[Oe List ...] Salmon: On "The Truth"

[William Salmon]

Colleagues:
	The following is correspondence with friend of mine. He is a thoughtful thinker who has come to some pretty certain religious conclusions that he promotes by editorializing. Recently, he published an editorial in our local newspaper about "The Truth" of the Bible that can be compared to listening to bells that are out-of-tune. The "Truth" he posited was The Bible itself; kind of a circular argument. He asked me for my evaluation of this correspondence. 
	He drew a response from a local citizen who called into question his thinking about the nature of Biblical Truth by asking him to read some of the authors "on his shelf" such as those I've identified in my response. All of his suggestions are professionals most of whom reside outside of religious circles. All but two of them are either scientifically oriented, atheists, skeptics or secular humanists. All of them have recently written thoughtful articles questioning the scientific truth of the Bible. 
	Before drawing your conclusions I want to add that I count myself a secular humanist because I affirm that God did likewise. How else to explain that God became secular in Jesus and came to live among us to take seriously the human world?
	Now, read on. When you can, or when you want to, please join the dialogue. 
	Pastor Bill 
  
Dear Friend, 
	Your editorial and its response is an interesting development. I did a quick review of each of the authors mentioned that you were asked to read. This is the result:

Bart Ehrman --- "Misquoting Jesus," "Jesus Interrupted," "Lost Christianity," "Lost Scriptures"
	He is familiar to us at  our church when our pastor used him as an illustration of someone who dedicated his life as a Christian teacher and author with the result that he is now an atheist. He still teaches at North Carolina State (?), but is widely published and recognized as one of the preeminent Biblical Scholars. His atheism is the result that he could find no solution to how a loving God can allow physical suffering. 
Robert Wright --- "The Evolution of God"
	Wright is a secular-liberal writer and something of an iconoclast. 
Richard Dawkins ---"The God Delusion"
	Dawkins is an evolution-biologist and writes from a scientific point-of-view
Karen Armstrong --- "The Battle for God"
	Armstrong is a noted Christian theologian who teaches in a prominent seminary. She is a former 	nun and a (habitual?) biblical historian. 
Christopher Hitchens- "God is not Great"
	An atheist and a secular humanist
Michael Baigent--- "The Jesus Papers"
	Baigent is a Free Mason who writes as an Historian. His influence can be seen in Brown's book, 	"The Divinci Code." Baigent presently is suing Brown for misuse of materials.
Pascal Boyer---"Religion Explained"
	Boyer is a French anthropologist.
Michael Shermer-"How We Believe"
	Editor-in-Chief of "Skeptics" magazine, humanist philosopher
Russ Kick --- "Everything you know about God is wrong"
	Publishes a "disinformation guide to media distortion"
Tanner Edis --- "The Ghost in the Universe"
	Atheist, social scientist, secularist

	Before we dismiss any of them, let me share a couple of insights to push your thinking. As Tevya, in "Fiddler on the Roof," proclaims about the conflicting political argument of his time, "You're Right!" and "He's Right!" 
	All of you are reflecting on your understanding of the TRUTH. It's the title of your editorial and you mention the word 5 times. Each of the other writers are expressing their own views and perspectives of what the truth is. Consequently, each of you is illustrating what you understand to be "the truth." The various writers are developing their arguments out of a scientific understanding as they apply their differing professional skills. As I understand you, you are applying a faith-stance in a way that you want it to be scientific. 
	Consequently, you both are RIGHT and WRONG for all the WRONG REASONS. Let me see if I can make some sense of this for you. 

The conflicting word is "THE TRUTH"
	The writers are wrong to be applying scientific standards to decode the truth of the Bible. Consequently, many of the conclusions they make about the Bible are correct but wrong. Your friend's analysis about the construction of the Bible is no doubt TRUE; the Bible is a literary mess!
	The structure of your "Salina Journal" article is correct, but only because I know the foundation of your religious background and thinking. Your use of the word "Truth" is unfortunate, and when I first read the editorial I knew it could draw some fire, but I was doubtful any would try. Consequently, you were right and wrong for all the wrong reasons. 
	Recently, in developing a SermonStarter on Luke 24: 1 - 12 for "Passion Sunday", the question to be answered about the Easter Story is, "How can this story be the story of my life?" There are those who say this story can not be scientifically proven. However, this story is the story of my life. What's the difference? There is a difference between Actual History and Faith History. So much of the Old Testament can not be historically related to any of the world histories associated with this period of time. Abraham is not mentioned, nor is Moses, Solomon, David, the Kings and Prophets. The only reason we know the Early Church existed is the creation of The Church. There is only one brief mention of Jesus by the historian Josephus, but to prove that the "Jesus" mentioned is the "Jesus of faith" is impossible. 
	On the other hand, the entire Old Testament and New Testament is the STORY OF MY LIFE. It is Faith History. When I pull my life through its pages, its' astonishing message is crystal clear.  
	Did the events of the testaments happen? I'm convinced that those who wrote the message down experienced something very similar to what I experience when I read, study, proclaim and publish it. Can it be proved as actual history? I really don't care one way or the other. What I experience can not be denied. This is the same problem that Martin Luther experienced, and he could stand only on his experience. 

The Problem is the word "TRUTH." 
	Truth is a scientific goal. Neither the Jews, nor Jesus nor Paul were concerned about the TRUTH. They were concerned about MYSTERIOUS GOODNESS, and this my friend, is the TRUTH.  The Truth of which Jesus speaks is Goodness; the central portion of his message about God is that God is GOOD, and this is the TRUTH. 
	The Truth about the scriptures that anthropologists, social historians, sexologists, or biologists seek is a physical TRUTH that has absolutely nothing to do with FAITH TRUTH. The reason for this is a happenstance of history itself. Paul is responsible for this problem. He is the one that took the Jesus message of GOODNESS into the Greek/Roman cultural world and changed the metaphors of the Jewish Worldview (Mysterious Goodness or At-One-Ment) into the metaphors of the Greek Worldview (Objective/Rational Truth).
	It is my contention that these two worldviews co-existed for 1,500 years. People just did the mental gymnastics from the unifying EXPERIENCES of Judaism into the rational/objective KNOWLEDGE/UNDERSTANDING of the Greek/Roman world. 
	Can you detect the problem? 
	The Jews experienced truth as non-rational Goodness.
	The Greek world understood truth as rational-objective Knowledge (Gnosis).
	Somewhere around the 15th and 16th centuries, Galileo, Copernicus and Newton invented the Scientific Method and the Modern Worldview. This was confirmed by the Renaissance, the Reformation and Industrialization. Also, the Catholic Church (both ends of it), plus the Protestant Reformation played an unhelpful role in supporting the secularization of our faith experience. Everybody and everything came together to forge a new way of viewing life that was rational and objective. 
	These rational principles were applied to our faith experience. The end result is that we've been fighting and fussing for 600 years because, "It is my way or the highway." Consequently, we have a Baptist Truth, a Catholic Truth, a Presbyterian Truth, and a Methodist Truth. . .  ad infinitum.
	For the last 600 years, the Gospel message has been tainted by objectivity. Certainly, how we experience goodness becomes an objective truth for the faithful. This is why I can affirm that you are right for all the wrong reasons. Also, this is why your friend and his list of professional critics are right for all the wrong reasons too. You both are attempting to prove TRUTH. The truth they seek is scientific rationality. The truth you seek is the experience of a transformed life. 

	To argue with them is a vain exercise. Simply admit they are RIGHT because they do not understand your personal experience. Simply accept that you are RIGHT because you are looking for a different kind of truth based on your experience.

Permit me one final critique:
	While your choice of an illustration was interesting (a real bell-ringer?), it actually supports my argument. Listening to out-of-tune bells is an experience of irrational goodness. It is something to which your friend relates to scientifically rather than experientially, it is something you related to by intuition and would like it to be rational truth. 

	Tevya's correct. "You're Right!" and "He's right!"  	Pastor Bill 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100320/a9a257f7/attachment-0001.html>