in the structure of paragraphs, all these significantly effect the way ideas are presented through the words. They change the action of the ideas presented, and thus effect the meaning. Depending on the place, or time and historical context, the intentions and interactions of author and reader, and countless other factors, the meaning and effect of a document can be altered completely. In some ways it can be seen that just as protein denatures outside of specific environments, so also, language denatures.

This is undoubtedly an analogous way of understanding language, I don't mean to draw any sort of equation saying they are the same. But, I am increasingly convinced that all human knowledge comes in analogies.

So, bringing this around to matters of faith . . . I've dealt a lot lately with people who have the attitude that Scripture says what it means and we should simply obey it. My problem is that I don't think Scripture simply says what it means. The context is lost (however partially) to us, and in my opinion the meaning of the text is denatured. This implies that the meaning of the Bible itself has changed since the context is partially lost, and that the action/effect that the Bible could have also has changed since the people reading it are utterly different.

I have enormous respect for figures like Ray Vander Laan, Rob Bell, and others who are seeking to reacquaint us in the 21st century with the worldview of first century Jews. I personally have felt more hope for the future of Christian faith in listening to such figures as they bring the remains of Scriptural meaning alive again. The context IS lost, but only partially . . . and we can grow enormously from understanding how the words of Scripture would have acted in their time. Still the other edge of that sword is that I am not a first century Jew. Nor can I be. I am also not a Greek, or a Medieval Catholic, or a son of the Reformation. Nor can I be. If anything I am a descendent of the Enlightenment, but even that is challenged in our contemporary setting. I can't regress to a former era. Nor can anyone else . . no matter how bad we may wish to.

The hope for today, is that Scripture and the meaning of it, can be reformed (formed again), to carry meaning for us as we are. We don't live in a world of angels and demons, or magic, or the eager anticipation of the returning eschatological Messiah. We live in a world of political forces, of inequality, of globalization and the constant threat of human annihilation. Scripture does not speak to these things directly, but still it CAN speak to them. In fact, it needs, desperately, to speak to them. But, first we must be brave enough to accept what has been lost, in order to realize what can be gained.

I don't believe the Bible simply says what it means. The desire for this to be the case requires us to deny the truth of the world we live in. It forces us to pretend with live in first century Palestine. We don't. The other option is to twist Scripture to apply to us, where no application is present. There are a vast array of mega-churches that have perfected this art as well. They pretend the Bible was written to us and for us.

The other option is to see the Biblical world for what it was, and see our current world for what it is . . . and respect the immense differences between the two. The world of the Bible is lost, but not so completely that we can draw some inferences as to what the Bible would have meant to them. In seeing this, and then looking at our own world, as WE perceive it, we can then try humbly and faithfully to see what meaning Scripture has taken on.