Truth exists, and that's a fact. I do believe in perfect truth, and I believe we can learn more and more about the world around us, learning more about truth.
And I do think that Jesus is called Truth, is the greatest Truth, and is the fulfillment of all other truth.
However, I do believe that creation is true and separate from God (while still being upheld by Him). That is to say, I do not believe creation is part of God, an extension of Him, but is something wholly other, while still created by and subject to His will.
Now, all that is preliminary to a discussion of our grasp and wielding of truth.
I sipped coffee with a new friend today. He is not a Christian, nor an atheist. He simply doesn't think about it much. We had a great conversation; I think enough for the two of us.
He spoke about a relationship in which he participates, into which he has brought great suffering recently. He spoke his true feelings to a friend, honestly and with integrity, and they brought no love or peace or change, but pain and hurt and fear. He wrestled with his integrity. Was it better to lie, to ignore what he felt, or to speak in integrity that which could never be said well.
Here I think we stumble across a major failure of man, propagated widely since the 'Enlightenment'. Man has held the existence of truth as the ultimate arbiter of action and deed- all is permissible, if done in truth.
We quickly apply this law to our emotions. When our feelings are 'true', we then claim this truth as a reason to act. Thus when my new friend felt negatively about his friend, integrity to truth bid him speak. [Or, perhaps his integrity excused his selfishness, and lack of self-control, as the case may be.] His voice tore the fabric of their relationship deeply. Words are powerful, and can do great damage. Further, words with truth behind them are nearly unstoppable.
He faces a dilemna intrinsic to the human condition. Truth cuts as a knife, and truth of disagreement or disappointment between two people must bring division, always. He spoke, division ensued, and now he must face the consequence of his action.
Yet could he live with integrity and not speak?
We see the same process at work in the placards that resign all sinners to hell, wielded by truth-believing people. They may wield truth, that all must meet with God, yet their method of expression falls far from submission to the love of God. They condemn rather than convict, ostracize instead of welcome. Even if they are right- all sinners deserve hell, including me and them.
The church has often taught that our feelings should be in alignment with the will of God. So they should, but rarely do they so align themselves. And in the tension we feel that we are forced to either deny the truth and lie or speak it and kill.
However, there remains a third option. It is the most difficult, and the most taxing, but the most life-giving and loving, I think, of the three. That is, to fully acknowledge the truth within us, the feelings that are present, and yet to submit them to a greater truth, to allow them to be vetted and pruned by that truth which abides over us, and not in us.
This means a death of sorts, for our truest desires are made subject- yet it does not mean a lie, nor does it produce division. It absorbs the pain of disagreement and disappointment and yet recognizes the pain as such.
Truth, part of the created order, stands alone. Yet it remains subject to the greater Truth that begot it. It remains subject to love, and compassion, and faith. Not that these change or alter truth, for truth is created, exists, is. But its use, the way we think and express it, must be submitted to God.
I've struggled to explain this, and will try again in the future. Let me know how I did.
No comments:
Post a Comment