 |
| Spire of Metropolitan Cathedral, Casco Viejo, Panama |
“Increasingly, Western culture embraces confusion as a virtue and
decries certainty as a sin. Those who are confused about sexuality
and identity are viewed as heroes. Those who are confused about
morality are progressive pioneers. Those who are confused about
spirituality are praised as tolerant. Conversely, those who express
certainty about any of these issues are seen as bigoted, oppressive,
arrogant, or intolerant.” (Abdu
Murray in an interview with Bible Gateway)
I think most of us understand what
Murray is talking about in the interview on his new book, (Saving
Truth: Finding Meaning & Clarity in a Post-Truth World
(Zondervan, 2018). Unfortunately, he begins the interview with a few
logical errors that put the entire thesis in question. Broad
generalizations like “Those who are confused about morality are
[seen as] progressive pioneers,” makes both the generalization
error as well as depending on a false dichotomy; throughout the
interview as in the opening statement, certainty is paired
with confusion as opposites. To begin by saying that, for
instance, persons who reject Christian conventional wisdom on gender
and sexuality are confused and then attributing that confusion
to Western Culture is to play fast and loose with the very truth
Murray sets out to defend.
Many of us are living through this
false dichotomy even as we read apologists on both sides. A political
comparison can probably be found to be analogous: for a socialist to
hold up Karl Marx’s The
Communist Manifesto as truth
and to judge all divergent thought on the subjects it addresses as
confusion, would be
patently absurd. And yet, The Communist Manifesto
contributes to the search for social and economic structures that
work—but only if thinkers following Karl Marx work at critiquing
his work in the light of new knowledge and experience. (This is not
to equate Karl Marx with God; it’s meant to make the point that
questioning the interpretation of any body of knowledge is not a
consequence of confusion,
but is in reality an ongoing search for beneficial meaning.)
When
asked for his definition of truth,
Murray says:
“Simply put, truth is that which
conforms to reality. There are historical truths, moral truths,
scientific truths, and spiritual truths. And all of them must be
coherent and cohesive. In other words, if our worldview is true, what
we learn from history and science ought to complement each other.
Spiritual truths also ought to complement other areas of truth. But
fundamentally, truth is objective. By that I mean that it doesn’t
depend on human opinion.”
Taken
literally, then, nothing is true unless it conforms to or complements
truths discovered in other areas. But since truth
is objective, all
science, history, spiritual truth has
to be chiseled and sanded down until it conforms to the one,
objective truth.
The internal contradiction in Murray’s definition is startling
coming from a respected theologian and teacher.
But
let’s bring this down to earth. What he’s saying is in defense of
his and his colleagues’ insistence that the Bible is pure,
objective truth, and
that their method of reading it has unlocked this objective,
incontrovertible truth. We see this viewpoint as defense for
positions surrounding the big moral questions of the day: abortion,
gender equality, same-sex marriage, divorce, medical assistance in
dying, the death penalty, etc., etc. By Murray’s definition, truth
conforms to reality,
but in this definition also lies the seed of its
confusion: in holding
to a position of objective truth as Murray sees it, denying reality
becomes absolutely necessary.
An
example: We’re all familiar with Paul’s advice about women
speaking in the assembly of Christians. Today’s reality tells us
that there’s no grounds biologically, socially to consider women
less competent in intellectual or spiritual teaching than men. To
follow through on Murray’s definition, though, Paul is stating an
objective truth and our thinking on this must conform to that
objective truth.
I’m
told that a local pastor is still insisting that women in his
congregation be bound by this absolute truth, but even in most
conservative assemblies, truth
has been broadened to conform to reality
in this regard.
Picking
and choosing has become an art form; some would call that
a state of confusion.
But I may be
interpreted here as denying the existence of absolute truth. If it’s
reasonable to assume such an entity, seems to me it would have to do
with the repeated admonitions in scriptures that approaching the New
Jerusalem, establishing the heavenly kingdom of peace and joy can
only come through the practice of unconditional, sacrificial love. I
find very few moral arguments that can’t be answered with Christ’s
summation of all law and prophecy, namely to love with all your being
the creator and creation, and to love your neighbour according to the
measure of love you long for for yourself.
Reverence first,
empathy second. By these the kingdom comes . . . and by no other
means.
