a href=”http://jollyblogger.typepad.com”>Jollyblogger continues an interesting discussion about the nature of Truth. In particular, he critiques an Open Letter to Chuck Colson written by emergent church movement leader Brian McLaren. Although Jollyblogger’s post is thoughtful, I’m afraid he grossly oversimplifies McLaren’s position. McCLaren doesn’t simply say “truth corresponds to reality.” Rather, he notes that a complete understanding of “Truth” is multifaceted. From this premise, McLaren notes his discomfort with simplistic characterizations that pit “postmodernism” (understood as “relativism”) against “absolute truth.”
McLaren’s analysis resonates with me, as does the concept of “epistemological uncertainty” to which Jollyblogger responds. My evangelical / fundamentalist tradition places great weight on the certainty of salvation. When I was younger, this bothered me greatly. If I was honest with myself, salvation can’t be in the same category of “knowledge” as, for example, the knowledge that I’m sitting at my desk typing this post. I can’t “know” the Christian faith itself is true with any empirical certainty because many of the doctrinal assertions of the faith are beyond empirical testing; that’s why it’s called “faith” rather than “sight.” It follows that I can’t “know” with absolute, empirical certainty that I have salvation — my faith may be misplaced.
Indeed, even my “knowledge” that I’m sitting at my desk typing this post is limited; I can’t definitively prove that my perception of sitting at a desk isn’t merely an excellent illusion.
I can, however, refer to some guideposts that convince me of the reasonableness of my belief that I really am sitting at a desk typing. I perceive the physical sensations of the chair and my computer keyboard; I have memories of where I was before I sat here; I have memories of sitting here previously; I see the effects I’m having on my environment (words on the computer screen), etc. In contrast, I have no evidence to suggest that my perception of these events is illusory. So, it is reasonable for me to believe that I really am sitting here at a desk typing. In that sense, I “know” I am sitting at a desk typing. But, I can’t “know” this in the absolute sense of disproving the possiblity that all my memories and sensations are illusory.
Similarly, I can refer to some guideposts that convince me of the reasonableness of my faith. I examine the historic evidence of the reliability of scripture, the teachings of scripture about the nature of salvation, the evidence of the efficacy of Christ’s salvific work throughout the history of the Church, and the evidence of His salvific work in my personal life. Based on these evidences, it’s reasonable for me to conclude that I’m saved. But again, I can’t “know” this in an absolute sense. And, in fact, the level of my “knowledge” is less certain than the level of my knowledge that I’m currently sitting in a chair typing. (All of this, BTW, is aside from the doctrinal question whether I can have assurance that I’m among the elect).
Of course, my epistemological uncertainty about whether I’m really here typing and whether I’m saved doesn’t preclude a certain answer to the question. I’m either here or I’m not; I’m either saved or I’m not. But I can continue stretching the continuum of epistemological certainty to where there isn’t a conclusive answer. For example, does my wife really love me? I reasonably believe she does based on how she relates to me. But not only can I not know her heart for certain, her heart, like every human heart, is inconceivably complex. What I call “love” is at one level a mix of genetic programming, tradition, training, choice and emotion; and at another level a result of God’s sovereign choices about my (and my wife’s) life mate. There is no simple, “absolute Truth” way to answer this question. Saying this doesn’t mean there is no “Truth” at all. It simply means the Truth isn’t a simple matter.
This recognition of the complexity of Truth, to me, is a breath of fresh air. One reason I left law practice for academia (I’m a law professor) was that I quickly tired of having to take sides in complex disputes. Rarely in a civil lawsuit is one side or the other entirely “right.” I relish nuance and complexity because that’s how life really is. To me, it’s just dishonest to claim that everything can be accounted for neatly by a set of propositional statements. That’s not to say the propositional statements are bad or should be ignored or eliminated. It’s just to say that I’m compelled by efforts to move beyond the propositions to engage the complexity that underlies them.