Practicing the Truth 5.30.2024

     This is the rare month with 5 Thursdays, so we have a final opportunity to discuss Truth and to bring this conversation to a close. To live rightly and minister effectively we must have a reputation as truth-tellers. Casual acquaintances about town as well as those we worship with, and in whose hearing, we preach need to know that even in difficult situations, even when it is uncomfortable we will be truthful. 

    This is important not merely from a character standpoint but also because of the message we proclaim. Truth has a universal component. Truth is one of the ways we describe reality. For some, truth is just another commodity that can be bargained away to promote one cause or subvert another. Truth is also very specific. We will be called upon to be trustworthy and forthright in the communities in which we live. People will come to you for counsel. You may or may not have the answers. In any circumstance formal or informal we must be ever truthful. 

    In the end, we judge between truth and falsehood. We have discussed these important matters throughout this month and now we end the discussion by considering what Scripture, particularly John's writings, has to say about “the truth”. 

    This is John’s favorite way to describe the content of our message. It is not just “true” in some abstract sense, for John, there is a body of “the Truth” to which we are responsible and by which we order and direct our lives through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is an essential dimension to a merely conceptual understanding of truth. 

Personal 

    Incarnation discloses God’s personal stake in the truth. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14 ESV). In Jesus, God makes a personal appearance to bring order and truthfulness to our disordered world. Christian people do not deny truth statements or accurate facts in other domains of our experience. We simply affirm that Jesus has provided an organizing principle for our cosmos. 

    The particular truths of science or history may help us comprehend the universe in which we live, faith in  Jesus, the truth-bringer provides coherence and meaning to the broad scope of human experience and our personal, lived experience.

    Throughout the corpus of his writings, John returns to this theme of truth, reminding us that Jesus repeatedly affirmed that following Him in discipleship is a commitment to embracing His conception of truthfulness. In John 17.17 Jesus prays making a simple request with a profound focus: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17 ESV) In following Jesus we accept His invitation to share in His disclosure of God’s purpose for our lives. 

Responsible 

    I will try to wrap this up quickly, I know we’ve all had a short week with the holiday. Consider this.  In 1 John the Apostle works out some of the more practical applications of concepts found in His Gospel. He reminds us that because Jesus made such a personal investment in His life and message since He called us to discipleship, we are now responsible for living by that truth. 

    In 1 John truth is less an abstract conception than a particular, specific set of beliefs. When we lie about our own sinful nature “the truth is not in us.” To “walk in the darkness” while professing faith in Christ means that we do not “practice the truth.” When I say, “I know Him” but I do not “keep His commandments, I am a liar, and the truth is not in me.” These are but three examples of John’s description of what is clearly a body of “doctrine” or defining “truths” that make up the content of the Christian faith.

    Responsible Christian living is, at least in part, measured by this standard. We are expected not only to know the truth and to acknowledge the truth but to allow it to work from the inside out building within us the nature of Jesus, in whose incarnation we have been given grace and truth. 

True or False 5.23.2024

     Throughout May we have been conducting an extended discussion about the concept of “truth”. Truth is in quotes here because, as the discussion itself has disclosed, there are as many approaches to truth as there are inquirers. Truth can be opaque, ambiguous, and tenuous. 

    Minimally, virtually all of us have some personal definition of truth. It may be religious, scientific, common-sense, or pragmatic. Every time we say things like “Don’t lie to me!” Or “You’re pulling my leg.” We are declaring that we believe that some things are true, some are false, and that a central part of our reasoning process is to tell the difference between the two. 

    These essays have been about developing both a habit and a mindset for determining what is true from what is false. The context of this judgment is global. All truth is God’s truth. The Bible provides a structure for how we will think about everything else. 

    The conversation regarding Nominalism and Realism was a reminder (hopefully a reminder) of how complicated the world really can be. There are many sources of information as well as differing schemas for organizing that information. Broadly speaking all of it can be filed under one of the two headings realism or idealism (nominalism). 

    Last week we discussed the morality of our Media ecosystem primarily through the lenses of disinformation and propaganda. The reminder this time? People manipulate information and choose their words positively or negatively to “get their way.”

    All of that prepares us to make decisions about what we regard as true or false. I hope by now, that you have come to realize that identifying and applying the truth is not as simple as we might think. The world is a complex place.  In preaching and teaching, we try and make things as simple as possible. When we turn to the example of scripture, we find that the simplicity of truth that we crave is not only not possible, but also often neither desirable nor profitable. Consider the Parable of the Good Neighbor (Samaritan)

“Luke 10:25   And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Luke 10:26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” Luke 10:27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” Luke 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”” (Luke 10:25-29 ESV)

 The introduction is straightforward. Jesus is asked a question and gives a direct answer. Here is where “truthfulness” gets a little shimmery. You will notice that verse 25 ends with another straightforward question. The answer is not exactly direct

“Luke 10:30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Luke 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. Luke 10:32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. Luke 10:33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. Luke 10:34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. Luke 10:35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Luke 10:36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” Luke 10:37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”” (Luke 10:30-37 ESV)

Jesus answers a simple, definitional question with a story. Why? Truth may be simple, but the world is complex. Truth may be clear, but the human context is cloudy. Truth may be easy. Humanity is hard. 

    This is why I spent so much time outlining some of the essential, preliminary commitments that allow us to accept the truth of scripture and then responsibly apply it in the world. We turn to the Bible for guidance recognizing that it does not address every conceivable circumstance and that a part of being a responsible believer is integrating the truth of scripture with the rest of God’s “general revelation.”   

    It is hard to live life at the intellectual margins. “Everything is true” and “Nothing is true” are both unworkable approaches to reality. Biblical truth is an organizing principle for how we approach all other truths—and falsehoods. Far too many believers use the phrase “the Bible tells me so!” as a blanket denial of all other forms and sources of truth. This makes learning any topic that the Bible does not expressly discuss somewhat difficult.  Biblical truth is the instrument we use to judge other truths, the lens through which we view all the varieties of information that come before us. Responsible disciples take a broad view of the world because God made it all. Responsible disciples take truth-telling seriously and integrate their understanding of the world with their obedience to Christ. Disciples do not revel in ignorance but seek to deepen both their understanding of God’s world and His Word. In a world filled with lies, our Master needs men and women unafraid of upholding the standards of truth before the world and amid the assembly

Disinformation, Propaganda and the Morality of Media 5.16.2024

The debt of gratitude we owe to Neil Postman is enormous. I have a young ministry candidate that I tutor, and I advised her that for the study of hermeneutics in the Post-Modern world Postman’s work is the place to start. Like many other areas of life in the 21st century, our traditional boundaries have necessarily expanded. For most of us in ministry hermeneutics meant “Biblical Hermeneutics.” As the centuries melted into one another the full consequences of development in academic social and literary theory finally made their way onto the radar screens of Biblical exegetes. Now, nearly a quarter century into the 21st, virtually everything we do in ministry is hermeneutically driven. We are never, not interpreting something. That is a primary reason I am always discussing the rules and tools for the necessary hermeneutical work that is contemporary preaching. This week we extend that discussion into the realms of disinformation, propaganda, and the morality of media. Much of this discussion was initiated by Postman’s seminal Work Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Clearly, Postman was right about the denigration of truth in our society and (though he did not put it this way) the hermeneutical imperative that should drive the Church.

Here is a quick review of the month so far:

• All Truth, regardless of its source ultimately is God’s Truth.

• Truth is not a state of mind or matter of perception. There is a real world.

Our task this week, the next necessary step in our interpretive task, is cultivating tools to help us determine when we are being lied to and the possible motivation(s) of those doing the deceiving. If we learn how to do this well, we will also be in a position to critically analyze our own work, what we preach, teach, and write to ensure that we are making valid, Biblical arguments rather than resorting to the tantalizing tricks of Post-Modern manipulation, trying to bamboozle our listeners.  The logical order for dealing with these issues is the opposite of how it is stated in the title of this essay, which is at least somewhat illustrative of the point. 

    Virtually all communication has an agenda of some kind, a lesson to be taught, a cause to promote, an enemy to defame, a villain to defang. Interpretation’s cardinal purpose is to work backward through the “text” to discern the motive or intent of the author, filmmaker, monologist, comedian, or blogger. That provides a starting point organizational structure for our inquiry. We will begin with morality first, which provides a framework for evaluating both disinformation and propaganda. 

Morality in Media

    One of the things most intriguing about Paul the Apostle is how seamlessly he moves between scriptural argument, the application of the principles of Jesus, rabbinic argument, and Hellenistic philosophy. He was truly a master communicator. In Titus, he drops this little gem: 

  

“One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”” (Titus 1:12 ESV)

Paul was making a specific point about the troubles and troublemakers that Titus might confront while ministering to the Church on Crete and he slipped in one of the most famous philosophic paradoxes of all time—the Epimenides Paradox. This is likely the earliest statement of what is also called the “liar’s paradox” commonly stated as “This statement is false” or “I am lying.”  This is a fitting prelude for questions about intent and motive in all our communications. 

    Most speakers, preachers, filmmakers, songwriters, monologists, weather men, performance artists, clowns, or essayists will not begin with a disclaimer regarding their intent. We each begin the interpretive process using the basic interrogatory questions to discern what the—let’s use the terms creative and creator since they are in vogue—the creator is up to. Certain genres come with ground rules about how they will address us. For example, a Crime Novel may not intentionally deceive you but will hide information and try to be secretive. In that genre, according to its purpose, those creative acts are not considered immoral or amoral. On the other hand, if a newspaper article keeps a secret, if a researcher withholds significant data, or if a raunchy video on Tic-tac lies about the age of the victim, it is immoral, the creator has violated the acceptable rules of the medium in which he/she is working.

Every creator has some kind of moral code. It may be Christian or heathen. It may be complex or simple. It may be a foreseeable result of trauma or a deliberate departure from normal ethical standards. Every creator is trying to say something and the thing they are trying to say—in one way or another discloses not only their intellect, creative energy, and vision—it also discloses their “soul.” Their moral core. 

    Sometimes this moral vision will be implicit, maybe nearly invisible. It might even be unacknowledged by the artist, arising from depths of pain or guilt impossible to articulate. But it’s still there. For others, this moral vision is the first thing we encounter. The goal of some creators is a prolonged act of destruction or projected disillusionment. (There is nothing wrong with being disillusioned, it is making it the foundation of personal morality that is immoral). 

    The purpose of this hermeneutic step is not to foster skepticism or doubt, rather it is a reminder that the same words can be either Joel’s plowshares or Micah’s swords. Any time humans are involved we must be wary of moral motivation. This is a characteristic we all share because the power of the Image has been tarnished by the fall. 

Propaganda

    So, if no media is “neutral” a central interpretive task is determining the “why” of the creator’s “what”. When I preach, the act is in itself (and I know some will flinch at this term) propagandistic. It is not neutral. I am not only teaching information regarding some specific dimension of the Christian faith, but I am also advocating for it. My task is to advance the Christian faith by discipling the congregation through accurately and systematically teaching the Scriptures. They know it, I know it and it is expected. 

When we interpret various messages from the culture, we need to discern what motivates the messenger. For whom are they shilling? What is the agenda? To what end or for whom is this message propaganda? 

In our polarized culture we often mistake specific kinds of content or ideological markers for the actual reason a blogger, essayist, journalist, singer, or performer is doing what they do. Liberal and conservative are easy labels to apply, but advocating for these political positions is not the motivation-the purpose of the propaganda. They are the means to the end. 

So, what are the motivation(s)? I will only focus on three because they are almost always in play, and everything else is derived from them. 

1. Entertainment.

2. Power.

3. Money. 

To which you say, “Surely, it’s more than that? Our motives are pure, theirs are malicious, salacious, or ridiculous!” Nope. The arguments, the stand-offs, the decontextualized photographs, the name-calling, the haranguing, the shouting, the diminution; all the stuff of Post-Modern media culture is designed to keep the clicks coming which is all about entertaining, obligating, and fleecing people. Not Google News, but GOOGLE news…with the obligatory advertising. Facebook is not for making or keeping friends but for monetizing friends. The newest threat, AI in the form of agents, is just another attempt to control the conversation (exert power) moving us through the maze. 

    What should we do? Stop using the tools available to us? No. The goal is to understand what motivates the people who publish and the creatives who contribute. What do they want, and how immorally will they act to acquire distract, pressure, or monetize us? We used to worry that propaganda's effect would dull our intellect. In the Post-Modern world propaganda’s goal is our soul. Distraction, domination, and dollars are the currencies of the new Media empires. 

Disinformation.

    Those who wish to deceive us will not likely disclose their motivation. Those who propagandize us for some form of profit will try to maintain the illusion of freedom. This brings us to the third threat which sound hermeneutical practices can blunt; disinformation. 

    Disinformation is not merely a matter of content but of context.  The text that surrounds a statement defines how that statement is understood. The difference between lying and just being plain wrong is hiding one’s intent and then using both truth and falsehood to get what one wants. This is not communication as the sharing of information but communication as the bullying use of power. And I don’t care whose side you are on. If you hide your motive and misrepresent the truth it is immoral, and I don’t care whether or not you are doing so to advance your understanding of the Christian faith. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it will be judged. 

    There are many forms of misinformation. I have already alluded to context-switching. There is also outright lying. Withholding details. Misusing statistics and data-driven analysis. Swapping foreground and background information. Picking and choosing various interpretations of the same basic facts. False modesty. False pride. Every logical fallacy and vaudeville magic trick you can imagine. If none of that works…flood the zone with so much manure that it is impossible to discover the truth. 

    This can be an exhausting process for those who are interested in discovering and communicating the truth. Christians are not exempt from this entire process. All of us are fallen and one of the vulnerabilities of Christians is that we want to think that there is no way that another believer would lie to me, deflect the truth, hide her motivation, or tell me the big lie to profit from me, dominate me, or distract me. This is not the case. And even those who may act without ill intent may fall into strategies and techniques which do not honor Christ

Final word

    Hermeneutical thinking is a critical act. The Biblical term is discernment. Discernment requires the active, informed use of our critical faculties. Discernment is a matter of Judgement. 

“But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

    Discernment requires solid food. Discernment requires training. Discernment requires constant practice. Discernment is both the moral process of determining good from evil and the intellectual process of determining right from wrong.  For a Disciple of Jesus, practicing Hermeneutics means a focused process of examining and assimilating all information, subordinating it to the cause of Christ. Weighing what is helpful from what is hurtful. We use these tools in considering what can be done to equip the Church for our work of witness in the distracted, distorted culture into which we are called to bear the light of Christ

Nominalism vs Realism 5.9.2024

    If all truth is God’s truth, why would well-intentioned people differ so drastically about how they view the world? Well right off the bat some people would contend that the phrase “All truth is God’s truth” is off base. These are the sorts of individuals who think that the only way to view the world, the only true perspective is their own. We might call these folk “intellectual isolationists.” They spend a lot of their time disagreeing with others, without even trying to find common ground, much less resolution. It saddens me to say that this is the intellectual ground of all forms of fundamentalism. It may be interesting to argue with them, entertaining, even; but not fruitful. 

    There are others who, being nitpickers would want a clear, universal definition of truth. They might reply by answering “What do you mean by truth.” Again, these may be well-meaning people, but because they are essentially skeptics, who will never be satisfied with any definition of truth, conversation kind of dries up. 

    Between the twin shoals of isolationism and skepticism lies a place that many like to call “reality”. Reality is a place where we can acknowledge that there is a unified conception of truth but that not all true things are true in the same way.  We live in a world that has a plurality of different (insert your favorite plural noun), which have many different (insert your favorite qualitative adjective). There is no point really, in even arguing about this. It’s just how reality was created—it just is.  This commonsense affirmation tends to make both the isolationists and skeptics upset because it is predicated on the notion that there is more at stake than how any one individual feels about the world. 

    Pluralistic/pluralism is kind of a dog-whistle “bad word” among some, instead let’s use the word multifaceted which is, of course, a synonym, but it does not carry the intellectual baggage of pluralism. Our multifaceted world is pluralistic and diverse. Not an ideological statement, just a fact. If we want to even discuss the notion of truth, we must accept the fact that in our universe there are both dogs and cats, they are both mammals, and that there are other “animally”, and “mammally” things that are not dogs and cats. This is just basic reasoning. Evidently, it is so basic that a lot of people have missed it. 

    Historically thinkers have been divided between forms of realism and forms of idealism. The major argument is between realism and nominalism which is essentially idealism without restraints. Nominalism is the notion that there are no real things in the universe, only the perceptions that humans have and the names we give them. Nominalism is the mother’s-milk of full-on relativistic pluralism because it seems to provide justification for different definitions of truth. When certain people rail against pluralism as a concept or philosophy, their real issue is with nominalism. 

    Realism, on the other hand, affirms that there are many different things in the world, animate, inanimate, penguins, bacteria, books, and ducks for example. Realists assert that some things we cannot see are only invisible to the naked eye, and with proper apparatus, we can know, study, and enjoy them. At this point, I am in danger of flogging you with a discussion of Wittgenstein and rather he was a realist. I think, based on the Tractatus phase, that he was, but I will move on and connect the dots between all truth in general and God’s creation in particular.  Two passages in Hebrews make interesting contributions to this discussion.

“Hebrews 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” (Hebrews 1:1-3 ESV)

 “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:3 ESV)

 What is interesting in these passages is that they are constructed as truth statements, yet they contain few details. They are not designed, as it were, to answer to our curiosity, but to speak to our need. They are faith-focused truth statements. What we must acknowledge in a world of multifaceted dissimilarity is that some of those whom we turn into our opponents are not stupid. They are not fools. They may be wrong about many things, but they are also right about others. Similarly, in Acts 17 we read these words Paul speaks in Athens.

“Acts 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, Acts 17:25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. Acts 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, Acts 17:27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,” (Acts 17:24-27 ESV)

All those philosophers in the Areopagus that day, like every one of us have a cosmology, a conception of history, theories of descent, and the origins of life. And Paul contradicted them, even as he used their own literature to make his point.  The point being that Paul understood and acknowledged that different people have different views of the world and that those views are largely uncritical, cultural, and social. Even for the smartest among us. In other words, Hellenism, Judaism, and earliest Christianity were all faith systems. Pretending like they were all the same faith system did not enable communication, it prevented it.

    We will not agree with every theory, philosophy, concept, or principle we find in fallen culture. I’ve spent the last two weeks reading material from Christians with whom I have profound disagreements! Reading authors from these other “reality-based” faith systems can be even more enervating. The only way to have any conversation with anybody about anything is to agree to have the conversation. Until we are willing to examine and understand the world around us, we will largely shout into the void, hearing nothing back other than the sound of our own voices. That does not do the cause of Christ any good. In another place, Paul puts it this way

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4:8 ESV)

 With typical Pauline syntax and nuance, he does not tell us what any of those things are. We are to figure that out on our own. This is the intellectual side of discipleship. This is Christian growth. This is Christian maturity. We use the Bible as the foundation for sifting through the real, hardscrabble truths in the world, following Jesus, not because He is shouting, but as He whispers.

All Truth is God's Truth 5.2.2024

    We are midway through the year's second quarter as we consider broadly what it means for a disciple of Jesus to think critically. At the heart of critical thinking about the Bible, History, and Theology is a personal and communal quest for truth. We want to know what the Bible “truly says”. This implies a concern for what is accurate. We want to understand the truth of “history”. This implies a desire to know what really happened in the past and the ability to sort out whose story about that past is most accurate. We want to understand and articulate a “true” theology. This implies a desire to connect what the Bible says, and what History discloses with the beliefs and teachings of the Church. 

    If the Church is to be well served by such critical thinking, we need to begin with a broad appreciation for truth. For the sake of discussion, we need to assume what some would prefer that we prove. Specifically, if the God we worship is accurately disclosed in scripture and understood through both Theology and History, then all truth(s) even those which we don’t like, or which are not explicitly or implicitly taught in scripture is/are His truth(s). That is a very complex sentence and dissecting it will be the first test of how committed we are to discerning the truth. 

    The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself, and His will for us. He tells us that He is responsible for creation and consummation. He has worked in our history in a preliminary, preparatory fashion through the story of Israel, and finally and fully in the incarnation of Jesus. In the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Bible teaches that God extends His salvation to those who will have it. That is a quick summary, but it pretty much covers everything. This is where Christians sometimes lose focus. The Bible does not address everything that we might find interesting. It is not predicated on our curiosity. It is blissfully unaware of human developments in the arts, sciences, philosophy, technology, or even aesthetics. Not that God does not care—far from it! Rather, He has determined that His revelation of Himself and His will for us is enough for faithful people of goodwill and faithful intent to work the rest out on our own. For far too many Christians this is like performing without a net. It is nerve-wracking, exhausting, and terrifying. 

    Even those with no deep interest or investment in the content of Scripture assume (wish really) that it contained no gaps, that there was nothing left unsaid, and that it fully addressed every conceivable circumstance throughout the entire unfolding of the human drama. Sorry. This is not the case. Again, it is our job to connect the revealed truth of scripture to what is unfolding around us. This is not merely an intellectual commitment; it is a moral obligation. God communicated to Abraham. Abraham obeyed. God appeared to Moses. Moses obeyed. Jesus said, “Follow me”. The disciples followed. Jesus said to the Apostles “Go” and they went. Now, the way that we tell these stories, particularly in preaching, fills in many of the gaps that are there. We make connections and draw appropriate conclusions from what Scripture teaches. And by analogy, we contextualize and apply Scripture—extend its reach as it were, to those areas of human interest and inquiry where there is no “Word from the Lord.” In the absence of that He provided…us. Welcome to the work of being an image-bearer.