Galileo: Truth isn’t Absolute
I’ll be honest up front: this entry has almost nothing to do with Galileo.
What this entry has everything to do with, however, is the problem I have with certain people (notably authors and speakers) who call into question the nature of ‘truth’ through illustrations (Galileo being a favourite) which are in no way applicable to the nature of truth, however relevant those illustrations may be with respect to our view and understanding (and necessarily interpretation) of truth. What then occurs is that any subsequent dialogue concerning ‘what is truth’ is marred by this misunderstanding and failure to properly distinguish between nature and view (of truth), thus any ensuing dialogue is inherently flawed. It’s a favourite of the Emergent church, which brings me to Doug Pagitt, nothing against Pastor Pagitt.
I was reading A Christianity Worth Believing when I came across the following:
“There it is in gray and white: ‘Truth = Absolute.’ Bill then jotted down two phrases that have haunted me for decades: ‘3 essentials to salvation’ and ‘3 assurances of salvation.’ Think about those words: absolute, essential, assurance. These are the perfect words for once-and-for-all conversions, but they don’t do much for the continual growth of an uh-oh faith’”.1
Since reading this quote (and subsequently the book) I’ve been wondering: why does the presence of absolutes negate spiritual growth? In actuality, it doesn’t, at least I can’t think of any good reason why it would (if you believe it does, please let me know!). I also don’t understand why the above two phrases have haunted Pagitt, though that will be for another time, maybe. In fact it seems to me that the presence of absolutes (essentials and assurances) is what makes meaningful Christian faith and spiritual growth.
It seems to me Pagitt has confused (the nature of) truth with the presentation of truth (i.e., view, interpretation), I’ll explain why I think this is so. Pagitt begins his fourth chapter (’The Wild Goose Chase‘), “It was shocking at first and increasingly good news as I realized that there was more than one version of the story of Jesus”.2 He goes on to talk of John’s Gospel (distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, of course) as lacking angels, pregnant virgins, doubtful husbands and wise men while inclusive of stories not appearing in the Synoptic Gospels: the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus changing water into wine and the healing of the man born blind (pg. 29). The entire fourth chapter, in fact, is dedicated to showing how the ‘message of Jesus’ has been presented different ways to different audiences at different times. Pagitt devotes pages 32 to 36 to the Celtic Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit (by telling the story of how a papier-mâché goose came to be in his church). Celtic Christians, apparently (and I thought this is interesting), view the Holy Spirit as a wild goose, ‘The Holy Spirit is like an untamed, wild goose.’3
Decontextualized (ironic, as subsequent chapters deal with proper hermeneutic context), I agree with Pagitt. There is no one single, authoritative way to present the Gospel message, culture is simply too volatile for such an approach. Brought back into context and applied to the previous chapter and we have a problem: Pagitt seems to be denying the existence of truth as an absolute by illustrating the various ways truth has been presented. I believe the truth in question is absolute, while the presentment of that truth may not nor need be. Let me make perfectly clear, however: truth doesn’t change.
Just a thought
Related posts:
- Galileo: Historical Christian (Church) Belief?
- Truth as a symptom
- Truth isn’t a club
- Truth and unbelief
Hi Jeremy,
This is a good article. I fully support your point of view. Let’s proclain the absolute truth with wisdom, power and love. Luc
It’s a scary thing. As people we seem to deal in extremes. Either we focus on truth at the exclusion of ‘whatever else’ or we focus on that ‘whatever else’ (lets say, experience) at the exclusion of truth. We don’t seem to allow for a middle ground. Unfortunately in some instances going so far as to even deny or subdue those things we exclude (as I was attempting to illustrate above).