Truth is for living

"In respect of things eternal life is vayn and mortal" -
inscription on Lamport Hall, Northamptonshire.
A reminder that truth is bigger than we think. 

“What is truth?” Pontius Pilate’s cynical, rhetorical question was flung at Jesus shortly before the Roman Governor of Judea condemned the Jewish preacher to death, at the behest of a noisy demonstration, despite ruling that he was innocent. It has recently taken on a fresh significance.

Oxford Dictionaries have named “post-truth” as their word of the year for 2016. The term means that objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals. It suggests that “the public” is interested more in their view of what reality should be than in what it actually is.

It is a development of the word popularised by US comedian, talk show host and one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2012, Stephen Colbert. For him, “truthiness” is preferring one’s wishes to be true rather than those that are factually true.

It has long been the case that many newspapers, magazines and some broadcast channels gear their coverage to the assumed interests – and prejudices – of their audiences. It is also the case that we buy, or tune in to, the media which conform to our established opinions. Apparently, we are less interested than ever in being willing to have our opinions modified or even changed. What I believe is true, is true.

We should be concerned. Public debate on complex issues is degenerating into blinkered and emotive slogans, exaggerated or imagined threats, sweeping generalisations, counter-assertions rather than careful answers, and personal attacks on the integrity and motives of both protagonists and opponents. Fake news spread on social media becomes imprinted on minds and is difficult to delete from memories. When objectivity declines, anarchy or extremism rises. The mob rules. And civilisations crumble.

In Barack Obama’s words, “It’s easy to make a vote on a complicated piece of legislation look evil and depraved in a thirty-second commercial, it’s very hard to explain the wisdom of that same vote in less than twenty minutes.”¹  And who has 20 minutes to consider anything these days?

Not a new problem

Cultural changes do not happen overnight and the seeds of “truthiness” and “post-truth” thinking (if it can be called thinking) were sown long ago. In the 1960s Aldous Huxley had already noted that the political spin machine was speeding up: “The methods now being used to merchandise the political candidate as though he was a deodorant, positively guarantee the electorate against ever hearing the truth about anything.”²

            That was the era when traditional constraints and beliefs were being questioned widely, and increasingly overthrown. It was a time when the ability of science to solve human problems was being questioned. And above all the idea that “truth” is relative – what’s true for you may not be true for me – was gaining popularity, especially with regard to human conduct and morality. It’s hardly surprising; it’s more comfortable to do one’s own thing than to toe party lines and do what other people expect of us.

            Christian thinker Harry Blamires summarised it thus: “Where intellect and feeling were in conflict, where wisdom and whim collided, it became the smart thing to reject the intellect and wisdom because they belonged to the sphere of rule and regulation, of fixities and demarcations, while feeling and whim inhabited the ever-changing environment of the fluid, the environment of the Age of Aquarius.”³

(The “Age of Aquarius”, thought of as the age of freedom, is an astrological assumption made popular by the 1960s hippy movement and the song from the musical Hair “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius”; in fact many astrologers don’t think it begins properly until at least the 22nd century. Ironically, the current period has also been dubbed “the Information Age” in which more people have access to more facts than ever before.)

An exponential rise in medical and scientific discoveries – think about the boundary-pushing Large Hadron Collider – has created an assumption that “truth” is a temporary thing, a summary of what we know now which may be disproved later.

The ancient Athenian mentality has grown in academic circles: “All the Athenians…spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas” (Acts 17:21). That has its plus side, of course: it’s good to explore and learn new things, to develop our understanding about the world, and even to challenge some traditions. But truth also has its boundaries; it is not eternally elastic. Some things are not true, and no volume of conspiracy theories or Facebook “likes” can make them true.

When a crowd becomes infected by a false “meme”, a rumour or belief that causes a group to act as one (usually violently in vocal terms, if not in riotous terms), the foundations of civilisation and human decency can be shaken. Not long after Paul’s discovery of the Athenian love of novelty he was hauled into the huge amphitheatre in Ephesus by a howling mob stirred up by influential business owners who saw Paul’s preaching as a threat to their profits. Luke, the narrator, notes that “the assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there” (Acts 19:32).

Or, as the 19^th century nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche put it, “Nothing is true, all is permitted.”⁴ 

Pursue truth in love

There are two remedies for the potential evils emanating from a post-truth world. One is for individuals to seek political, social and even scientific truth even if it threatens to overturn our previously-held opinions. Cautious consideration rather than hasty acceptance or rejection should be the hallmark of rational humanity. Or, don’t believe that everything you read in your newspaper is unbiased and objective.

            In practice, that means taking such steps as:

·         Learn to distinguish between proven fact and disputable allegation
·         Check the facts on both sides of an argument
·         Be measured in voicing opinions
·         Don’t jump on bandwagons and repeat allegations without checking them carefully first.

            The second is to learn to live truthfully, which is easier if we also recover the mindset that recognises that some truths are eternally valid and non-negotiable. They provide a basis for living in the world. These include the existence of a just and loving God and the teachings and redemptive actions of Jesus Christ who is God’s truth embodied in human form. And they form the basis for truth-full living.

            Of course, there is the risk of elevating some Christian traditions and biblical beliefs to the level of indisputable truths or required behaviours when there may be scope for discussion. Our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the works and wisdom of an infinite God. So even with the scriptures in our hands, we are required to listen carefully to others.

Bishop Lesslie Newbigin once wrote, “We are missionaries, but we are also learners, only beginners. We do not have all the truth, but we know the way along which truth is to be sought and found. We have to call all people to come this way with us…”⁵

So take some time to look at the biblical references to truth below, and resolve to walk the way they point to.

Think and talk

1.  Look at these warnings or examples of unfounded rumours and their consequences in the Bible. 2 Kings 7:5-7; Jeremiah 51:46; Matthew 24:4-8,11,23-28; John 21:22-24. What can we learn from them and what similar examples of false rumours, allegations or beliefs that have caused problems in your country or local community?

2.  What is the source of truth? Isaiah 45:19; John 14:6,17; 15:26; 16:13. (Note Jesus’ frequent use of the claim “I tell you the truth” before his pronouncements; in some Bible versions this is “verily, verily” or “truly, truly”.)

3.  What is the effect of truth? Psalm 15:1-3; Proverbs 16:13; John 8:32.

4.  How is truth to direct our lives? Psalm 51:6; John 4:23-24; Ephesians 4:15; 6:14; 1 John 1:6-8.

5.  How has truth been distorted or discarded down the ages and with what effects? Jeremiah 7: 27-29; Romans 1:18-23; 2:6-8; 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

References

1.  Barack Obama, The audacity of hope, Canongate Books 2008, p. 132.

2.  Aldous Huxley, Brave new world revisited, Chatto & Windus 1966, p.84.
3.  Harry Blamires, The Post-Christian mind, SPCK 2001, p.8.
4.  Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus spake Zarusthustra, George Allen & Unwin 1932, p.313.
5.  Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to tell, Eerdmans 1991, p.34 quoted by Henry Knight, A future for truth, Abingdon Press 1997, p.137.

© Derek Williams 2016. Material may be reproduced for personal or small group study with full acknowledgement of the source.

Tolerance is not a dirty word (nor is it the best word)

A contrast: a tree speaks of patience;
a bowman of intolerance

Tolerance has been in short supply this year. There are signs that intolerance – towards specific people -groups and ideas – will continue for some time to come. The toxic campaigns leading up to the EU referendum and the US presidential election were marked by ruthless intolerance and intemperance, and characterised by wild and exaggerated claims that had only a shallow foundation in truth, if that.

Yet tolerance is a virtue prized by the liberal majority. Not long ago tolerance was the working philosophy of all but a few people holding extremist views, used to mean “live and let live”, “each to their own”. Now quiet acceptance of other people has been overtaken by the noise of protest and clamour.

“Tolerance” has become a dirty word. In the social and political spheres, it suggests “going soft” on border controls, employment prospects and crime. In some Christian circles, it smacks of compromise in matters of faith and conduct, the thin end of a wedge which, it is claimed, will lead eventually to “anything goes”.

In fact, you won’t find the word in most English translations of the Bible. It was used once in the original edition of the NIV, in Romans 2:4, where Paul writes of God’s “kindness, tolerance, and patience” (all different words in the original Greek). In later editions this was changed to “kindness, forbearance, and patience”.

It was probably a wise alteration; “tolerance” is such a loaded word that it may be taken to mean indifference and it misses Paul’s more restricted and nuanced meaning. It’s a good example of how difficult it is for translators to reflect subtle usages of words in one language which don’t have a simple equivalent in another.

The word in Romans 2:4 (chrēstos) can mean goodness, uprightness, excellence, and kindness depending on the context. In its few New Testament occurrences it is generally translated “kindness” although this hardly does justice to it.

Only on one other occasion in the NIV is it translated “forbearance”. Significantly it replaces “patience” in the list of the Spirit’s fruits in Galatians 5:22 where it’s reinforced by, and distinguished from, related words: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

The 19th century commentator Archbishop Trench called chrēstos “a beautiful word for the expression of a beautiful grace”. It was a favourite word for God’s patient kindness used by the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament).

Forbearance is not a common word today but it does capture precisely what Paul was trying to express. It means “restraint”, “holding back”. It’s more specific than our general use of “tolerance” and stronger than our normal understanding of kindness (which is being considerate and pleasant) and even of patience (keeping calm under pressure).

In the Romans context, Paul is saying that God holds back from driving forward his judgement on an errant world. It will come, but not yet. The idea lies behind some of the other occurrences of the word or its derivatives where the English is rendered “kindness”. Its use in Galatians suggests that Christians are to be restrained (not repressed!) people, slow to anger and slow to speak as James 1:19 urges.

But there’s more. In Luke 5:39 the word is used of mellow, mature wine; from that we can think of a forbearing person as unhurried and wise in judgement and action. In Matthew 11:30 it’s used of a well-fitting yoke, so a person exhibiting forbearance is comfortable in their own skin, willing to submit to the constraints of discipleship rather than leaping on high horses every time they or their views are offended.

And so God calls us to hold back from driving forward our agendas which might seem right and good, yet which may result in pain to others. The time will come for action, but it may not be yet. That is “tolerance”; not overlooking wrong but holding back on immediate reactions, patiently looking, working and hoping for a change of heart.

Similarly, it means restraining our language about and reactions to situations and people who we dislike or disapprove of. Our problem is that whatever we want, we want it now. The world moves faster than committees. The needs are too great to dawdle over and must be met now. Our voice must be heard and that requires us (we think, wrongly) to shout louder and more caustically than our opponents.

The media and the markets never sleep. We’re caught up in the infernal rush, and drive on. Or get angry when we can’t, and are liable to lash out. But fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Like the world, God never sleeps. Unlike the world, God never rushes. He forbears. He reserves judgement. He acts when it’s appropriate, which isn’t always when we think he should. It’s one reason why Jesus didn’t charge to the rescue as soon as Adam and Eve disgraced themselves and were thrown out of the garden.

It’s why God seems in no hurry to bring the world to an end despite the evil and destruction that desecrates it. God is waiting and seeing; so should we be. (And his restraint has no time limit, no rule about three strikes and you’re out. Forgive your brother 77 times, meaning without limit, Jesus said in Matthew 18:22.)

Think Abraham: he waited decades for his promised son, who didn’t arrive until the old man got his centenary birthday card. Or Moses: called as an energetic young man to be a leader of the captive Israelites, who failed to forbear and snatched at an apparent opportunity, and then was banished abroad to become a rural farmer for 40 years where he learned what true restraint, forbearance, really meant.

Or Paul: a driven man if ever there was one, called to be an apostle yet learning forbearance by patiently working as a tentmaker and part time minister in Turkey for 14 years before the time was right to start his church-planting travels.

And then think Judas Iscariot. He too was a driven man but he never learned forbearance. His disclosure of Jesus’ whereabouts to the authorities was probably the climax of a perfect storm of conflicting desires in his mind. Convinced of his own rectitude, perhaps wanting to impress and achieve, his plan became an obsession with its doubly fatal consequences.

Judas couldn’t (or wouldn’t) wait. Human beings are brilliant at self-deception. We know what we want to do. We find evidence to support it. We treat counter-evidence sceptically, and dismiss it readily. “Praying about it” is not enough; often we don’t really want to hear the whispered “no” or “wait”, so take the silence as a shouted “yes”. That’s when we mess up, big time. God’s ways aren’t always our ways.

Forbearance requires that we step back from desires and decisions sufficiently to allow God, over time and through other people, to transform personal obsessions into corporate, practical wisdom. The same applies to our reactions to other people’s misdemeanours. Our judgements are partial – we rarely understand why they act as they do. We can’t get inside their heads. Harsh and hasty reactions do not serve God’s purposes. They may add to people’s suffering.

Forbearance is imitating God and the practising caring love. It exercises restraint in word and action. It listens carefully to people, takes on board criticism, considers how to accommodate objectors, is willing to modify plans, and waits patiently for God’s time to act.

It’s not compromise, nor is it inaction and it doesn’t prevent progress and change. Rather it ensures that we keep in step with the God who is forbearing towards the weaknesses and errors of fallen people. Including our own, and whose plans span centuries, not just our lifetimes. Then we’ll be ready to speak and act in a world that is crying out for alternative, better, ways of living.

Think and talk

1.  What do these passages, all using the same Greek word mentioned above, say about God’s forbearance? Luke 6:35; Romans 11:22; Ephesians 2:7; Titus 3:4.

2.  Similarly, what do these passages say about the forbearance which is required of us? 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:12.

3.  What situations can you think of today, in your own situation and in the wider world, where forbearance is required?

Derek Williams latest book The Judas Trap – why people mess up (and how to avoid joining them) is published by Instant Apostle, ISBN 978-1-909728-54-7, RRP £8.99, and is available from Christian bookshops or online.