Having identified as a Universalist/Allegorist in this thread, Ask Mr. Religion quickly rose to the occasion to ‘truthsmack’ me. But his comments highlight what I see as a deep problem in Christianity and its relationship to truth.
Jesus showed us the power of prescriptive or moral truth and how this truth was hated by the religious hierarchy of His day. He was murdered for telling them more truth than their darkened hearts could comfortably hear, and they conspired to have Him put to death for it (Jn 8:37, Jn 8:40) Truth has no place in the darkened heart (Jn 3:19).
Human hatred for Truth can be seen in the number of philosophies which seek to deny it or place its power in human, not God’s, hands. A modern example is the tendency in universities everywhere to teach (both directly and by inference) relativism and moral skepticism to our young people as “enlightened” programs.
Here’s the problem. In his idea that Christians shouldn’t divide over doctrine, AMR states, “Anyone here who feels compelled to push the boundaries on core doctrines won’t find some very welcoming…I…remain convinced of the wisdom of the forefathers that came before us when I read what they have written and compare their writings to Scripture. Not a week goes by that someone somewhere decides they have a new view, new perspective, or new interpretation related to the fundamentals of our faith; despite their having withstood the test of time and painful examination for many, many, hundreds of years. Thus I become very concerned about discussions that start to challenge the core aspects of our faith. For those who see themselves as theological sophisticates, I would ask that these persons seek a more pastoral approach, rather than trying to be innovative.”
What AMR states here is typical of evangelical Christianity’s demeanor toward unorthodox interpretations of the Bible, especially toward allegorical interpretations.
What’s worse, a great many traditional Christians will quickly and unreflectively agree with AMR’s position.
The problem, for those who tend to quickly align with the status quo [tradition] without analysis or investigation, is that the mindset framed by AMR is immediately closed to any consideration whatever of any interpretation standing outside tradition. Though tradition’s champions will, when pressed, deny or soft pedal the charge, this position essentially equates one's doctrine with truth. This position says, “I know automatically, without having to even investigate your claim of warranted belief, that you’re wrong because you’re different than the majority view.” This position is immediately circular and displays a deep disconnect from a pursuit of truth. Some may not understand the significance of this, so I’ll use an example.
Most atheist arguments are based on a circularity. The atheist insists that only real things are open for discussion and the things that are real are those available to the five senses or that occupy points in time and space. Having defined the only arena in which he is willing to debate, the atheist then tells the Christian, “Now then, tell me all about this God of yours.” Obviously, the Christian has already lost all her arguments because the spiritual realm and God lie outside material reality and are deemed “not real”.
If one allows as valid only those beliefs and arguments that one embraces, then all competing positions are automatically wrong. This is a serious logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
Like the atheist, many Evangelical Christians automatically deem all interpretations of the Bible that fall outside tradition false—not by virtue of their having been proven false, but simply because they seem to be in opposition to accepted doctrine.
But Christian doctrine is not the same as truth. Evangelical literalism has many tensions. Tensions are unresolved problems. They point up inaccuracies in a system of thought. The Calvinist-Arminian tensions have been unresolved for more than 400 years. Absolute truth or certitude can only exist when all tensions have been resolved. Arminians invent and are satisfied with often awkward explanations to gloss over tensions in their doctrine, and Calvinists do the same. They’ve each had centuries to build such arguments, but the fact that hotly contested debates still rage shows that the tensions of each remain unresolved to this day.
This is why I asked AMR, “If you're only willing to accept as true doctrines those which fall into the traditional camp, how are you in any sense qualified to judge, with any degree of accuracy or objectivity, those interpretations of Scripture which challenge your own?”
The question points up difficulties that need resolution.
* How can a mind closed to the pursuit of truth be united with Truth Himself (Jn 14:6) or satisfy the qualification of Jn 10:27?
* How can the mind unwilling to even consider any understanding of the Bible except his own be qualified to “truthsmack” one who holds a different understanding?
* How can we swear obedience, love and honor to the living Truth if we have no interest in the pursuit of any truth but our own?
