Another Kierkegaardian idea (considering that I'm in a class where I'm reading umpteen works by him) is that truth is subjective. This has raised some interesting thoughts in my mind. The first reaction to this is repulsion, linking it together with standard postmodern theories of relative truth. However, this would be far from Kierkegaard's own view; after reading his biography, I think he might have a lot of trouble with people who freely quote his sentences in Religious Epistemology essays in postmodern, Wittgensteinian ways (not that I have any particular beefs with any authors I read in Philosophy of Religion...). He did hold to objective truth; he was not trying to undermine this. Rather, what he was saying was that having a bunch of objective facts really doesn't mean a whole lot. Truth must become personal and internalized.
Why is it that the idea of truth as a subjective thing (in a non-relative way) rather than objective seems to be a problem? I do not propose to say "truth is entirely subjective" here, or really any other position, so much as bring some things out for thought. When I looked inside myself, I realized it is because objectivity seems to be more certain, while subjectivity lends itself to "its true for you but not for me" - even if not meant in a relativistic way, there is still a sense that people can arrive at completely different truths with no way to check to see who is right. Maybe, though, if we have faith in the methods of arriving at truth, this is not as much of a problem. In order to communicate truth objectively, I give facts, I give arguments. I give the "what" of truth. In order to communicate truth subjectively, I must rather tell someone the "how" of truth: how they can find it for themselves. I point to the path, not the destination. If this "how" is trustworthy, than do I need to worry as much that the "what" will be so radically different?
What really spurred these thoughts on (though I had been thinking about them before) was a conversation at lunch today about the inerrancy of the Bible. The following is not meant to disparage inerrancy - I am an inerrantist (though still trying to figure out what that means) - or even to deny that it has importance. Sometimes, however, this doctrine seems to be considered to be almost as important as the gospel message itself, and I wonder where the line should be drawn for "necessary ingredients of faith," "important but not necessary," and "debatable but let's get on with more important things." For example, why is it that people consider strict inerrancy, down to the last details, so important? It seems to be that it is because if there is any error, how can one know what is true and what is false? However, why is this important? It seems that it is only important if one assumes that one must come to Scripture and understand it primarily through human reason and scientific methods. Ironically enough, those who hold this view strongly say they do because they want to follow God instead of man, and yet it seems they are the ones who exalt man's understanding the most. On the other hand, if the primary way of understanding Scripture is through the work of the Holy Spirit, the discrepencies in some facts do not matter as much: the Holy Spirit can still guide us into the Truth if we let it. Again, it's the objective vs. subjective thing: objective, reasoned interpretation of Scripture, and subjective, Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture. The latter is less open to external scrutiny then the former (even if the Spirit leads in the church as a whole rather than in the individual, this is the case though on a larger level), but if it is reliable, then what is the problem?
Again, this is not to say that the Bible is not inerrant or that we shouldn't be concerned about correct doctrine. It is perfectly coherent to speak of letting the Holy Spirit guide us into the truth while maintaining inerrancy. These thoughts are more concerned with why we believe what we believe, and how we pursue truth rather than the truths themselves.
1 comment:
J. Gresham Machen was an inerrantist, but also very ecumencial. Inerrancy was not on his short list of central truths on which there should be no compromise. I forget all that *was* on his list. I think things like the divinity of Christ, and possibly the virgin birth.
Post a Comment