I was just reading an article on The Oooze. The author, Willie Krischke, does a nice job talking about truth as a person, emphasizing the need for humility when it comes to the assertions that we make. You can find the article at http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1212.
Well, for whatever reason, I was in the mood to add a few comments of my own concerning the subject about which he writes. Here they are:
I totally agree with what you’ve written . . . sort of. :-) That is, I agree that truth is a person, that we are very susceptible to error, that we must remain open to new views and interpretations, etc., etc. This is good stuff, but I tend to think that it goes a little bit (not a lot!) too far in the opposite direction from which you (and I) have come.
In recognizing my proneness to error and my tendency to be dogmatic about matters for which only God has the ultimate perspective, I find that I cannot completely abandon my “old ways.” Thus, for instance, to say that the truth is ultimately a person can only be defended and explored if I assume that I have access to this proposition: truth is a person. In other words if I claim that truth is a person, it would be perfectly appropriate for someone to ask how I came into possession of this knowledge. Was I zapped from on high? Do I have “inside” information about these matters? How is my view–which, by the way, I actually believe–that “truth is a person” to be distinguished from or shown to be superior to the “truth is a proposition” model. The truth is (there I go again with that truth word :-) ) that truth is both a concept or idea and a person. The way I see it (for what that's worth), the truth has been revealed in Scripture, and we have access to this knowledge. This is why we can say with some measure of confidence that we know many of the truths of the faith. The problem for moderns is that they became consumed with something closer to perfect knowledge of the faith, which resulted (results) in an emphasis on details and a tendency to become arrogant. Still, this being admitted, there is something to this notion that we can know at least some things sufficiently (not flawlessly) well.
The other side of this, of course, is that truth is much more than a proposition or an idea or a systemized version of the truth. As you have stated so well, truth is a person. He is real and present and, frankly, often hard to figure out. What’s more, I truly believe the “truth as a person” view facilitates our efforts to gain access to better ideas about this person.
Perhaps, ideas about God (derived from Scripture, tradition, and our reflections on truth and life) are intended to drive us to the person of God, while God himself likewise drives us back to Scripture, looking for improved insights into his person. It seems that we have to live with this idea-person tension. Moderns have, for all their official disclaimers to the contrary, often (not always) overly emphasized the ideas or doctrines of the Bible. But, and I think this is where we have to be careful, we sometimes fail to see that in our frustration with a propositionally oriented faith, we cannot abandon our belief in propositions (indeed, to reject all propositions is itself a kind of proposition). What some postmoderns do is sneak certain propositions in the back door, assuming or believing that they have escaped the need for anything resembling a dogmatic belief. Of course I am aware that some would distinguish between propositions and propositionalism, and I am very open to a nuanced version of this “truth as idea” paradigm. It’s just that I would hate to see the church so overreact to the many abuses of the past that it bends too far in the other direction. So, while I understand that we need to be humble in our knowledge claims, etc., I have to realize (humbly, of course) that even the determination to remain humble is an assertion we make (rightly, I think) with a measure of confidence. :-) In other words we know at least enough to recognize that there is a whole lot that we don’t know. In fact even what we do know, we only know in part. As you say, this spawns creativity and is an impetus for further reflection on the faith.
Please forgive me for rambling on and on about these matters. As I’ve said, I agree with what you’ve said, and I in no way wish to criticize. In fact I kind of think that we are on the same page with many of these things. I suppose I was just in the mood for getting these things out of my system. Sorry that you are on the other end of my random thoughts! At any rate, I want to thank you for your insightful and very helpful article.
Well, for whatever reason, I was in the mood to add a few comments of my own concerning the subject about which he writes. Here they are:
I totally agree with what you’ve written . . . sort of. :-) That is, I agree that truth is a person, that we are very susceptible to error, that we must remain open to new views and interpretations, etc., etc. This is good stuff, but I tend to think that it goes a little bit (not a lot!) too far in the opposite direction from which you (and I) have come.
In recognizing my proneness to error and my tendency to be dogmatic about matters for which only God has the ultimate perspective, I find that I cannot completely abandon my “old ways.” Thus, for instance, to say that the truth is ultimately a person can only be defended and explored if I assume that I have access to this proposition: truth is a person. In other words if I claim that truth is a person, it would be perfectly appropriate for someone to ask how I came into possession of this knowledge. Was I zapped from on high? Do I have “inside” information about these matters? How is my view–which, by the way, I actually believe–that “truth is a person” to be distinguished from or shown to be superior to the “truth is a proposition” model. The truth is (there I go again with that truth word :-) ) that truth is both a concept or idea and a person. The way I see it (for what that's worth), the truth has been revealed in Scripture, and we have access to this knowledge. This is why we can say with some measure of confidence that we know many of the truths of the faith. The problem for moderns is that they became consumed with something closer to perfect knowledge of the faith, which resulted (results) in an emphasis on details and a tendency to become arrogant. Still, this being admitted, there is something to this notion that we can know at least some things sufficiently (not flawlessly) well.
The other side of this, of course, is that truth is much more than a proposition or an idea or a systemized version of the truth. As you have stated so well, truth is a person. He is real and present and, frankly, often hard to figure out. What’s more, I truly believe the “truth as a person” view facilitates our efforts to gain access to better ideas about this person.
Perhaps, ideas about God (derived from Scripture, tradition, and our reflections on truth and life) are intended to drive us to the person of God, while God himself likewise drives us back to Scripture, looking for improved insights into his person. It seems that we have to live with this idea-person tension. Moderns have, for all their official disclaimers to the contrary, often (not always) overly emphasized the ideas or doctrines of the Bible. But, and I think this is where we have to be careful, we sometimes fail to see that in our frustration with a propositionally oriented faith, we cannot abandon our belief in propositions (indeed, to reject all propositions is itself a kind of proposition). What some postmoderns do is sneak certain propositions in the back door, assuming or believing that they have escaped the need for anything resembling a dogmatic belief. Of course I am aware that some would distinguish between propositions and propositionalism, and I am very open to a nuanced version of this “truth as idea” paradigm. It’s just that I would hate to see the church so overreact to the many abuses of the past that it bends too far in the other direction. So, while I understand that we need to be humble in our knowledge claims, etc., I have to realize (humbly, of course) that even the determination to remain humble is an assertion we make (rightly, I think) with a measure of confidence. :-) In other words we know at least enough to recognize that there is a whole lot that we don’t know. In fact even what we do know, we only know in part. As you say, this spawns creativity and is an impetus for further reflection on the faith.
Please forgive me for rambling on and on about these matters. As I’ve said, I agree with what you’ve said, and I in no way wish to criticize. In fact I kind of think that we are on the same page with many of these things. I suppose I was just in the mood for getting these things out of my system. Sorry that you are on the other end of my random thoughts! At any rate, I want to thank you for your insightful and very helpful article.
No comments:
Post a Comment