SIN

On the subject of “Sin”; there is only one reasonable definition, that is, “deliberate hurt to Man or your definition of God”.  God cannot be defined by anyone but you. And whether it is Spinoza’s God, a Theist’s God or a secular humanists denial of God entirely, sins against Man are equally egregious.

 One of the more disgusting sins is the belief one houses a Burning Bush in one’s garage and can speak for God on any subject or condition. People who quote biblical passages as matters of doctrine and morals fall into this category.

Some of the things that probably should NOT be defined as sin are;

1.            Sexual Preference, including a dwarf, unless someone gets hurt.

2.            Swearing or using bad language.

3.            Lust – without hurt

4.            Pride (unless it becomes Hubris)

Of course, Pope Gregory defined the Seven Deadly Sins as follows;

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity. Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation. Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body. Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath. Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

There really isn't much of a problem with these, although I would like to soften most of them a bit and give a humanist twist to them, and define the “Grace of God”. I certainly would not agree all sin results from Pride. Greed would be a little closer to the truth in my opinion. But remember, when we define things we limit them.

Matt 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10 define the biblical version of UNFORGIVEABLE SIN as; (from Luke) “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.”-- a very curious passage which has been interpreted in many ways. Each thinking person is given a duty to define that passage and my definition hinges on the words “blasphemy”and “Holy Spirit”- assuming the English translation is anywhere near accurate, what do they mean? 

If you believe as I do, that the Holy Spirit of God dwells in each and every human being, all that really remains is to define “blasphemy”.  To use the august Wikipedia definition, “Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.” Based on my previous definition of “Holy Spirit”, the UNFORGIVEABLE SIN becomes “lack of reverence and love for others” Theists, like me, have an overwhelming desire to add “God” to “Others”. A Panentheist wouldn’t care. Either way the UNFORGIVEABLE SIN seems to have been covered by the great sages as follows:

Native American -- Every dawn as it comes is a holy event, and every day is holy, for the light comes from your Father, Wakan-Tanka; and also always remember that the two-leggeds and all other peoples who stand upon this earth are sacred and should be treated as such.

Sri Ramakrishna –“I have now come to a stage of realization in which I see that God is walking in every human form and manifesting Himself alike through the sage and the sinner, the virtuous and the vicious. Therefore when I meet different people I say to myself, "God in the form of the saint, God in the form of the sinner, God in the form of the righteous, God in the form of the unrighteous."”

  Buddha -- Goodwill toward all beings is the true religion; cherish in your hearts boundless     goodwill to all that lives.

             RABBI Hillel- ---What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man

             Mohammed----One cannot be a believer until he wishes for others what he wishes for     himself.

Confucius and Mozi, his disciple---Others must be regarded like the self and this love must be all embracing and exclude nobody.

And, of course, Jesus’ commandment, “Love God-- and your neighbor as yourself-- and upon these two commandments hangs all the Law and the Prophets.”

All seem to be saying that human beings are sacrosanct, eternal, spiritual beings. Secular Humanism might disagree with “spiritual and eternal” but not “sacrosanct”.

It is fairly clear that free will gives us the ability to “Sin”.  But what is Sin? Consider two scenarios;

A guy flies to New York on business and meets the woman of his dreams, has sex with her and flies back to Des Moines and does not tell his wife. Has he sinned?  Probably, by most definitions of Sin. But in the second scenario, he flies back to New York 12 times during the year to meet the girl and have sex.

In the second case he begins to justify himself morally. He might conclude something like “Well I NEED this woman to complete me”, or “My wife doesn’t understand me”, or “It’s not hurting anyone” Or some other justification for his behavior.  In this case he has blurred the lines of morality and has begun to alienate himself from God, by setting up his OWN concept of morality that allows hurtful things to his wife to be acceptable.  If we alienate ourselves from God or Truth FAR enough, we have lost whatever battle of Truth we are engaged in. 

So, by my definition Sin is alienation from God or Man.

Consider this issue.  Let us say you stole a piece of gum from a drugstore when you were 11 years old. You committed theft. Are you a thief? As a general characterization maybe once, but certainly not now.  You grew, developed a finer moral framework and today, like most of us, you are honest. Should that one theft haunt you the rest of your life?  I think not. Humans error.

We bandy about the word “Sin” until it begins to lose meaning. As George Carlin boasted in his skit about growing up Catholic in Philadelphia, “It was a mortal sin to want to feel up Ellen.  It was a sin to take Ellen to a place to feel her up.  It was a sin to try to feel her up.  It was a sin to enjoy feeling her up. It was a sin to remember feeling up Ellen and it was a sin to want to do it again.  There were seven damnable sins in one feel and it was hardly worth it.”

The point of sin in the Middle Ages was often to keep an unruly educated population in line…political as much as theological. In a more modern age we are faced with “sins” for nearly everything we do. And in many cultures “Sin” is seen differently. The 18^th Century Polynesian did not feel uncomfortable with having many husbands or wives until the white settlers “educated them”. Even today Mormon Polygamy is still with us. The practitioners find no sin in it. As to Homosexuality, it is changing in acceptance as I write, but many will not accept it on any basis because they believe in a literal interpretation of scripture. One wonders why it would make a difference to God, with whom we had sex. For many of these literalist people a heterosexual sadist might be more acceptable in God’s eyes than a homosexual in a loving committed relationship. Who is further from God, the sadist or the lover?

In Hinduism, for example, there is no sin.  Do what you want, but be prepared to pay for it.

Of course the idea of sin in the West, as a concept, often hinges on the Genesis story of The Garden with Adam and Eve, which is a tale that Christianity has bought into unequivocally.  But there is an earlier creation story in Genesis Gen 1: 26-31 where God creates all males and females with no rib subjugation, no fall from grace, no tempting serpent, giving the earth to humans to procreate and concluding that all He saw and did was GOOD. 

Under this definition Humans are committed to improve the world, not sentenced to it as punishment. As a Baptist preacher once said, “Why worry about ecology, after all earth is where Satan rules.” I find his definition unacceptable on many levels.  As Brian McLaren has stated, we have this vision of salvation in our traditional six line invasive narrative;

when we ought have something like this one;

 

The first model suggests “salvation” is all about me whereas the second is all about transforming the world with Love. McLaren also asks, “Are we making “converts” to a gospel of evacuation to heaven after death or are we making disciples to a gospel of reconciliation and transformation here on earth?”

He suggests; “Our contemporary gospel is primarily;

INFORMATION ON HOW TO GO TO HEAVEN AFTER YOU DIE

with a large footnote about increasing your personal happiness and success through God.

with a small footnote about character development

with a smaller footnote about spiritual experience

with a smaller footnote about social/global transformation.”

I have little doubt he has nailed the current, erroneous understanding of the “Kingdom of God.”

The idea of “Sin” ought to be to caution us that we are leaving the path of God, not condemning ourselves to Hell.

John P. Middleton

May 2013

The Dignity and Worth of all individuals

The Dignity and Worth of all Individuals

Many of us have been challenged by the question of how one determines the “dignity and worth” of all individuals.  Science answers that the “worth of all individuals is $162.50 (the chemical worth of a body) times 7 billion or so. Of course if you have sufficient Black Market connections a kidney could go for $65,000 or more.  Or science might create an algorithm which shows that “I am better than you are because…  Clearly Science is a poor determiner of human worth and value.

In the 18^th and 19^th century, Jeremy Benthem, the philosopher and founder of Utilitarianism,  suggested the worth of individuals could only be determined by the “greatest good for the greatest number”, a societal measure of worth which, in analysis, is deeply flawed.

Consider the trolley car example.  A trolley car is hurtling down a track. You are the driver, and the brakes have failed.  In front of you are five men working on the track and you will shortly run them down and kill them. But at the last moment you notice a side track with a single worker.  The philosopher asks, “Will you turn the wheel”?  Most of us would answer “yes”, the greatest good for the greatest number.

In our second example the trolley car is still hurtling along, but this time there is no sidetrack, and you are not the driver, but an observer on a bridge overlooking the event. The trolley car will kill the five workers unless something intervenes. In front of you on the bridge is an extremely fat man leaning far out over the tracks.  If he falls there is a good chance he will interfere enough to save the five workers. The philosopher asks, “Will you push him” in search of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Many of us who answered “yes” to the first scenario are unsure of the second.  Why? Is it permission? No, neither the fat man nor the single worker gave permission. Is it precognition? No, neither knew what might happen in advance. You can play with this all you want but the closest you will probably come is some sort of volition. The first scenario is almost involuntary (although it is really not) and the second seems more deliberate (although it too is really not). They “SEEM” different.

In my third scenario reflecting the total collapse of the “greatest good” or “societal” solution to worth, there are five patients in the doctors waiting room. One needs a heart, one a kidney, one a lung and so forth.  In walks a twenty five year old healthy male for a routine employment physical. The philosopher asks, “Should we slay him and harvest his organs”? The greatest good for the greatest number suddenly collapses in the face of our horror.

We must then note then… that “Society”, Like science is a flawed determiner of worth and dignity.

The proof of that is in the Constitution of the United States.  The ground breaking and stellar document that owes its magnificence to the fact that it does not protect the rights of the majority, but rather, the rights of the minority, even a minority of one…..a single individual in our country has right to stand alone against the entire nation or the government and, in theory, prevail. The Constitution does not protect the rights of the majority, but the minority.  It denies Society in favor of the individual……………………………………

Some of my colleagues have suggested Religion is the answer. Religions are man- made structures rarely reflecting the philosophy of their avatars or paracletes. The goal of EVERY religion in history AND Secular Humanism, the goal of Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Bahaullah and all founders of religion, is unlimited compassion.  Simply put, their philosophies  each reflect the words of Christ when he said -“Love God with your whole heart, and Love your neighbor as yourself, and upon these commandments hangs all the law and the prophets”, unlimited compassion in, perhaps, its finest expression.

How are the religions of the world doing with that?  Which religion today reflects that goal? Certainly not Christianity, with its inherent denominationalism, and intolerance of homosexuals and others. It is astonishing when one realizes that most religions in the 21^st century still favor the subjugation of women. 

If you are, a Christian….Southern Baptist, Missouri or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, Mormon or some versions of Methodist, women cannot preach in your pulpit.  If you are Roman Catholic a woman ………….. even if she has devoted her entire life to cloistered service, taken a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience and spent her entire life in the service of others…. is not even considered clergy.  One must ask the question,”Ladies, why do you permit it?”

Lord knows what today's “religious separatism” will engender.  Hatred of Islamics?  Atheists? Transvestites? Somehow religion will find a way to abrogate unlimited compassion.  And it doesn’t matter what religion you cite. The class structure of Hindi, the jihadists of Islam, The “justice” court of the Baha’i or the Scientologist, all practice separatism of some sort and fail miserably in their goal of compassion. While one might ask, what does Atheism offer in support of compassion that is worth fighting for? I might suggest it is the very word “fighting” that is an anathema for religion. What should be tolerance too often becomes intolerance. When one must fight for a belief structure, one has, already lost the war.  

Religion’s enemy is not Science. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy of both Science AND RELIGION is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."

Religion, that paragon of Dogma, cannot be the arbiter of truth. It is simply humanly flawed.

We then ask if the individual can be the arbiter of worth and truth, and many will answer “yes”. Certainly the Industrial Revolution (in which we are still engaged) and Quantum Physics is sending us in that direction.

Consider Schroedinger’s cat.  Schroedinger says to Einstein, “ Al, I have a cat in a box with a scale, two cans, one filled partway with water while water is dripping into the other can.  When the scales re-balance, with the weight of the water, a vial of prussic acid releases and kills the cat”.

Schroedinger asks, "is the cat alive or dead after two days"? Einstein answers, "I don’t know, I have to lift the lid to find out."  Schroedinger crows, “Exactly! As far as we now know the cat is either dead, alive, or presently, a state of “dead-aliveness” and we need an observer to determine the correct state!"

This idea of a required observer has led many people, particularly younger generations to avow concepts like “well, it works for me” or “that’s my reality”, or even “image is everything”. It also implies that a tree falling in a forest makes no sound without an observer, a situation, with which most of us, are tremendously uncomfortable.

It is not just physics sending us to a “me” centered universe.  The twentieth century saw, first, Existentialism, the notion that existence comes before essence, then post-modernism with the mindset that all things are relative (even God), changeable, dynamic, and as a result, only my reality matters. There is no objective truth, no “absolute” truth, nor absolute worth.  All truth must be filtered through my perception.

The Lakota Sioux warrior was told he must travel throughout the “medicine wheel”, the known universe, and see “truth” from a variety of perspectives in order to “know” truth and claim his warrior status, thus acknowledging that truth and worth changes with perspective.  “Process Theology”, is a recent concept of the same ilk.  It avows that God is changing so truth and individual dignity and worth is changing………..All values are flexible.

The result of these affirmations is that we may have approximately 7 billion “truths” and one is no better than the other. 

I submit to you my fictional, friends Bambi, Bubba and Abdul, who in turn claim to know both truth and “spirituality. 

Bambi avows, “I feel connected to the truth and spirituality whenever I sniff cinnamon. So every Sunday I go out and draw a cinnamon pentagram in my garage and kneel down to sniff my way around it. Then I fall into a spiritual swoon and truth is revealed and I feel close to God.”

Bubba suggests that if he handles poisonous snakes and drinks strychnine during his religious service he knows God is protecting him and truth comes to him.

Abdul suggests “I feel very spiritual and connected to God and Truth whenever I kill a Jew.”

Bambi’s spirituality is too sophomoric and “me” centered to deserve further consideration.  Bubba needs to inject an element of danger which is incompatible with either truth or spirituality. Abdul’s “truth” must be summarily dismissed as unacceptable. 

The point of these three is to show that not all “truth” or “Spirituality” is equal, developed, acceptable …….or even sane.

The individual is, therefore a flawed arbiter of truth or worth.

If Science, Society, Religion, and he Individual are flawed in the value of the dignity and worth of all individuals, what benchmark can we use?

The answer, I believe, is none.

There is no dynamic truth… no dynamic reasoning that establishes the worth of individuals beyond $162.50.

But somehow, we know people are worth more.

I have used the word “spirituality” several times and must now explain it further.

Consider certain physical facts.  When we die, in time we become fodder for the worms and fertilizer for the roses.  The bird eats the worm and the cat eats the bird. The deer eats the rose and is, in some, cases then eaten by the wolf. What do we call this extended period of our existence……spiritual life?  Similarly we know that if we could travel at a fast enough speed, with the right equipment, we could hear Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, live, since his spoken words are vibrating and only traveling at the slow rate of the speed of sound.

Would a “live” hearing of the Gettysburg address extend our lives one hundred fifty years into the past? Is President Lincoln still alive?  His words certainly are. His vibrations…….his “Strings” certainly are. What do we call that extension of life? Is it an extension of his spirit? It is if one’s spirit is still alive through one’s words….then we must ask what might we call that phenomenon?

Physics confirms we cannot destroy energy.  Matter may be destroyed, but not energy.  When matter is destroyed it simply becomes another form of energy.  Perhaps, as the great philosopher Obi Wan Kenobi suggested, it becomes a “force” which could be harnessed and used. Do you notice how close I am coming to a “God” force for want of a better word? What word do we use to describe this endless sound vibration, this endless circle of life and this continuing energy?  I think “Spirituality” might be a good word since we do not understand it very well. The philosopher Spinoza called it “God” and Einstein agreed.

Many philosophers have said you cannot approach “God” with reason. It is too limiting. Thinkers such as Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong have suggested that “awe, mystery and reverence” are all traits common to even the most primitive societies when contemplating the stars and the cosmos and life, and truth. These are not simply emotional responses to the vastness of space. These are supernal or “supernatural” values as real empathy or love.

The common root core of awe, mystery and reverence, and spirituality appears to be the same “unlimited compassion” we mentioned previously, a common connection to others, to the observed limitations of this life, to the community and the universe.  It is a sharing of a sacrosanct pact of sisterhood and brotherhood and benevolence and an acknowledgement that our place in the universe is outside ourselves and is somehow, eternal and therefore….sacred.

In the final analysis, the worth of an individual must be absolute, unlimited, sacrosanct, holy, immutable, cosmic and eternal for no other reason than the alternatives are unacceptable or flawed.

All limitations of individual worth, all cheap human life makes us uncomfortable or even angry for no other reason than dignity and worth are compromised on some immeasurable cosmic scale.

I believe that this suggests we are not human beings in search of a spiritual existence, but rather spiritual beings having a human experience. When our Being is denied, we somehow know it on a cosmic and supernal level.

I know, I know, this isn’t a very scientific conclusion because science cannot offer a solution. But it is a conclusion which explains why no earthly force seems able to explain dignity and worth, adequately. 

We must therefore, seek unlimited compassion, for it is only through its development and awareness that we can sense that all of life has a sacredness and dignity. It is only through those goals of compassion and love that the worth of individuals is verified. The avatars of religions and spiritual Paraclete's knew this. And we know it intrinsically as well.

The rock guitarist Jimmie Hendrix may have stated it best when he said, “the world can never know peace until the power of love overcomes the love of power.”

 In the end it is only through compassion and love that we will know peace and oneness with the cosmos and all other beings. With that peace comes the truth that each individual is sacred, eternal and beyond any earthly standard of “worth”.

   

May The Lord bless you and keep you;

May He make his face to "shine upon you and be gracious unto you?

May the Lord bring the light of his countenance upon you………..and grant you peace." ' 

Bless you and Thank you

 John P. Middleton

Feb 2013

 

A "War" in Theology

The greatest ideological war is being fought in Christianity today and many don’t even realize it.

The war is between what is called “Objective truth and Relative/Subjective truth”; or “Modernism and Post-Modernism”. While it is very difficult to clearly define the two positions, it is clear that neither “side” is free from problems. Both are imperfect when stretched to their ultimate degrees.

This “war” is largely the same as the conflict between Jesus Christ and the Jewish hierarchy in the first century. It asks the questions, “What is God’s truth?”  “What should I believe in and how should I believe it?” The polarized positions ask “How should I act”, often only in conjunction with the Objective or Subjective starting position.

The objective truth side claims all truth rests with God and we humans can only seek to uncover it, but never truly “Know It”.  The other, the subjective truth side claims that because we can never know God’s truth or have language to describe it, it is of little or no value, since human beings can’t discuss it. Therefore truth must rest within humankind as only then can we “see and discuss” it.

One can defend Objective truth only by assuming that it is possible for human beings to take up a “view from nowhere; but I don’t believe in “views from nowhere,” some argue. 

I don’t believe in objective truth or relativism (AS ultimate truth), either. “Moreover, I don’t want you to believe in objective truth or relativism either, because the first concept is corrupting the church and its witness to the world, while tilting at the second is wasting the precious time and energy of a lot of Christians.”¹ Nonetheless I will tilt at both.

“Postmodern thought developed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, as deeply ethical European intellectuals reflected on the atrocities their peers had perpetuated or acquiesced to. Postmodern thinkers realized that these megalomaniacs, like Hitler, used grand systems of belief to justify their atrocities. Those systems of belief – which the postmodern thinkers called “metanarratives,” but which also could have been called “world views” or “ideologies” – were so powerful they could transform good European intellectuals into killers or accomplices. They thought back over European history and realized (as C. S. Lewis did) that those who have passionate commitment to a system of belief will be most willing, not only to die for it, but to kill for it.”² And that would be wrong on the face of it.

The post-modern thinkers defined “truth” as resting within the individual since to believe a “metanarrative” often allies one with others with whom we disagree. Additionally, objective truth is tricky.  We don’t have words, nor can we ever have words, to describe Objective truth or “God’s truth”; what some have claimed is the “view from nowhere” since human’s can’t comprehend it. Objective truth also has the unfortunate tendency to say “This way is the right way”, since “God ordains” it.

Conversely, many postmodernists are stuck with the position of “It works for me”, subjective truth driven to its ultimate edge, that the “self” (small “s”) or the society is the only repository of what is “true or good”; that all that is good is subject to my view of it. One claim is that this validates the life of Hitler if he believed what he was doing was “right”, and he certainly did.

The tree would make no sound when falling in the forest without “ME” to hear it. Neither position is defensible for very long yet both are true; and I will attempt to argue for both of them in an attempt to decipher “God’s truth”.

I have found myself on both sides of the argument.  When encountering Objective truth believers, I often argue for Relative truth and conversely when confronted with the “I am the center of the universe- that is my opinion and I’m sticking to it” people, I often argue for Objective truth. Do I like arguing? Decidedly, and unfortunately, so.  It is the best way I know to reach concordance. But it is often quite counterproductive as it tends to polarize issues …and tick people off……

Polarization  is what has happened to Christianity in the last few hundred years.  One of the most unfortunate aftermaths of the Reformation was the splitting of the single method system of the Western Roman Catholic church, however much in need of reforming, into a blithering array of Protestant belief structures and denominations; subjectivism in possibly its worst guise.

We now argue over whether one has to be dunked or sprinkled in baptism. Similarly we argue over the meaning of words in scripture to the extent that we conclude “one must be a Christian to be saved”, (with “saved” defined by some version of travel to heaven rather than hell) completely disregarding or demeaning the possibility of other faiths and citizens being spiritual beings, close to God. Our arrogance to avow there is only one God, but that God only favors the man-made religion of Christianity, thus dooming every other creature to perdition is unsavory and un-Christ-like in the extreme, but a product of Objectivism in its worst guise.

But we humans need to define truth in some way. Either as God sees it or we, or our society, sees it.

When I encounter the rigid set of dogma that passes for Christianity today I am dismayed. Peter C. Moore did the evangelical community a great service when he helped us “Disarm the secular Gods”.³  But as Phillip Kenneson points out, “He left the job unfinished- hence when Moore rightly unmasked the secular god of relativism, he left her consort-objectivism- fully enthroned”. A Buddhist might argue for the “middle way” the center of yin and yang, realizing that polarized positions are untenable for obvious reasons- they don’t take the “other” into consideration. Even with love as our objective, we cannot love that which we believe is wrong, hence the dichotomy to “love the sinner and hate the sin”. Frankly, you can’t do it. If you think Islam or homosexuality is “wrong” you cannot “Love” its practitioners.  You can show them kindness and compassion and hope that counts as “LOVE”, but I might suggest true love involves something more than tolerance. True love is more active than passive, more “out reaching” than tolerating.

Jesus faced this same dilemma when he came to earth. The Jewish leaders were Objectivists in that they knew God’s Law, all 613 of them, and could quote much of it. Jesus, on the other hand was more of a Relativist when he said, “The Kingdom of God is within you”. Then He also suggested pulling our donkey out of the hole it was trapped in on the Sabbath. It was the “right” thing to do, He avowed. Yet how can he claim to believe in an Almighty, Theistic God, “The Father,” yet lay claim to relativism? Surely if God exists he is a perfect being containing God’s Absolute Truth?

Here then was the dichotomy and even Jesus is wishy washy about the outcome one might think.

I will later submit that he was not.

Many, including Kennisen, point out that the Enlightenment was the root of Absolutism. Locke, Descarte, Kant and others claimed a “theory of knowledge”  fueled by pure reason that helped to produce “many of the dichotomies that now appear self-evident: object/subject; realism/idealism; knowledge/opinion; fact/value; reason/faith; rational/irrational; public/private. This dualistic left or right philosophical tradition has taught us to think of knowledge as a picture or mirror of the way the world really is. Such a view of “knowledge,” however creates its own special set of problems – problems rooted in our anxiety that our knowledge might not, in fact, mirror the world as it really is. In order to guarantee that no wholesale slippage takes place between our view of the world and the world as it really is, what we think we need is a theory of knowledge, a method for determining true pictures from false ones.

In short, this project of supplying language-secure foundations for knowledge, what we might call Epistemology (or even “Moral Philosophy”), is the attempt to assure ourselves that our pictures do, in fact, hook up with the world. Within such a view of knowledge, truth (or Truth) is not so much a concept as it is an entity “out there” in the world, waiting to be discovered; Truth is merely the word for the way the world really is which we are trying to picture or mirror with our knowledge. When human beings discover this Truth, picture it faithfully in their minds and mirror it accurately in their language, we say that they have “genuine” knowledge.  Moreover, such knowledge is “objectively truthful” when its status as true does not ultimately depend on the testimony of any person or group of persons. Indeed, the whole point of claiming that something is “objectively true” is to say that any person, unhindered by the clouds of unreason and the prejudices of self-interest, would come to the same conclusion.”⁴ A thing almost never true. 

If it were true we never should have left the Catholic Church, we should have “reformed it” as Luther intended.  Additionally, an absolutist could claim we must be assured that our picture hooks up with the world as it “ought to be” (God’s truth). …not what it “is”(Human truth) because what it is, is flawed.

One compelling argument for subjective truth is that language is subjective. While nuances of meaning may be detected by face to face encounters the written word is stuck in print. You can’t see me wink or smile or frown. Since language is subjective the only tools we have to deal with God are reason and language, or the amorphous “Faith” (more about this in a minute).  It is probably absolutely true…..wink.

This, often called “correspondence theory” of truth, that truth is “out there” and we must seek to discover it, engenders methodological doubt in the mind of the both the relativist and the absolutist.  It’s God’s truth not ours. We are always in doubt, because we can never truly “KNOW IT”.

“Epistemology” attempts to deal with the language nature of things at their limits of truth.  “What is truth” it asks? What are its limits? The field is littered with the bodies of moral philosophers and theologians who failed to answer its questions.

This “correspondence” theory of truth resulted in a series of disastrous arguments within the church. Is the body and blood of Christ at communion the “ACTUAL body (Catholic) or the SYMBOLIC body (Protestant). The dichotomy between Faith v. Works which so occupied the reformers in the 16^th century is another example. The answers to these questions in the mind of many must be one or the other because of our Cartesian heritage through the Enlightenment.

Truly, the questions at first seem incompatible we can’t rationally hold both positions, we have to choose, and from that choice flows ideology and dogma.

A friend has referred to the following exchange between Luther (German Catholic) and Zwingli (Swiss Protestant) when meeting in the town of Hesse (Luther’s ballpark) in October 1529. They did not agree on whether Christ was present in the sacramental elements of the Eucharist. The meeting was an attempt to resolve their differences. Luther began the debate by writing in chalk on a tabletop, "This is my body" Matt. 26:26.

The Zwinglian response; "is" means "represents" or "stands for." As proof he

offered John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I

have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

Luther: I rest content with what Christ says, and He says: This is my body. Not even

the devil can change that. Therefore believe in the pure word of God and glorify

Him.

Zwingii: We urge you too to give up your preconceived opinion and glorify God. I do

not give up my text either, and you will have to sing another song.

Luther: You are speaking in hatred.

Zwingii: Then let John 6:63 cure your ignorance.

Luther: You are trying to overwork it.

Zwingii: No! No! This text will break your neck.

Luther: Don't brag. Our necks don't break so fast. You are in Hesse now not in

Switzerland.

 {The Columbia History of the World, Garraty & Gay ed. pp. 525-6)

My friend asked, “Are not these great theologians misguided by their insistence on their own

absolute truths?” The answer is “Absolutely, (wink) but for some timely reasons due to the impending schisms”. (One wonders how much ale they were downing at the time of the exchange).

This is what Christianity has become……. A “belief” oriented structure……. “What is it you believe, we ask? Our Christian churches are awash in belief structures. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior”, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord”, “are you ‘Born again’”; all questions designed to determine what it is that you believe.

I would submit that was not Christ’s way.  He neither asked the Jews to abandon the (absolutist) Law. In fact, He said He had come “to fulfill it”; nor did he tell us that God wants us to do only what we think is subjectively right.  Christ, like Buddha, tried to straddle a middle ground.  He called on us to dwell in the Kingdom of God, thus asking us to love the father, yet love our neighbor as ourselves, a decidedly “faith v. works” based, subjective position. In short he is asking us to do BOTH, NOT EITHER OR NEITHER; to be both Subjective and Objectivists, one might think. I contend, he IS asking us to do both.  First, accept the Objective truth that God exists and is good (Objective truth) through Faith. Second, know that our treatment of others is just as important (Subjective truth) through deeds.

1 John 4:20- 5:

 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

NIV

Matt 22:36-40

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'   38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'   40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

NIV

If we are truly following Jesus we cannot choose between these two alternatives. We must accept both, which we have already affirmed, seems impossible. The secular Humanist or Atheist can only accept the latter, subjective, position.  For her/him there is no former objective position. That is her/his curse. Only subjective truth can exist for her/him. She/he has no supernal truth to turn to.  She/he can gussy it up by saying it is the “society” that defines truth, but that is not very satisfying if one lives in a society of cannibalism or Nazi Germany, Australia during the aboriginal wars, or the United states during the Indian wars. “Society” is a capricious mistress. 

But most of us are believers in one way or another. And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter and why I call myself a “First Century Christian”.

I must conclude that Dogma or Ideology, whether it be based on what I believe God wants or what I want, is unacceptable as an either/or, alone.  Neither a society nor Faith alone can dictate truth as a belief structure. I also must conclude that what I want is imperfect and unacceptable due to the presence of others. And what God wants is unknowable no matter how much we suspect we know it. It is “Faith” based.  Therefore my only tool is not reason or Faith alone rather it is Love and unlimited compassion which Jesus, Buddha and Krishna all sought.

So what must we believe in? My answer would be whatever you want as long as it is consistent with Love. The motto of the Disciples of Christ comes to mind. “In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom and in all things love.”  (They do not concur on what is an essential)

What I am suggesting is that Christianity should not be solely about BELIEF structures, but rather, action structures. That our belief systems are shaped by factors often beyond our control and imperfect at best; shaped by many factors out of our control. That when we think we “Know”, we do NOT know. Jesus solution was to attempt to act in a way that would be consistent with the Godly virtue of unlimited compassion and love. He left the love of God up to the individual, “spirituality” and choice of religion or non-religion, if you will, both Jews and Gentiles, so to speak.  Spirituality, that is, relationship with God, knows no religion boundaries nor societal standard. This would be a death blow to objectivism in its rigid form but Christ,  through his first greatest commandment insists we look to spirituality with God not bound by religious labels.  God is neither a gentile nor a Jew.  Those are manmade structures.

The conclusion is that it is not what we believe but how we ACT that defines Christianity.

You do not have to accept my dogma, nor I, yours.  You don’t scorn me if you disagree with me nor I, you.  You don’t judge me…God, or time if one is a Buddhist, will do that.

It is not necessary for us to abandon the study of Moral Philosophy nor Theology.

On the contrary, we need to argue about right and wrong in order to see it better.

I often put a Coke can in front of students to give a lesson from the Lakota Sioux.  I suggest the can is “Truth”. Each of us sitting in a circle can see one perspective of the can. Some see the logo, others the label and still others the ingredient list. No one perspective is complete.  So the Lakota Sioux warrior before becoming a member, must travel throughout the Medicine Wheel (The World) to gain further perspective.  But no matter how much perspective one gathers only God would be able to see the bottom of the “Truth can”.  It is hidden from us.

Some leaders of the Emerging Church movement recognize the dignity of the individual to decide for himself about God, but also affirm something out there beyond humankind exists and needs to be dealt with. That is in sync with both Christ’s and Buddha’s teachings.

To suggest I could currently define this movement is wrong.  I could not.  (absolute truth-wink)

That which I can attest to, is that the Emerging Church movement is subjective, BUT NOT COMPLETELY relativist, and objective WITH LITTLE OR NO DOGMA.

It recognizes the dignity of the individual to decide for himself but suggests it is God powering the processes of life; clearly dualistic concepts. But isn’t that what Jesus two greatest commandments were?

The love of God is clearly Objective and the love of man is clearly Subjective.

Our BELIEF system cannot solve the dilemma.  To say “I exclude you from the conversation if you don’t believe thusly” is wrong. To say “I or my society decides who is acceptable” is wrong as well.

I am reminded that the Constitution of the United States is a document specifically designed to protect the rights of the MINORITY not the majority. The founders somehow knew that we, individually, must be protected so that society might be protected. It is a concept in complete concordance with Jesus’ teachings.

The process for followers of “The Way”, the First Century Christian, and all humankind, is not what you believe, but rather, that the motive, the means and the ends, need to be acts of love and compassion and kindness toward everyone. Many of our churches need to abandon the dogma of “my way or the highway” and embrace Love. It is all we really have.

                                                John P. Middleton

Footnotes and Bibliography

1 & 2  Philip Kennison, “There is no Such Thing as Objective Truth and It’s a Good Thing Too”

1 “Christian apologetics in the postmodern world”, Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Holcomb

2 Brian McLaren, unknown correspondence, letters to a colleague

3. Philip Kennison, ibid