The Evangelical Outpost contains a thought provoking post on the emergent conversation and “absolute moral truth.” I believe, as the author does, that certain ethical / moral principles are applicable to everyone and not merely a matter of subjective preferences. However, I think the argument raised in the Evangelical Outpost article sets up a straw man by defining “postmodern” or “emergent” Christians too broadly. I also think it muddies the waters by ignoring the ontological presuppositions that underlie ethical / moral statements.
As to my first point, many Christians who are serious about relating postmodern epistemology to theology would decidedly not accept the premise that the are no universally applicable ethical norms. While it’s true that many who call themselves “emergent” blindly accept the relativism inherent in much postmodern thought, for the most part, such people tend not to be the emergent conversations true theological thought leaders.
Take Nancey Murphy’s book Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism, for example. Murphy shows how a foundationalist epistemology is inadequate, and how much language concerning “absolute” truth claims is based on foundationalist epistemology. She discusses the postmodern epistemological metaphor of truth as a “web” rather than a building with a foundation, and how relativism can be avoided in a web-based view of truth. Or look at Leslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence, and again, you’ll see a very thoughtful effort to place Christian truth claims in a nonfoundationalist context without any hint of relativism.
I think when many Christians who take criticisms of foundationalism and language theory seriously hear “absolute” as a qualifier of “truth,” it raises red flags because it sounds as though the speaker is saying “I am making a statement that completely, perfectly absolutely corresponds to reality” — meaning the speaker is able to completely, perfectly, and absolutely apprehend everything God is and communicate that completely, perfectly, and absolutely in human language — when human perception and language seem manifestly inadequate for such a task.
As to my second point, the Evangelical Outpost article uses the statement “it is wrong to torture babies” as a challeng for those who would argue there is no “absolute moral truth.” However, this is an ethical statement based on several presuppositional ontological beliefs concerning the nature of adult and infant human beings (e.g., all human beings, adult or infant, have intrinsic worth, separate wills, and inalienable rights that would make it unethical for an adult to torture an infant). The ethical statement is only “true” if our ontological presuppositions about adult and infant human beings are true. As I see it, it’s impossible to prove those presuppositions are true. In that sense, then, the statement “it is wrong to torture babies” is not an absolute statement; it is contingent on some presuppositions that ultimately are based on faith.
This isn’t to say, of course, that it might be ok to torture babies. Given this understanding of the ethical statement “it is wrong to torture babies,” I think a post-foundationalist epistemological framework actually provides greater force to the ethical statement. Under a foundationalist epistemology, I cannot demonstrate by reason alone that my ontological presuppositions about human nature are true, and therefore I’m left with little else but subjective preferences. Under a post-foundationalist epistemology, the final arbiter is not necessarily only that which is subject to rationalistic “proof.” The natural sense all people exhibit against torturing infants supports the Christian faith claim that all people are made in the image of God and therefore possess intrinsic worth. The ethical claim is then grounded in revelation as well as reason. The “objective” content of the statement is a faith-based ontological claim, which is a perfectly valid basis for the statement, and which applies universally to all people to the extent the ontological faith claim corresponds to reality.
I’m by no means a committed “emergent” person, whatever that would mean, but I do think some of the post-foundationalist theology that’s being done is quite valuable and that arguments about “absolute moral truth” often aren’t much more than sloganeering. I hope we Evangelicals can be more serious about post-foundationalist epistemology and language theory without the knee-jerk reaction “but what about ‘absolute moral truth.'” I also hope emergent Christians can be more serious about the validity of ethical claims without the knee-jerk “who sez” reaction of the postmodern culture at large.