Truth, World View and the Cross
Dr. Janet McMullen
Woodmont Baptist Church, August 23, 1998
[ Note: These are my speaking notes, so don't expect complete sentences, etc. Resources, are listed at the end.]
(Discussion)
Over the centuries, human beings have had a serious commitment to truth:
Truth is an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE in our legal system. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
Truth is a defense in libel cases.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of our own First Amendment puts greater weight on truthful communications.
Cheating and stealing are essentially lying - not telling the truth.
One of my ethics textbook authors, Louis Day, asks the question, "if the truth is so sacred, why is honesty so often the first thing to be compromised when it is in our self-interest to do so?"
-natural man
-fallen nature
Does our culture say that truth is always GOOD?
Plato questions that. If the choice is between lying to save a life and telling the truth, he supported the lie.
In the works of Mark Twain and other authors of our folk lore, lying became a mark of cleverness, something to be admired. (Examples)
What does the Bible say about TRUTH?
"I am the way the TRUTH and the Light, and no man comes to the father but by me."
Modern ethicists note that truth-telling has been ignored as a moral issue in our culture (at least until this past week....) Truth has been Devalued because of situational relativism and its prominence in our society.
Louis Day in his textbook on ethics in communications says that truth telling never needs any moral justification; lying and deception always do.
But we forget a basic cultural fact: The existence of a norm of truth is a MORAL CONDITION of Language!
(Discuss: What does this mean? What are the ramifications?)
How doe we compromise truth in our society?
We can find examples of these types of falsehood in our own lives, in advertising and other media, as well as politics.
Political Correctness is a major concern in our society right now. (Discuss if time)
Can you tell the truth if it's Unpopular?
So that brings us back to the question: What do do YOU think about TRUTH? Where does it come from?
Does it exist at all? How do we know?
(Discuss)
According to a 1991 study, 67% of the population of this country do not believe in absolute truth. 52% of Evangelical Christians said they didn't believe in it!
In 1994, 75% of the U.S. population rejected the concept of absolute truth and 65% of evangelicals rejected it.
So are we surprised that we live in a society where lying is epidemic in proportion? We are so confused in our society about the truth that in 1997, the SUPREME COURT had to decide a case about whether or not an employee could be punished for lying (they said "yes").
Beliefs about truth and its existence are fundamental to the nature of a society. They define the foundations of the society. When concepts of truth change, everything else changes. Philosophers characterize three periods in recent western culture:
Traditional
Modern
Postmodern
Pioneer sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, founder of the Harvard Department of Sociology in 1930, defined these stages as Ideational, Idealistic, and sensate. You'll find the Sensate system overlaps into the Modern school of thought and facilitates the transition into Postmodernism.
For us to really understand the nature of thinking about truth in our culture, it is important that we understand each of these.
TRADITIONAL THOUGHT: (Idealational)
This perspective is rooted in the philosophies of the Greeks, the Bible and traditional western thought. Basic tenets include:
Truth exists: It can be discovered and should be sought.
Socrates taught that truth comes from God and the closer one comes to the truth, the closer one comes to God and the best form of existence.
The Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions also hold this position.
Here truth is absolute and only true value and reality.
Truth is based on the principle of a supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful God.
Key Concept: TRUTH EXISTS and ORIGINATES WITH an all-powerful, all-knowing GOD.
MODERN THOUGHT: (Idealism; Rationalism)
Experts hold that the "Modern Age" spanned from the storming of the Bastille in France in 1789 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. With the fall of communism, the entrance into the postmodern era was assured.
Why begin with the fall of the Bastille? Because in contrast to our revolution, which had a strong basis in Christian thought and a reliance upon God for help and leadership, the French Revolution lacked that element. The "Age of Enlightenment" began in France with the philosophers Voltaire and Rousseau. Their revolution was built upon the potential power of man's mind and virtue and the belief that man could have "brotherhood" with out what Peter Marshall called the "Fatherhood of God." (Marshall, 1986, p. 97) The illusion that man's goodness could be sufficient was called into question as the mobs took over France, sending thousands to their deaths.
It was out of this environment of enlightenment that the great thinkers of the latter 18th century shaped the future of American universities and cast God out of the picture. I was shocked when I read some of the quotes of great patriots:
Thomas Paine: "The Christian mythologist, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that to be found in the mythology of the ancients."
The Age of Reason, quoted by Marshall, 1986 p. 99)
Ethan Allen published a book called Reason, the only Oracle of Man, in which he wrote: "The doctrine of the Trinity is destitute of foundation, and tends manifestly to superstition and idolatry." (Marshall, 1986, p. 98)
Deism and Unitarianism had more than a foothold, they had control of the influential universities of the time.
Thomas Jefferson, became more and more influenced by these philosophies and wrote late in life to John Adams,
"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." (Marshall, 1986, p. 111)
For more about this portion of American History and the birth of rationalism in this country, be sure to read From Sea To Shining Sea by Peter Marshall and David Manuel.
(Out of this came the second great awakening, a major revival in New England and in the western territories.)
Modernism/Rationalism is characterized by:
While I don't want to go into the various philosophers associated with the issues of right and wrong, it is valuable to mention a couple. Bertrand Russell and John Dewey (yes, of the Dewey Decimal system) were two of the early and chief proponents of RELATIVISM.
It was Dewey who convinced decision-makers that values and morality should have no place in the public school system. (Remember that this is contrary to the very purpose for which public schools were founded in the 18th and 19th centuries.)
Relativists believe that contrary to an absolute value system of right and wrong, what is right or good for one person may not be right or good for another - even under similar circumstances.
There are three types of relativism:
Positives: Respect for people, their judgement and moral traditions.
Negatives: If each culture is right, we have a BIG problem
This view also permits intolerance toward dissenting minorities within a culture. Dissenters are the mark of moral change, and until the majority agrees with them, they are dangerous and IN danger. This was the justification of the Nazi persecution of the Jews. For HIM and his followers he was RIGHT? Using that justification, the Nazis implemented eugenics, began killing deformed and retarded children, and then adult "undesirables." That paved the way for the killing of the Jews.....(See the August issue of Focus on the Family Magazine for an excellent article on this issue. )(Neven, 1998)
Thus, the dominant group is determined to be morally infallible.
Individual judgement is looked down upon.
(Another classic example: Fiddler on the Roof)
This replaces the moral infallibility of the group with the moral infallibility of the individual.
Who's to judge? I for me and YOU for YOU.
Can each of us be "right?" If so, we can't really talk about it, can we? Haven't we redefined "right?"
Positives: This view respects the autonomy of individuals
Negatives: Does not see the necessity of deference to any other group or individual; it's SELFISH.
Louis Day calls it a position of moral arrogance. (Day, 1997)
Some people who hold this view will adhere to some moral principles, but their moderate position doesn't hold a lot of water logically or intellectually.
In this perspective, decisions are made based on a CASE BY CASE Basis concerning whether to deviate from the rules.
Positives: Offers some flexibility in the face of absolutism, allows for mercy.
Negatives: Motives may be selfish or evasive in nature; can be used to justify any type of behavior.
If every case is different and no rules apply, then why bother to have rules at all?
Partly because of the social attitudes of the 60's and 70's, situational ethics became the dominant philosophy - especially among the educated classes. Situation ethics is a foundation of SECULAR HUMANISM which is the modern rationalist philosophy. If you would like to see how far this goes, take a look at the Humanist Manifesto.
We hear a lot of misunderstanding about situational relativism tossed about on TV and in other media. If we have time, it's useful to examine some of the common misunderstandings about it.
Not everyone who is a moral absolutist believes they have all the answers to everything.
The issue is not WHO should judge, but WHAT should be judged.
Not all people who believe in moral values are absolutist in that sense; the fact that something is a lie counts against it, but they might lie to benefit a higher good - i.e. to protect an innocent from a criminal.
That's not the case- Moralists often accept and respect the positions of others.
Judge Robert Bork has written an excellent book which deals with the state of our culture and the ideological progression which led us to where we are today. The basic thesis of his book is that we have gone from a selfless, God-directed culture to one which is Godless and totally selfish, embracing the philosophy of radical individualism. This is leading us to a horrible slide into decadence and ultimately anarchy.
"'[One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric.' Moral relativism which the court endorsed, is necessary to radical individualism. But it must, of course, be confined to such areas a speech and sexuality. It would never do to reverse a conviction for assault on the ground that one man's battery is another's sparring practice." (Bork, 1996)
Scientific method is based on modern philosophy. Science examines that which can be observed, quantified, and studied. Theories and results must be replicable and consistent across disciplines. The whole premise is that if results disagree, one cannot be true or they are not mutually exclusive.
Many of the basic tenets of this philosophy are requirements for scientific method. These are dependant on the physical or material realm, and thus the "sensate" description of this school of thought.
Reliance on that which can be observed, tested, and proven, has removed the concept of God from modern thought, and with it, the foundation of morality. Man is left to figure out for himself what morality is or if it exists at all.
He must also justify his actions and efforts in that context. The humanist belief that man is inherently good, reasonable, and with proper opportunity can create utopia is the result and the foundation of such thought.
However, in the behavior sciences, professionals are coming to understand that the scientific method that works for the hard sciences/physical sciences, doesn't always work for the social sciences. How do we measure all the variables that are involved in people's responses to television and the impact that medium has on our culture?
(Discuss as time permits) We can NEVER prove cause-effect relationships with media the way we can prove that water boils at X temperature at Y altitude.
After removing the divine element from the equation, and humans are not doing a particularly great job in the development of utopia (i.e. the fall of communism), others came to the conclusion that since man couldn't even discern truth, it therefore does not exist....So what's the point? Hence the development of ....
POSTMODERNISM
The accepted philosophy thus became that truth does NOT exist, any one's attempt to discern it is only a belief and not a logical assumption or fact. Why? Because we see the world through our own individual perspective, experience and world view. Those things will remove our objectivity and make us unable to make anything more than OUR OWN INTERPRETATION of reality. With no discernable truth, any idea that claims to be truth becomes as plausible as the next, because who's to tell the difference. One can't prove it one way or the other? Therefore, any belief system can be blown off as superficial or as silly as any other..... (So Hitler was "right"?) When we abandon all the materialist or the sensory, we lose a great deal of what we have long considered the essence of our identity as thinking human beings, those things which cause us to strive for something higher, better, more complex....
The sensate system holds the seeds of its own demise...and leads to anarchy, the breakdown of rules, laws, values, structure, etc. Pleasure determines what is right and wrong. Only those things material are of value. Truth becomes that which is convenient, pleasurable or useful. But that can change, because our sensory perceptions change and sometimes are contradictory; so truth is "flexible." When people are told by society that it's acceptable to pursue their own whims, there is little they won't do to fulfill them. (Maclean, 1998)
The basic tenets of Postmodernism are:
As assistant philosophy professor recently won a case in which he said he was denied tenure because of his comments at a faculty meeting. What had he said? He said that he was against multi cultural education and believed certain societies were wrong in some of their practices, such as slavery in some African countries, bride-burning in India, and female circumcisions in the Sudan. He said he believed these practices were wrong and theat "Westerners have a moral duty to stand up against such subjective evils." The professor won his case, but what does this say about free speech and the pursuit of truth in institutions of higher education? (Hudson, 1998)
Joseph Feeney characterizes postmodernism in the Nov., 1997 issue of America. In the article he discusses how his college students are "wounded" by postmodern thought, and he offers four predominant characteristics of it.
"Postmodernism is a set of attitudes:
human feelings, human art, and the world itself are exhausted;
humans are limited and lonely, human existence is random, impermanent, nightmarish, without firm values; humans cope with absurdity by laughter and parody."
He goes on to say that in art, human beings are characterized as cartoonist, action is foremost, colors are bright, fact and fiction and the bizarre all run together. The absurd and the contradictory are lauded and art forms refer to themselves and not to the real world. Those who attend to art should never expect rationality or meaning. Parody and sarcasm and parody.
Feeney cites some clear examples of postmodern thought is current media: (ASK STUDENTS TO LIST SOME>>>>)
Jamie Tarsis made her way as programming chief at ABC with a series of ads in trade and consumer magazines published in the fall of 1997. You will recognize them for the bright yellow background and black bold lettering and the headlines. How does the following text illustrate postmodernism?
TV IS GOOD
"For years the pundits, moralists and self-righteous, self-appointed preservers of our culture have told us that television is bad. They've stood high on their soapbox and looked condescendingly on our innocuous pleasure. They've sought to wean us from our harmless habit by derisively referring to television as the Boob Tube or the Idiot Box.
"Well, television is not the evil destroyer of all that is right in this world. In fact, and we say this with all the disdain we can must for the elitists who purport otherwise - TV is GOOD.
"TV binds us together. It makes us laugh. Makes us cry. Why, in the span of ten years, TV brought us the downfall of an American president, one giant step for mankind, and the introduction of Farrah Fawcett as one of "Charlie's Angels." Can any other medium match TV for its immediacy, its impact, it capacity to entertain? Who among us hasn't spent an entire weekend on the couch, bathed in the cool glow of a Sony Trinitron, only to return to work recuperated and completely refreshed? And who would dispute that the greatest advancement in aviation in the last ten years was the decision to air sitcoms during the in-flight service?
"Why then should be cower behind our remote controls? Let us rejoice in our fully adjustable, leather-upholstered recliners. Let us celebrate our cerebral-free non-activity. Let us climb the highest figurative mountaintop and proclaim, with all the vigor and shrillness that made Roseanne a household name, that TV is GOOD."
TV Guide, back cover, Sept. 9, 1997.
Q: What does this mean to you? How does it reflect postmodernism?
ALAN KEYS made a statement which sums the issue up fairly succinctly:
"We are really reaching a point in this society where people are denying that there is any line to be drawn between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. But if that's the case, then our whole way of life can't work any more--because it is based on the sense that there are certain self-evident truths, that those self-evident truths support a certain idea of human justice, which requires respect for human rights, that therefore, you must have election and due process, and all the other things we consider to be the hallmarks of freedom. If there is no difference between right and wrong, then non of that is true and there is no need to respect individual rights, there is no requirement that to be legitimate government has to be based upon consent, and that only thing that separates us from tyranny and despotism is that, at the moment, nobody has yet gained the upper hand."
The ultimate answers to these questions lies in scripture. I have provided some here that are particularly relevant to those of us who go on to college, to graduate school, and who find our identities are somewhat tied up with "being smart." Worth is not gained in intelligence, but rather that Jesus Christ loved us enough to hang on the cross and pay for what we do.....While that does not mean the intelligence God has provided is worthless, but it has value ONLY in the appropriate perspective.....
Scriptures:
"But mark this, There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God- having a form of Godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them." 2 Timothy 3:1-5.
"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." James 1:5
"So we fix our eyes, not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:18
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Cor. 1:18-19
"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know him, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."
1 Cor 1:20-21
"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."
1 Cor 1:25
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." 1 Cor 27
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned....
"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written, he catches the wise in their craftiness'; and again, 'the Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.'" 1 Cor 3:18-20.
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ." 2 Cor 14 and 16.
If time permits play Michael Card's song: "God's Own Fool..." from THE LIFE CD
Links to ....
Limited Apologetics Bibliography...
Resources:
Bork, Robert. Slouching Toward Gomorrah.: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. 1998.
Day, Louis. Ethics in Media Communications. Cases and Controversies. 2nd ed. Wadsworth (Belmont CA 1997)
Feemeu. Joseph. "Can a World View be Healed? Students and Postmodernism" America. Nov. 15, 1997 p. 12
Hudson, David. "Professors Free-speech rights Violated by Denial of Tenure Track Job, Rules Judge.: The Freedom Forum Online, 1/20/98
Limbaugh, Rush. "My Conversation with Alan Keyes." Limbaugh Newsletter. March, 1996, p. 6.
McLean, Heather. "Sensate Man and the Search for Truth." Perspective Family Research Council, PV98BICU, 1998
Morrison, Andrew. "Lying: An American Way of Life." The Alabama Baptist. 2/26/98 p. 4
Nevin, Tom. "It Can't Happen...Or Can It?" Focus on the Family, August, 1998, p. 10.
Copyright, 1998
Dr. Janet McMullen
Email Dr. Mc at HOME at HIWAAY or AOL or at UNA