Let's talk, damn you!

In my Epistemology class last semester, we read the book Search for Community on a Withering Tradition, a collection of essays in which Kai Nielsen (an atheist) and Hendrik Hart (a Christian) discussed the arguments for God's existence. As I read it, the conversation consisted of Nielsen claiming that Hart's rational thinking should lead him to reject belief in God, while Hart claimed that all belief systems (including atheism) begin with faith statements, and so Nielsen should recognize faith as viable. In other words, the arguments ran, "I am right, and you agree with me."

Much discussion ensued over whether Christians could sit at the discussion table with atheists and vice versa. My conclusion was that they cannot, although conversation can exist among tables. For example, if Christians are sitting together discussing peace, atheists who are also discussing peace may contribute to the discussion.

I have since added this amendment to my understanding: Conversation cannot exist between two parties when one party believes that the other stands condemn for disagreeing. For example, a conversation between an atheist and a Christian over the existence of God is a pointless endeavor, because the Christian does not only believe that the atheist is wrong, but believes that she is "going to hell" for disbelief. They can discuss movies, ethics, food, literature, etc., but condemnation precludes conversation.

Unfortunately, this does not apply only to conversation among tables. I discovered this when a fellow Christian told me that I was on the "Highway to Hell" (no joke) for disagreeing with his political opinions. Certain Christians (especially conservative fundamentalists) cannot converse with anyone, even other Christians because they believe that unless you think like they do, you're going to hell.

I have welcomed input from people of other creeds, and I still do. I think other views are important to consider. But Dr. Joyce and I will never be able to have a conversation about whether God exists. At best, we can share our reasons and agree to disagree. While many Christians would accuse me of ignoring an opportunity to "witness," I recognize that evangelism is not a conversation. I do not believe that rational reasoning or convincing arguments change people's minds in those areas, so I won't attempt to overstep my bounds.

So if you find yourself condemning another person on this blog for a belief that differs from your own, don't get into it with them. Read their opinion, weigh it, and if you realize that you can engage in conversation, please do so. If not, agree to disagree and move on. As Matt Bonzo, my professor for Epistemology, said, "A time comes when one must rip his clothing, brush the dust off his feet, and cease to talk. Sadly, it is often a brother or sister who marginalizes us."

Let those who have ears hear.

Peace and Profanity

I recently came under fire from a couple of students at the school I attend for using the title I have chosen for my post. I was told that it was not an appropriate title for something at a Christian university. These same students, however, have been staunch supporters of Bush and his "war on terror." This is an anecdotal example of a widespread hypocrisy among Christians who are offended by mild obscenity yet accept the large-scale slaughter of innocents as a necessary fact of life.

When I pointed this out, I was met with the statement, "Christians should be more offended by foul language than [by] violence."

What? Why? Because Jesus used violence but refrained from foul language? Hardly! Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Polite Discourse.

Jesus had no problem using offensive language to make his point heard. One of his favorite terms for the Pharisees was "brood of vipers." Brood means offspring. Vipers are unsavory creatures. The contemporary equivalent of this phrase should not be difficult to determine.

But Jesus never resorted to violence. In fact, he submitted to worse tortures than most American Christians can even imagine (even with Mel Gibson's help) without striking back. Yet his nominal followers are willing to resort to killing thousands simply to defend our "divine right" to plutonium.

But, my detractors say, Jesus told his followers to get swords! True. In order to fulfill a prophecy that hardly supports the use of violence. But when they used them, he made them put them away. This marks Jesus as unique among the Messiahs of his day. Every other Jew claiming to be the annointed one who would free Israel did so by the sword. Jesus said that violence was not an acceptable tool in building his kingdom. And his followers held to that for hundreds of years, until Constantine married the government and religion and convinced Christians that destroying the enemies of the Empire was God's will. And thus the Republican party was born. Just kidding.

If we claim to follow the Prince of Peace, then we must do so, recognizing that (excepting an entirely new revelation from God's own mouth) violence has no place in his kingdom. If we find oursleves more upset by profanity than genocide, then we need to ask ourselves what our standard for truth really is.

"What is truth?" Pilate asked.

John 18:38

Pilate's question echos throughout history at the heart of every philosopher, theologian, artist, and student. The answer for the Christian appears easy; Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But what does this mean?

The question is further clouded in our late modern context where fundamentalists insist on claiming modern concepts as their own. They claim that the Bible is "absolute truth" and that Christians must be "certain" of their salvation in order to offer rational reasons for the hope that we have.

As the people of God, we need to cast off the trappings of modern philosophy and redefine what we mean by truth. Let us first recognise that the Bible makes no claims of absolute truth. In fact, the Bible is not truth, and to claim that it is truth is to claim that it is less than it is.

In order for something to be true, it must be compared to a standard of truth. If I need a piece of wood to be a certain length, I subject it to the standard of a tape measure. If I need a certain amount of flour, I subject it to the measuring cup. If I need to define a word, I look it up in a dictionary. In these cases, I accept the authority of the ruler, the cup, and the book; these are my standards of truth.

To say that the Bible is truth implies that a standard exists to which I can subject it. Because I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I consider such a claim blasphemous. I and all those I call my sisters and brothers accept by faith that the word of God is the standard of truth and cannot be subject to any other standard.

So what does Jesus mean when he claims to be the truth? Exactly what he said when he began his ministry in Nazareth, "Today scripture is fulfilled." When Jesus is subjected to the word of God, he is revealed as truth. He perfectly embodies the word of God.

Notice the standard to which Jesus compares himslef as evidence of his identity - the word of God. In order to claim that he was absolute truth, he would have to appeal to an objective standard that would (or at least could) convince not only Jews but Romans, Greeks, and any others who might come along. But Jesus is not interested in objectivity. Instead he subjects himself to a particular story, a story that has formed him and in which in understands his role. Having accepted this story as the standard of truth, he compares himself to it to reveal himself as truth.

Thus to maintain the modern insistence on absolutes and objective certainty is to attempt something other than what Jesus did. To claim that the Bible is absolute truth is to subject it to reason, the god of modernity. This is idolatry.

So as a Christian, I have no access to absolutes or to objectivity. What I do have is a standard of truth and faith in the one who is the truth. I find the God of the Bible a much more satisfying subject of faith than the god of modernity.