THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: ABSOLUTE- Part 1

“The ethical expression for what Abraham did is, that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is, that he would sacrifice Isaac; but precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without dread” (Soren Kierkegaard)

In the pursuit of truth there is an obvious danger theologically. Just because something is “true” does not mean that it is necessary “right”. And just because something is “right” it doesn’t mean that it is necessary “faithful”. This doesn’t mean that what is truth is not always true, just that what appears to be true to us may, in fact, may be limited to our understanding. Say you lived in the middle ages and I told you that something weighed about 8 tons, walked on land in large herds, and had huge tusks. You would assume that I was referring to an elephant. What if I then told you that it could be from anytime period? The truth then expands to include a mammoth. Your original conclusion, based on your understanding of the world, was no less true and appeared to be the only logical conclusion until I gave you a larger parameter. But if you had no idea what a mammoth was, allowing you to expand the available time period wouldn’t help you. So an elephant is the only right answer. Likewise, something can be completely true without being THE truth. It isn’t about a deliberate omission; it is about what we are capable of understanding. Another example is similar. When my granddad first saw a computer he would have one question: how does it work? The truth is limited to a simple question. But if someone told him about the various parts of the computer and how those work together to make the computer work his questions would expand indefinitely. As facts are revealed to answer our question of what is truth we have a much greater grasp of what we do not know. Similarly, we may hold murder to be absolutely unethical, but Dietrich Bonheoffer, while acknowledging the sin of murder, plotted to assassinate Hitler because of what he felt to be truth. Truth, therefore, is much greater than the sum of known (or assumed) facts.

My evangelical upbringing in the church didn’t allow for this type of fluidity. I find this particularly frustrating considering that I was raised United Methodist. I am afraid the more fundamental beliefs of the larger Christian community have affected the ability of the Methodist church to hold to its values of open-mindedness. The fear that open-mindedness might compromise convictions of truth spread as concerns of becoming irrelevant has increased. However, the grace centered doctrine of Methodism is supposed to encourage us to respond to how God is acting in our lives, not establish fundamental doctrine. The doctrine of the Methodist church is supposed to be the collective wisdom of those who have responded to the active presence of Christ. But my experiences as a member and minister in the Methodist church proved that the doctrine without doctrine ideal was just that, an ideal.

To adopt a value system that is open-minded contains a certain degree of paradox. When allowing yourself to become open-minded you have to accept that all perspectives are valid even if not necessary right. That would include the perspective that is rigid. In other words, to be truly open-minded you must accept fundamentalism as a valid perspective. Ensuring that you challenge the close-mindedness (while still affirming it) is difficult. But being close-minded is easy: everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is one reason so many choose this path.