Trusting the Truth

In our journey toward understanding I want to next move to a common barrier. I call it inculturation. This is when the various things that make up our culture are accepted as “truth” and actually become a barrier to “real” truth. This refers to things like:

Family

Schools

Legal framework and laws

Authorities and role models

Religious doctrine and denominations

and much more....

Wait a minute.... Did I say Religious doctrine and denominations are a barrier to truth? I did. This is a very difficult thing for some. Including me. I get depressed sometimes.

But I guarantee that as long as we hold on to ANY of this inculturation, we are preventing God's own truth from entering our lives. We have to let it go.

The first issue is Faith. Or trust, if you will.

Do you trust God?

Did you give your life to Him? What do you think that means?

Do you think that you now have to turn to some institutional organization to “indoctrinate” you into the TRUTH?

Do you think that you now have to constantly be on guard and manage the events in your life? The people you meet, the paths you take, the truths you learn?

Seriously? The creator of the universe that created everything there is out of absolute nothingness by speaking? He needs a committee to tell you what to believe and how to behave?

One of the problems is when we have a new believer we tell them: “Surround yourself with other believers and listen to your pastor.” This is anti-scriptural.

There's a story about an Ethiopian Eunuch in the bible. He was baptized and sent, alone to spread the word to an entire country, the same day.

He didn't receive any denominational ordination. Take a look at the Christian presence in Ethiopia today. Its in the millions, and has one of the longest and strongest presences of any African nation.

There's another story about a Samaritan woman. Again, sent same day she was “saved” to minister to an entire population. Alone.

She went to no leadership-training workshops.

Then there's this demon-possessed guy. Jesus comes along and pow! Kicks them demons out and the people that know the guy are so in awe of the transformation that the bible says they were “afraid.” He spends his life raving with multiple demons inside and that's business as usual, but now he's healed and they are afraid.

When he wants to go with Jesus he is told to stay and spread the news in his own community. I guarantee you he did not have a copy of the New Testament to preach from.

And then there's this Matthew guy. Same day Jesus calls him, sends him out to the very community that hates his guts. He was a tax collector. In the bible they repeatedly make mention of “sinners and tax collectors” so apparently the tax collector was such a jerk he needed his own category.

Jesus gives him a plan, its found in Matthew chap 10, and repeated in Luke chap 10. It involves things like “take nothing with you” and the bounty of the harvest is to be found in the harvest. This means there are no multi-million dollar training or events or infrastructure needed.

So whats going on here? Is there really a bunch of “Christian” institutions and churches out there that preach how being prideful is such a sin and yet think that God needs an interpreter?

The “Word” of God is what? The bible? Or Jesus? Both are called the “Word.” If something comes up that is in conflict or contradicts, who wins? Jesus or the bible?

It does happen.

What happens when your religion is too small for your God? Its called “putting God in a box”.

The question is: Can God be anything not found in a literal legalistic interpretation of the bible?

Can the bible itself become an idol?

There are basically two line of thought here. There's the “Catholic” way and the “Protestant” way.

In the Catholic view, the Word of God as expressed through the bible is “organic”. This is not to be confused with the “Organic Church” movement. What this means is that the Word of God grows as the times change. That a group of special people get together and decide what the Word has to say about a certain topic. Then when they announce it, that becomes a part of the Word of God. It's kinda like when an amendment to the Constitution is made.

In the other view, common to all Protestant denominations, there is a belief that the bible is it. Nothing else. If there is a question about a new topic, the scripture is searched, people pray, any little verse taken within or without context that supports what they want is found, and that becomes the Word of God. If you don't like it, you are dis-fellowshipped. Go start your own denomination.

Anything else is heresy, or a cult.

These very processes are actually described in the bible. They are not found in the descriptions of the new churches spawned by Jesus and His apostles. Both ways are described in the old Pharisaical tradition. You know, the one that branded Jesus a heretic.

And again in the Jerusalem church described in Acts. You know the ones that tried to kill Paul, the author of much of our New Testament? Also for being a heretic.

Could it be that Christianity is about “heresy” in a very real way?

“What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?” (Colonel Walter Kurtz, Apocalypse Now)

Fellowship

So now we have a little problem.

The truth simply is.

Our experience can be a lie.

So what do we do in our search for truth and God?

First let me paraphrase one of my favorites, Mr. CS Lewis. This will set the foundation, and then next time we'll talk about the living Word of God.

In Mere Christianity Mr. Lewis describes the differences between the study of God (theology) and all other -ologies. If one wants to study geology, he can go out and get a rock. The rock does not flee. He can take the rock and crack it open, look at it under a microscope and record the experiences (observations).

If one wants to study biology, he can go and catch an animal. The animal may flee, but can be trapped or killed. Then the animal can be dissected and examined under a microscope and record the observations.

If one wants to study people, as in psychology or something similar, one has to find a person willing to participate. One has to ask about the experiences and trust that any of the many variances or problems that could alter the perceptions of the observation is not in the way of an accurate recording.

But to study God, God has to be in complete control. There is no microscope or telescope we can use to study God without His revealing Himself to us. In the measure He see fit, and on His timetable.

Good thing He promised us He would reveal Himself if sought.

Now I am going to maintain that one of the ways He does this is through other people. Having a true personal connection with another human being is NOT the same thing as our experiences that can lie to us. Seeing ourselves, and God, and His creations through another persons eyes, and sharing with them creates a situation that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This is called fellowship.

And God promised us that if two or more get together and He was in their midst.

A loss of fellowship is a frightening thing. I've seen it completely destroy a person's spiritual life. Someone I truly loved and cared about. More than one someone.

CS Lewis talks about when JRR Tolkein died how he lost the fellowship he had with the man. How he would never again have his insights into the nature of God.

I believe that God brings people into our lives for a reason. And that I might have lost out on something by not being open and kind to any one of the persons I bump into on the bus on a daily basis.

Like anything else, its us that limits God.

We seem to be programmed to keep trying to put Him in a box.

Truth and the Bible

What I wrote about last time regarding truth and metaphor is important, but not very practical. So here's some practicality regarding truth.

To get started we need to revist the concept from the last paper regarding the difference between experience and truth. Looking at the idea that all swans are white, until we see our first black swan, introduces the concept that truth exists independent of our experiences. The black swan always existed, our belief that all swans are white had absolutely no effect on it whatsoever.

So the first idea to consider when beginning a quest for truth is that we close ourselves to discovering truth when we think we know it already!

“To look at something as though we had never seen it before requires great courage.” (Matisse)

I plan on discussing courage in a later paper, but the concept I am describing when I speak of courage is the ability to face oneself. There are people that make actions and statements and plans and great successes that other people point to and say “That person really thinks outside of the box.”

But if you ask them, they often will say something like “what's a box? People actually think in them?”

They have already, somehow rid themselves of limits or labels that the rest of us live with. This is a complex subject regarding the nature of reality and truth. Simply, the statement “No one ever told me I couldn't do that” is a comment on both the nature of limits and labels and the nature of courage.

“You can have no greater sign of confirmed pride than when you think you are humble enough.” (Law)

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Even without realizing we are all guilty of this to some degree. Why learn a new way to wash dishes when the way we do it has been working for years? Why learn a better, if more difficult way to balance our checkbooks when the way we learned in school has never steered us wrong?

Its a hard fact for many to face, but just because we have not been corrected yet, does in no way indicate we are doing “it” right.

“In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” (Hoffer)

How would we realize that swans also come in black if we did not maintain both the constant ability to recognize something new, and most importantly the fact that what we “know” may be incomplete or even (gasp!) incorrect?

So let me now turn to a quote from the bible itself....

This is what's happening: Paul is on a mission to Athens and he's a pretty smart guy. So he spends a day or so wandering the marketplace before he tries to speak to the people. He finds that there are a great deal of idols and other gods being worshipped by the people, they even have one to the Unknown God, just in case they missed anyone. So when Paul speaks he talks to them about their Unknown God and how this is the God that he's come to tell them about.

Pretty daring stuff really. If we're going to be critically honest with ourselves, we would note that although this story has gotten a great deal of traffic over the years from ministers, if anyone tried something like this on an evangelical mission they'd be excommunicated faster than you could say “Mars Hill.”

But there's another part of that story that's often overlooked.

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”

(Acts 17:28)

So Paul also read the Greeks poetry, and quotes one of them in the bible.

The bible.

The living Word of God?

The un-error-able, literal, standard that people cling to as the only truth in the universe? A quote from a greek poet?

Have you ever read any greek poetry from that period? It might be a little like a church adopting quotes from pornographic romance novels into their doctrine.

Yet there's Paul, under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, including it into our bible....

I think what this illustrates is that Paul is saying truth can be found pretty much anywhere, anytime.

Then in 1Corinthians he really spells it out:

“21Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;

 22Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
 23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.”

Now it seems to me that what's going on here is that Paul is saying because all things are God's, and Christ is of God, and we are of Christ, then we now have the ability, through Christ, to claim the truth wherever we may find it. All things are ours.

And really, lets take a look at the bible in it's totality. Basically we have this story, and it begins with us in paradise. From a metaphorical sense we can talk about how “paradise” represents not a real place or garden but the world as its intended to be, as God intended it to be.

Then at the end of the last book in the bible we see an image of this paradise restored. I could go on about how this often overlooked part of the bible talks about the kingdom of God being restored ON EARTH, and how that means Christianity is NOT about some reward we are looking forward to receiving after death, but about what we do NOW to fulfill God's purpose here (and now)... but that's another paper.

The point is that the bible begins with the paradise we lost, and ends with the paradise to come. To me that means that the entire story is what happens in between. Me writing this paper, and you reading it, are also parts of the story.

So how do you want your part of the story written?

Metaphor and Truth

I'm weird.

When I write I usually don't have a problem starting. I open this door inside me and the words just flow. I usually have a problem stopping. I'll be deep in the flow of words and realize I need to wrap it up or it'll just go on indefinitely.

But this time I am having a problem knowing where to start.

So I'm just going to start with a couple definitions and principles that are at the core of what is to follow. Needless to say I will likely have to repeat these things from time to time, but if you can keep these things in mind when reading the rest of the papers things will definitely make more sense. 

First of all, we have a problem with language. This problem is a very big deal. It is very pervasive, which is a word that means everywhere we look we can find a part of this problem. 

It is also subtle, which is a word that means that we have a tendency to think that the parts of this problem we do find are not that important: They slip beneath our notice. 

And its a problem on multiple levels, by which I mean that it is a problem from our most fundamental levels of life to our most advanced concepts and beliefs.

Language is a metaphor. Every word we use, every syntax or context we understand, its all a metaphor. It is not the truth. The truth is the concept we are describing with our language, the language itself is not the truth.

For example, if I say “table” or “mesa” it doesn't change what I'm talking about. It was here before I got here, and will be here after I leave. It doesn't change how it acts like a table, nor does it change the appearance of the table. If I tell you my laptop right now is sitting on a table, you will have an image or an understanding of some sort of platform holding up my laptop to the proper height and keeping it from falling, but the actual representation of the table in your mind is not going to be the same as the one in my mind or anyone else's, nor will it likely be what is actually present in reality. Reality being the table I am looking at right now under my laptop.

But it is enough for us to communicate. And that, ultimately is the purpose of language. To communicate. Whenever we try to change reality with our language its a lie. Its kinda what a lie is. Being honest includes being honest about the limitations of our language and our understanding of language.

So let's be honest. If you get a hundred Christians in a room and ask them to define what Christianity is, you will not get ONE definition. That is just a fact. You would be likely to get more like 250 definitions out of a hundred people. A hundred definitions that we apply to ourselves, a hundred different definitions we apply to others, and a miscellany of other definitions that people understand or believe in but do not subscribe to; or are in the process of refining and adopting.

The same with just about any word or concept in the world you can think of. That's just the way it is. Our definitions are close enough that we can communicate, but we have to admit that there is no one on this planet that accepts reality with the same understanding that we do.

And so what happens is that when we have deep meaningful conversations, about 50% of the conversation is semantics. Half the conversation is about us agreeing on what our words mean. Sometimes if its a “teaching” type conversation it can be more than 50%, sometimes if its a continuing conversation it can be less because we will use words that we've already agreed upon.

Having said that, I would like to point out that whether its a translation study, or a language study, or contextual reading, we still have the same problem. We are simply trading one assumption for another, but its still an assumption. This is why literal and/or legalistic interpretation of the Bible creates problems. It's like looking at the world with one eye. You can still see the shapes and colors and beauty of the world, in fact you can still see it using either eye. But without BOTH eyes there's no depth, things are only two dimensional.

What makes it more effective is to see things in three dimensions. AND to be able to conceptualize the place objects hold and their significance in a three dimensional “space” in our understanding. Its not that the two dimensional picture is wrong, its that the three dimensional picture is richer, more robust, more REAL.

And that brings us to what I think is a good place to start: Truth.

For the purpose of our discussions let me make a few points about “truth” so that we can start on the same page. I've already explained how “truth” is different from language or metaphor.

The first point I'd like to make is something that is central to understanding God. The first maxim I will present is this:

“Nothing unreal exists.”

Think about that for a minute. If something exists, its real. If something is real, then it must exist. Merely not having experienced something does not make it unreal, nor does having experienced something make it completely real. This is exemplified in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis when he talks about thinking that all swans are white, until you see a black one. Experience can lie.

Furthermore, there's this thing called perception. Perception is unconscious. “Managing perception” used to be the battle cry of a job I used to hold. It meant to act or behave in a way that pleased the client. But if we look at it critically it basically means to “lie”. If our perception of anything occurs without our conscious knowledge, then the things we perceive we don't really have the control over that we assume we do. If we did, we would be immune to illusions, or lies. So once again, experiences can lie.

So where does that leave us? If truth simply “is”, but how we experience what "is" can be untrue, how can we know what truth is?

The reason I make this point has to do with a very critical concept related to understanding “truth”. It has to do with humility and acceptance. The danger is in the importance we place on what we label truth.

The very sobering realization is that anytime we insist that something we have experienced or something that we know is true, well its the insistence that is the problem, its the importance we put on that something that is the only thing we have control over.

So I'm going to say something that will immediately be unacceptable to some: The crucifix is just a piece of wood or metal. The only importance it has is the importance we put on it. I can provide a great deal of evidence in history and etymology and theology that supports this assertion. But there are some that will immediately reject the assertion and everything else that I say because of this one assertion. No where did I say it was bad... in fact the statement I said could actually make the importance of significance of the crucifix greater. The perception just happened.

The thing about illusions or lies, and perception, is that they often rely on this difference in depth. The difference between something “two dimensional and three dimensional” in a metaphorical sense. Seeing something on a two dimensional image that appears to be three dimensional is an “optical” illusion, one that uses our perception to appear to be something that its not. Without our conscious effort to include other factors like the knowledge its on a piece of two dimensional paper, we would be fooled.

The second point I'd like to make is about contrast. Sometimes we understand truth by what contrasts with it. Now in this case I am not saying that what is contrasting with truth is untruth, because it still exists. So my use of the word “contrast” in this context should not be taken to mean an opposite member in the sense of real and unreal.

What I mean by this is that we can better understand what is by defining what it is not.

If you study and examine every Christian denominational doctrine, from Catholicism to Moony-ism, you will notice a contrast that is at the core of every system. This is the contrast between the attraction of the image of God vs. the repulsion of the definition of sin. Each helps to make the other real.

Now I thought about that sentence, I didn't just blurt it out. Each word is important. How each system defines sin is the object of the repulsion; just as what image is perceived to be “of God” is the attraction of the system.

The last point I would like to make about Truth in this first paper is the subject of context. The maxim is: “Text without context is false”; but this maxim applies to much more than merely text. It also speaks to one of the problems we have with a mutual understanding of truth.

For example: As alluded to before, experience lies and yet our understanding of truth comes directly from this experiential framework. The application of context to the situation will always increase understanding. In the example with the swans, before we experienced a black swan it was “true” that all swans were white. After experiencing a black swan we can state that our previous belief was incomplete, that time and reality was larger than our experiences had been to that date.

But if we are critically honest with ourselves we will admit that the black swan existed before we experienced it, therefore it was us that was in the wrong, that reality and therefore truth had not changed one whit.

The trick is to keep this lesson in the heart of every truth we have or will have.

The problems begin whenever we assume that any truth we hold is the absolute truth.

Introduction

This is about finding God.

Its about experiences and application. Reality.

So right off the bat, people are going to object. You know...

The crowd that thinks God can't be anything other than what you find in the bible.

The crowd that thinks God can't be anything more than what their denomination or doctrine says.

The crowd that thinks they've got it all figured out.

You know... Christians.

I'm not casting aspersions. I'm a Christian. Its just that my experience with God has lead me somewhere else. Things like humility, and truth, and an intense dislike of lying to myself and hypocrisy. I could give examples.

The truth is that I have met many Christians that are like minded. Usually they have a certain light and weight to their spirit that is undeniable, especially to non-Christians. Over and over again when we meet the connection is instant and supernatural.

Supernatural means “more-natural” by the way.

What we are seeing is that those very “crowds” I mentioned before? If we dig a little deeper we find that they are really:

The crowd that has been hurt and cling to their version of Christianity so strongly because they are terrified of more hurt.

The crowd that is being made slaves to fear and guilt by the very church system that offers the insubstantial solution.

The crowd that is being lied to, and being taught how to lie to themselves, and then being taught new deceptions to fix the previous ones.

The crowd that are having the very things they seek being used as a barrier to actually finding them.

This is really for them.

This is really for the very people that will want to burn me at the stake for trying to help them.