Friday, August 22, 2008

Truth and Consequences


This blog does not deal directly with politics. It is at its core interested in theological questions found below the title. However there are times where the two overlap and this just happens to be one of those times. A number of weeks ago Evangelical leader/psychologist James Dobson devoted his daily radio program to critique a portion of Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s theological statements made over the course of his campaign, focusing largely on a speech given a bit over a year ago. I’m not interested here in exploring the content of either that criticism or of Mr. Obama’s statements directly, or the politics of either Mr. Dobson or Mr. Obama. I am interested in the theology that might motivate a person to devote a good bit of time and energy developing and crafting a theological critique of a political figure for the purpose of warning those within their theological tradition, and the public at large of the grave political dangers posed by this person’s theology. Granted this is entirely speculation. In reality this will be a jumping off point to think about how we in the Christian community, probably more specifically the Evangelical Protestant community, think about the notion of truth.

Here is the part of the blog where I speculate wildly about Mr. Dobson’s motivations for his criticism. In reality these are only hunches from a member (me) of Mr. Dobson’s theological community who is basing his judgments largely on his intuition, experiences, observations and reason. Let me start by saying that my interest was piqued regarding this dust-up because it was unprovoked by any immediate precipitating episode. Generally speaking this type of rhetoric seems to me to be reserved for urgent incidents of great offense, i.e. a Supreme Court decision, the boycott of a company whose actions have caused an offense, or the actions of a celebrity that cause community outrage etc… To my estimation this lack of impetus indicates that this criticism was deliberate, considered, and earnest. It seems Mr. Dobson made the determined decision to take on Mr. Obama’s theological statements; that this was not done on a whim but was something he took time to craft, consider and communicate, and that it was an accurate representation of beliefs passionately held by Mr. Dobson, convictions I believe he holds as supremely important. Both Mr. Obama’s theological statements and Mr. Dobson’s critical statements are widely available on the internet and given the content of the statements are not my scope of interest I won’t be quoting them here. I will be citing the gist of Mr. Dobson’s complaint as fairly as I can, and offering a few observations about his statements and a certain theology of truth I believe them to be emblematic of, that is that truth, particularly, but not necessarily limited to Biblical truth, lives entirely in the realm of the propositional.

Let me say first that I cut my theological teeth on this notion, and still believe it has some merits in understanding great portions of the Biblical narrative. Especially influential to my understanding in this arena was Francis Schaeffer who I believe is one of the most informed, eloquent and logical voices to lay out the understanding of Biblical truth as propositional truth within the Evangelical world. This understanding draws on a notion that can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy that suggests that what is true is what corresponds to reality. Truth then is solid, fixed and unchanging, and only that which correctly refers to that solid, fixed unchanging reality is true. I would suggest this is the near consensus understanding of truth among Evangelicals, though it is a large field of ongoing debate within philosophical circles. Any reference to this truth then must be done in the form of propositions, for example, God is good, in order to for it to be understood, or true.

This emphasis on the proposition as almost the sole communicator of truth I would suggest begins to congeal around the ideas of the Enlightenment and Rationalism in the 18th century. There grew a notion that in order for an idea to be true it had to be reasonable, and logical, and must be able to be stated in those terms. Thus truth then must be able to be stated in a reasonable, logical form, and reduced to fit into a series of descriptive sentences. There are definite merits to this construct of describing truth. If a particular proposition can be shown to be unreasonable and illogical one can set it aside, relatively confident that it hasn’t passed the scrutiny test that truth should overcome if it corresponds to reality. Inherent here is the assumption that reality is by its nature rational and logical as the creation of a rational and logical God. This becomes a means by which truth is made manageable, in essence boiling it down in an effort to know through reason what is true and what is false. This of course isn’t unique to the thinkers of the enlightenment, but I would suggest that with them this understanding became the hub around which truth became organized. If truth didn’t pass muster with human reason and logic it could not be truth.

Fast forward to the present context, and I believe Evangelicals have adopted much of this framework for truth into their belief systems, perhaps uncritically, and often unknowingly in that often this is taught in Sunday Schools and from pulpits as Biblical thinking. God is a God of order and reason, the universe is set up to follow the laws of nature and of God, and because of this, through reason we can come to know much about God, hence the Psalmist writes, “The heavens declare the glory of God and Earth proclaims God’s handiwork.” This is the understanding of the world that gave birth to the scientific revolution according to Schaeffer. Many don’t understand that this framework is a synthesis of the bible’s truth claims with the Enlightenment’s definition and understanding of truth. I believe this is the foundation of truth from which Dobson speaks when he criticizes Obama’s theological statements. I do not assume to speak for Dobson on this, but I suspect, based on the theological teachings that come directly from him, particularly on his radio show, and the teaching that is generated by the organization he is responsible for, Focus on the Family, that he would generally agree with a good portion of the understanding of truth laid out above.

With this general framework of truth established, I think it’s important to glance at a few of the particular truths Dobson wants to defend, not for the purpose of endorsing, or criticizing them, but in order to further examine the manner in which they are defended as a means to provide further incite into some ways this understanding of propositional truth can manifest itself in to the church and the world. This list is by no means exhaustive, but will draw on a few concepts that illustrate this framework in action. First, Dobson would suggest the Bible is the absolutely true, Holy Spirit inspired word of God, and so is supreme in its authority in not only the Christian’s life, but in everyone’s lives because it is God’s directed communication to all of humanity. Second, he would suggest humanity is separated from God collectively and individually because of sin, and cannot be reconciled by their own doing given they were the ones that initiated the separation. Third, the second person of the Trinity came to Earth to become Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ in order to restore that broken relationship with God through his own perfect life, and sacrificial death, taking in his body the punishment for the sins of all who would place their faith in that action, and rising from the dead as evidence of its accomplishment.

Any observer can see that these are matters of epic, even eternal importance. Because of this Dobson’s passion and sense of urgency are understandable. If people are not reconciled to God here within this framework they will be forever separated from God after this life is over. Dobson’s aggressive criticism of Obama needs to be put within this framework of someone convinced of the truth, who believes that other’s understanding of the truth of which he is convinced will determine their eternity. Again I am not examining these beliefs themselves, much of which incidentally I hold as true, but the manner in which they are communicated, reduced to propositions in which one must place ones faith. Within this framework, if a person doesn’t assent intellectually to the inspiration of scripture, the absolute sinfulness of humanity, and the substitutionary atonement by Jesus, believing first and foremost that they are true, one cannot be a Christian and consequently remains separated from God. Again, I don’t presume to speak for Dobson, though I suspect there isn’t much with which he would disagree with the framework laid out above, and I don’t intend to criticize him as an individual, or “call him out”, rather I’m intending to use his criticism to illuminate a problem. I would suggest the framework in which these beliefs are placed create unintentional problems for those who embrace it which ripple out into their speech, actions and organizations.

The first issue that arises with this understanding of truth is that it tends to absolutize and thus confuses the individual’s understanding of truth with the truth itself. In other words truth becomes subjugated to reason and logic, and the doctrine obtained through reason becomes the only valid interpretation of scripture. When this happens reason has been made the hub around which truth must orbit, thus making truth a satellite of reason. If one must assent that a particular statement, proposition or notion is true before one places one’s faith in that statement, proposition or notion, then reason has been placed before faith, both chronologically, and necessarily.

It must be granted here that reason is a necessary relative of faith, and that ideally reason must at some point enter into the decisions made to place trust or faith in something or someone, however in this construct reason has been made necessary, excluding any faith decisions made without an intellectual surrender to propositional facts. This is a faith based on the correct facts and information; therefore if the facts and information are distorted, rearranged, or muddied one can never be sure if one is placing ones faith in the correct propositions. This is a faith that is dependent upon human reason which if it places faith in an incorrect proposition concerning God has doomed itself to be separated from God because it is a misplaced faith. With knowledge placed necessarily and chronologically before faith, any malicious person can destroy any possibility of a true faith simply by distorting, and that only slightly, the facts upon which that knowledge is based. This leads to such an emphasis on factual correctness that faith ends up more about factuality than about truth. Defending the faith becomes simply a rallying around those facts upon which the faith is based.

I believe this is why Dobson in his radio show concerning Obama is so concerned that he is “intentionally distorting scripture”. Because a valid faith in this framework is based on the proper proposition, or information, Dobson must undercut the incorrect information and inform people of the correct information, lest they be led into placing their faiths in invalid propositions. You can almost feel the weight of responsibility he feels to correct the bad information in the public arena as one who has access to both the correct information and the public airwaves. This leads to a second issue with this understanding: that it translates into at best a perceived proud, condescending attitude, if not actually reflecting one.

There is a sense in which this framework of knowledge, which depends on faith in accurate propositions, creates an inequitable relationship between the holder of the true knowledge and those who lack that knowledge, including those who profess a Christian faith. In other words truth becomes a commodity that ideally must be given away, but is still something its holder owns and others need. Thus it creates a qualitative separation between the two groups, and creates a gulf between “us” and “them”, which can be seen in much of Dobson’s basic cultural assumptions and rhetoric.

The assumption is the “us” who have the knowledge are either good because of it or the faith it produces, or are on the side of good because of it, and those who don’t possess this true knowledge are by default inherently bad, or on the side of evil or at least immorality. This manifests itself in Dobson’s attempt to correct Obama’s bad information, attempting to replace his “false” propositions with “true” propositions. Placed within a rhetorical and polemic framework of concern that people not be deceived this tends to come across as an over confident, possibly self important religious figure throwing information scattershot to and at what he apparently believes to be an untrained, uninformed audience who need this information in order to construct the correct propositions necessary to arrange their cloth of faith. The mode the argument takes comes across as both holier and smarter than thou, and seems to indicate a low estimation of the audience’s ability to weigh these statements themselves, not to mention the ability of the Holy Spirit to work in their lives. Simply put there exists at least an apparent lack of humility and possible evidence for the Proverb that knowledge puffs up.

There are other issues that could be addressed, but this will suffice for this arena (this is a blog, not a book). Speaking positively, there are a few points I believe it’s important to note in attempting to frame an alternative to what is in essence a supernatural rationalism. First, according to Hebrews, faith is, “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV). There’s a sense here in which faith is a source of knowledge. In other words there are certain things one can only know through faith, hence the author of Hebrews emphasis on surety and certainty. Through faith in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit one gains access into the sphere of truth that exists in God, the Three-in-One. This is knowledge unavailable to those who have yet to kneel before the crucified and resurrected One and is a knowledge graced through the Holy Spirit. I don’t doubt that Dobson would acknowledge these suggestions; however the framework of knowledge that has been discussed at least in action seems to undermine this understanding of knowledge birthed by faith.

If sure knowledge of the proper proposition comes necessarily before faith, then where is there room for the growth of knowledge? Granted there is a difference between factual knowledge and experienced knowledge, which is part of the point. There are large portions of the active relationship with a living God that can’t be captured in a proposition, and thus the original propositions one believed when one came to the faith grow and possibly even change over time. If one comes to grow in a belief which changes over time, does the person lose a valid faith in valid propositions, or was the original faith invalid because it was placed in an invalid proposition?

The second point I would like to note has already been mentioned in the first point, and that is that because this framework of knowledge attempts to “boil down” truth to its essence, making it manageable and understandable it often actually distorts that truth. The one reducing it may be able capture its essence, but you lose its context and proportions. You’re able to manage the truth, deciding what is true and what isn’t, but are unable to manage its depth and breadth. What is worse is that often these constructed propositions are confused with the truth itself. Instead of understanding that they are human constructs toward understanding a fuller truth, windows toward that end, we treat them as the truth itself, and limit ourselves to the playpen of the propositional, when the truth bound up in the Being of God lives and breathes in the wide world around us outside of what we've built to contain that truth. To quote a old T-Shirt of mine (because everyone knows the best theology comes from a good T-Shirt), “God is bigger than your box”. I would suggest the same can be said of truth.

This is a short and limited critique, and I’m sure riddled with holes in logic. The largest point here is that truth, both in and of itself, and our management of it is more than our expressions of it, and greater than our understanding of it. When we say that, “God is good”, or “God is love” or “Jesus died for your sins”, we are speaking the truth, however none of those propositions captures the whole truth behind the statement. Paraphrasing Elizabeth Johnson, theology, and for our purposes propositional truth, is simply a finger pointing to God.