"Special Truth" - A House of Cards

Do you remember the last instance in which  you met someone with some special truth or another?  How did the conversation go?  What effect did it have on you?  Did you feel built up and affirmed or did you feel left out and deflated?

Recently I met such a person--one with special truth.  In fact I met several within a two week period.  One had the answer to all of our family's health needs.  Another had special truth that would meet our spiritual needs.  Then there was the one whose candidate would fix Washington D. C.  Then there was the one who had special insight into investments and his program would give the follower durable wealth in turbulent times.

Certainly there are more than were just listed--people who claimed special truth, special insight, superior ideas, or some similar thing.  However, upon closer examination, it seems to me that there are pitfalls into which the one with "special" or "exclusive private" truth might fall if great care is not exercised.

Disclaimer:  Before continuing perhaps it would be well if consideration is given to the fact that there are legitimate truths that are unique.  

First, there are truths which are unique in that they are universally true across the earth and throughout time. 

These truth are unique because they can be objectively applied. 

These truth share a third quality and that is that they are transcendent, that is from outside of the human experience. 

The final quality is that they are generally accessible and not at all the private property of a special few.

As well, consider that the elements of this disclaimer are a way to examine the veracity of a particular "truth" for if such a truth does not meet these four standards plus one more we will consider in a moment, it very likely that such truth will not stand the acid test of time.  

It is also to be noted that this is not a matter of one offering this opinion or that and thus goes well beyond the exchange and examination of ideas or thesis.

Presuppositions

 The question that one must take to the discussion is the matter of what does one suppose to be true for such "special" truth to be genuine and real.  Much of the power of special truth and/or superior truth is decided by what one holds to have veracity and thus be taken as foundational truth.

An example would be the conspiracy theorist who holds that they have special truth about some international banking cartel that is in control of the world money supply.  Another example would be that government is in a clandestine operation to remove a citizens personal rights.  

In terms of religious faith, it is the one or the many who believe that God has given them some "special" revelation or another. For example one group holds in high regard their translation of the Bible which is at variance with Hebrew and Greek rules of grammar.  These and other suppositions are not without consequence in one's relationship with the foundations of genuine truth.

Entrapped by Special Truth

As sure as an animal can be entrapped in a net, so too there is the danger of being entangled in one's special truth.  This is the situation in which a person is so caught in their suppositions and the resulting truth paradigm(s) that insights into reality are colored deeply by this special truth. Just as an animal struggles to be free to only become more tangled in the net so too this person except that they do not struggle to be free.

This is not the kind of truth that liberates and grants a freedom of insight but one which restricts and holds in it clutches all other thoughts and views.  It is that truth that indeed traps the one who embraces it.  It soon becomes the paradigm through which all other notions and ideas are measured and when facts to the contrary are offered there is a certain selective perception or even loss of touch with reality.

Loss of Reality

One of the very serious outgrowths of special or superior truth is an unrealistic view of the possible.  It goes so far as to present as a loss of touch with what is realistic.  One such position is that of the person who votes for a particular candidate although there is no possible way for their candidate to carry the election.  Two examples from the political past is the presidential candidacy of Ross Perot and/or Ralph Nader.  

 

Both of these men against all the data presented still in all seem to believe that they could be elected as president of the United States of America.  Never mind that even their own poll numbers would not support their contention.  

Thus they developed followings who also lost a realistic perspective. All that happened in the case of Mr. Perot was that the conservative vote was split and the election went to the candidate who was the polar opposite of the ideas upon which he campaigned.   

The prevailing attitude seemed to be then and now is that all one needs to do is to vote consistent with their particular political agenda.  Again, at times superior truth tends to mitigate against being realistic.  There is a very real danger that this could happen again in the next election. 

Excluded by Exceptional Truth 

Another of the problems associated with this special truth is that of exclusion.  Such excluding may be as overt as discrimination and shunning or a subtle as simply avoiding.  It is brought about by a certain pride on the part of the one embracing such truth.

This exclusion is based in the notion that if one does not embrace such special and exceptional truth they are to be viewed as being religiously, politically, intellectually, ethically, or in some other way inferior.  This only serves to divide people and especially so when one's emotions and attitudes enter the discussion.

The outcome is that the proponents of that exceptional truth "circle the wagons" and begin to fend off outsiders and then feed off of one another with the consequence that convictions deepen.  The problem is that one become so enmeshed that to think one's way out is nearly impossible.  Not that they would want to as it would bring rejection by their referent group.

Superior Truth's Permission

Another attitude which frequents those with superior truth is that of permission.  This is the notion that because of a superior truth one is not bound by nor governed by the principles of those with lesser truth.  

For example one with superior truth might believe they have permission to deal in falsehood.  The prime example of this is found in the political extreme left who believe that because of their superior truth paradigm regarding government that they have permission to create and distort statistics.


It is not the extreme political left alone for certain religious cults believe that they have superior revelation that is not available to most.  Such superior revelation then grants permission to do what is necessary to put their superior truth forward to including being less than truthful.  

Of course should one "join up" by the time that they can see the distortion of the truth they will fall into one of two positions.  They might well buy into the notion of superior truth and in principle if not fact agree with the notion that the ends justify the means.  The second is born out of the fear of being shunned.  In either case they stay engaged and over time become more deluded.

Consider a Question or Two

So it is that  the original four principles of truth come again to the fore.  Here is the question.  

Is that which you believe universally true across the earth and throughout time; can it be objectively applied; is it transcendent, that is from outside of the human experience; and is it generally accessible and not the private property of a special few?  

We might add another and that is the question of the foundation of that truth.  Does that foundation share the four aforementioned qualities?  Durable truth does!

For a person's truth paradigm to not fulfill these five criterion it seems to me that then the life is as fragile as a house of cards.  So much the more so if it is so fragile that it has to shield itself from criticism with claim terms such as superior, special, or exceptional.

Finally, there is a truth that will liberate and set free.  There is a truth that will entrap and confine.  Which kind of truth have you built your life upon?

"Fad of Faith or Balance"

picture from flickr.com

It was a warm day at Andersen AFB, Guam.  An official from the denomination of which I am a part and I were standing on the airfield control tower catwalk looking out over the field.  This man was a pastor to those who pastor local congregational pastors.  To say he had a strategic view of ministry in general and problems of those in ministry would be an understatement.
 
In the previous few years he had been involved in the discipline of two very prominent public religious figures.  These were men who had major international ministries and whose television ministries had touched millions worldwide.  Both had very different problems but both had failed and fallen under not just legal scrutiny but that of our shared denomination. 

As we visited he commented to the effect that the more he saw of Christian service the more he valued balance.  He certainly understood the meaning of what he had better than most.

Balance conveys the idea of equilibrium or "...be equal with... ...bringing into equilibrium..." and "...harmony between parts... ...balance of power..." (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php).  Balance synonymously shares company with words such as poise, steadiness, and stability.


For years the comment of this pastor has been at the fore of many of my thoughts and attendant concerns as there seems to be a need on the part of the Church general and the local congregation to chase one fad or another.  Yet, when we look at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures over and over again we see examples of those who have sought to do so and thus have been rash in judgement, extreme in statement, imbalanced in behavior, and/or have been carried about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14).

Notice that the Scripture just referenced does not suggest that it is errant doctrine.  It was just out of balance doctrine which at first they embraced and then as they became more and more involved it began to control them and carry them just as the wind carries a feather.

This is most troubling in that it involves not just the principles but those surrounding them.  However, those examples are provided for the warning of all who care to heed such.  In today's world there is no dearth of those who even when counseled and challenged do not pay attention and believing they have special light plunge onward in some doctrinal pursuit or another.

Some of the Fads of Faith I have observed are as follows.  There was the Charismatic movement which went and still goes well beyond the Scriptural models of doctrine and ministry.  Later there was the Grace movement and it seemed every one was publishing books on the subject of grace.  The Laughing movement.

Part of the Charismatic movement moved off into new revelation which was at times taken over the Scriptures just referenced.  The Inner Healing movement was popularized by a former President's sister while that President made being a saved Christian popular--somehow we never got around to the Lordship part of being a Christian.

While my Pentecostal theology is well in tact and based on the balances and principles set forth in Scripture, others made speaking in unknown languages necessary for salvation.  Yet others denied the validity of the experience and attendant practices.  The Prosperity gospel with its notions of material prosperity as an end is at this writing still influencing many.  Part of that movement is the notion "...what I speak will be so and I claim it to be so." 

Shall I go on?  There are those who have imported Eastern religion into Christianity and claimed "special" truth.  There is the Soaking movement that seems to be gaining traction, only time will tell where it will take many.  Of recent date I've been discussing with another the his notion that God's will is that all are healed. What has been left untreated in this posting is the various beliefs about the deity and/or humanity of Jesus Christ.

The sad truth is that people make these choices without giving any thought to the consequences and outcomes.  Certainly and has been said by many, "God gives you the power to choose but not the consequences."  It is those consequences that have carried many off into error and ultimately defeat of their faith.

This is not to disparage those who participate in these movements, for I am sure that most are good people who are seeking a deeper religious experience.  However, good people can be deceived as they follow religious tangents.  If one will look at the effects of many of these movements in the lives of people, one will find those who are hurt, disillusioned, and who feel disenfranchised--just plain left out because they have not had some "special" experience or some special "blessing."

As well, within these movements and those like them are the "special" and the "blessed" who have had this or that special experience or revelation of the "truth."  If great care is not taken, that specialness can lead to a spiritual smugness as one falls further into the deception of new revelation and new directions of "truth."

What is needed is a balance of faith.  Just as the pastor said on the catwalk that sunny day in Guam.  It is a grave error to suppose that one can dissect out any of the essential Trinitarian Orthodox doctrines from the others and then interpret the others by that doctrine.  Neither can one legitimately emphasize any one doctrine to the detriment or exclusion of the others.  This would be so much the more so with non-essential doctrines.

Even a cursory reading of Church history past and present will reveal an historical landscape that is littered with movements and those who have populated those movement that have tried to make such doctrinal dissections.  Even a cursory visit with those of the less developed world will reveal that these things do not work in their world.  They have no choice but to cling to the reality of a real faith and not wander off into speculative doctrine.  It seems to me that if it does not work in their world why should we expect that God ordained it for the western church?  Something is wrong!

Further consider that the genuine Christianity that has survived throughout the ages of Church history did perfectly well without these fads of faith, we then would do well to steer clear of them and chart a course back to the pure milk of the Word of God and bath that pure word in generous amounts of prayer.  It is then that the doctrines based upon those words of life, give life!  Living that close to and in conformity to the Scriptures may not be comfortable but it is in that place that we find the comfort of the One who inspired those Scriptures, the Comforter!

"The Foundation of Reality/Truth"

Reality and thus truth is found in one of two places.  It is either external to the individual and culture or it is internal to the individual and culture.

When truth is external it then becomes an ethical truth or a truth that is not dependent upon the individual or the social situation in which the individual finds himself.  On the other hand when truth is thought to be internal to and thus dependent upon the individual or the social situation it is a more or moral truth.

One is as fragile as the individual while the other has the durability that comes because of its demonstrated veracity over time and culture.  One is subjective and open to one's own interpretation, thus is the basis for conflict and even hostility.  The objective truth may provide for discussion in its nuances but overall tends to unite as it is not dependent upon the whims of the individual.

The outcome of subjective truth is that it is more a reflection than anything else.  It is a reflection of the mores of the culture, the moral opinion of the individual, or some combination of the two.  It results in such things as, moral truth which reflect culture; exclusive private truth, truth that belongs to a subset of the culture but not to the whole; or self truth, that which has a very egocentric focus.

All of these are fraught with problems.  For example the truth that is a reflection of the culture is a moving truth and thus the security of knowing what is right and correct is not afforded to the one who embraces such.  Exclusive and private truth can result in the notion that because of that special truth one can behave on a different level.  Then the one with self truth has a truth that is a reflection of his morality and that morality is often no higher than his personal desires.  This is the one who give himself permission to behave as he  chooses even if it is at the expense of another.

So, what then is one's choice in this matter of reality/truth?  One choice is to build on the internal which as it turns out is ever changing--ever shifting, as the tides of personal desire and opinion ebb and flow.  The other choice is to build on that which is external to the individual and the culture, that which as noted has stood the test of time and circumstance.

As upsetting as the circumstances detailed above might be, those referenced can at the very least, agree that though different and conflicted there is some form of truth.  However, there is a greater concern that should disturb all no matter one's internal/external truth position.  It is titled the Post Modern Movement which reject all of the above!

Why should this be of concern?  The concern is that without some sense of truth, there is not sense of right and wrong--the basis of conscience.  Without conscience, there is no restraint.  Without restrain there is relational and cultural danger.

As actions grow out of the notion of no restraint, there comes the idea that anything which possession organization (organization requires some form of restraint and thus truth standard), is not just expendable but a threat to be dealt with.  In the extreme of the Post Modern cause there is the Anarchist Movement.

Again without universal truth there no restraint.  Without restraint there is a rapid decline--a downward spiral into chaos.