Is Truth Relative?

Today's Guest Post is part of the "I Wish I Knew" forum and is written by Alex Unis, Pastor of Student Ministries at LakeView Church


“God is like an elephant, which a bunch of blind men are touching. One blind man grabs a leg and says, ‘my God is strong, and firm.’ Another tries to wrap his arms around the belly and says, ‘my God is prosperous and wealthy.’ A third, finding shade from the ears, says, ‘my God is benevolent, a shelter from the tragedy of life.’ But really, they’re all talking about the same God, they just experience him in different ways.”

The Relativism question, along with its little brother Pluralism, comes up quite often in culture today, and can be seen in this proverb.

More fully, the question of relativism looks like this: “Is there such a thing as absolute truth? Especially in spiritual matters, is there really right or wrong, or does your ‘truth’ depend on your culture, situation, and upbringing?” This results in an argument that looks like this: “Culture, local situations, and a personal experiences are varied such that each person’s experience with the divine is unique an individual. Therefore, what is spiritually true for one person may not be spiritually true for another.”

Christians tend to look at this and point to “hard sciences” to prove absolute truth. “2+2=4≠5” This is always true and never false! Unfortunately, we lose a lot of listeners here, since spirituality is not a “hard science.” It doesn’t fit the scientific formula. Spirituality is about experience, not tested and observable facts, so the relativist will quickly tune out.

So, here I will offer a different type of explanation: metanarrative and unity.

Relativism revs up the blender and breaks everything into as many pieces as possible. Spiritualism is a result of individual experience, and since every individual has a unique experience, every form of spirituality is unique. This results in a whole-sale rejection of metanarrative (meaning “big story”). As Christians, we see the whole world and the whole existence of humanity having a common purpose. Each of us fits into the bigger story of history that God has laid out from the beginning. Relativism attempts to dethrone the larger, over-arching story by insisting on “local narratives,” or, small stories. “You see, the story of Jesus is right for your story, but in the Far East they have a different story.” However, the Christian World View depends on a single story, a single creator with a single plan for salvation. And this one, large story all points to the consummation of history when Jesus returns. The idea of creation demands a creator, and the Creator demands a single theme and purpose for humanity. If I affirm that God created (Genesis 1), sent his Son for humanity (John 3) and that Jesus is returning to earth to establish his kingdom (pretty much all of Revelation), then I must acknowledge God’s big story. And, if God has a big story, all of our “little stories” must fit into this.

I find that fact quite comforting. My purpose comes from fitting into God’s story. Although my life may be “like grass” in comparison to human history, it’s not a worthless little path I’m walking, it’s a mighty trail.

Secondly, relativism places spirituality in a category separate from the rest of life. Politics, the state, education, economics, and the like have little to do with spiritual beliefs. Those are public, religion is private. What we learn from Scripture, however, is quite the opposite. Jesus teaches that we should pay taxes (Mark 12.27), and he instructs us regarding economics and how to use our money (Matthew 6.19-34, James 4.13-14). In Scripture we are taught how to relate to our governments (Romans 13.1-7), how to raise our children (Deuteronomy 6.4-12), and even a welfare-type system is found (James 1.27).

The fact is, what we believe spiritually permeates every bit of what we do. We can’t call one aspect of our life sacred and another secular. Everything we do is sacred. Everything we do is a result of what we believe spiritually.

So, don’t let relativism rip things apart, making the truth of Jesus true only to you. No, Jesus is truth to all (John 14.6).

To finish where I started, the elephant story is nice, but is misses something big. The one who tells the story is the only one who is able to say “God is like an elephant” and is therefore the only person who is enlightened. Nobody else gets it. The rest of the world is missing it. Does that sound like relativism?

I Wish I Knew

Yesterday at church we did a live text & email question/answer forum titled "I wish I knew." Our three pastors (Eric, Alex and yours truly) did 90-second interactions with a slew of questions from "Is suicide unforgivable?" to "Are there pets in heaven?" The varied questions from both services are available at LakeView's website, www.lakevc.org, under  the "Messages" tab.

The very first question dealt with the diversity of views among denominations.

Jesus implores us to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37). Thinking is a divinely-sanctioned activity to be encouraged, not avoided. And that means that as we interact with the text, we might come to different conclusions on certain things. That's OK.

It's also OK to have particular preferences on

• style of music
• frequency of communion (not to mention whether it should be the real stuff or grape juice or grape jelly)
• choice of Bible translation
• whether the minister should wear a robe (I had to borrow one a few years ago at an ecumenical Thanksgiving service but its owner was over 6 feet tall. As I walked down the aisle holding my skirts I felt like Galadriel in Lord of the Rings).
• etc.

Such diversity is a good thing. But sometimes folks elevate personal or even denominational preferences to the level of biblical mandates.

I have found it helpful to distinguish between more and less important matters this way:

• Is it a conviction to die for?
• Is it an opinion to defend?
• Is it a preference to discuss?

Thinking through the differences can make your life, your faith and your friendships a whole lot easier. There's a fairly small collection of things in the first category (convictions to die for): the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, etc. So let's not make music or dress or the year of the communion port a litmus test of orthodoxy.

As Augustine said (although the quote has also been attributed to Fred and Bob):

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

Mormons, Muddled Democrats and "God's Man"

As a kiwi, I find American politics fascinating.

Almost four years ago I was standing at the back of the church as the praise run began in the second service. It was the Sunday right before the election. Someone sidled up to me:

"So, are you going to tell the church who they should be voting for?"

I laughed, thinking it was a joke. But they were deadly serious.

Hector's House! What about separation of church and state?

It's all rather confusing to this fellow from down under who, in another life, paid homage to the Queen one holiday in the year and then celebrated Guy Fawkes' attempts to blow up the Houses of Parliament on another.

So who did God want to be President last time? Who was God's man?

Was it McCain, who somewhat conveniently managed to find faith and his way back to the church in the months before the election? Or was it Obama, who'd been going to church for years but still found it almost impossible to convince skeptical conservatives? (Kind of a tall order, really, given a name that sounds like "Osama," a strong pro-abortion platform, and The Donald's persistent rumor-mongering that Obama was born on Mars or in some madrasah in Indonesia.)

The same question has come back with a vengeance again, although with a twist (and I'm not talking about getting magical mormon knickers in a knot). So who is God's man this time?

Is God's man a fiscal conservative with sons as handsome as Donny Osmond? If you answer yes don't forget that as a former LDS Bishop he also happens to believe that Jesus is not uniquely God in the flesh and that we can all evolve into godhood.

Or, is God's man the leader of a party that took out "God" from their platform and then thought better of it, forcing him back in after three unconvincing votes?

Perhaps all this talk of "God's man" is a little misguided. A little too messianic. Could it be that, despite the incredible privilege, importance and responsibility of voting, we put a little too much hope in our elected officials?  I mean, to get to where they are they need both the desire to change the world and a well-stroked ego.

I'm not saying that the election is not important. Nor that the choices are insignificant. (Ok, let me tip my hand: I personally think that borrowing to spend what we don't have is a recipe for disaster. I happen to believe that life is sacred, begins at conception, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also realise that good people disagree with me on those issues and some think there are other "justice" issues, such as war and care for the widow and orphan, that should also be factored in.)

What I am saying is that we have an unhealthy tendency to look to a party or a person for solutions that border on salvation. Yet parties and people will always disappoint at some level. ALWAYS.

Viewed from that level, it's almost a choice between the lesser of evils.

But there is a man who is God's Man. And He will never disappoint.

For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity--the man Christ Jesus. He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message God gave to the world at just the right time (1 Timothy 2:5,6).

 He gets my vote.

And I long for the day when He will rule and reign in righteousness, when

The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever (Revelation 11:15).