Or whatever happened to absolutes and what is relativism anyway?
“Whenever you find a man who says he doesn’t believe in a real right and wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He will break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he’ll be complaining ‘it’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson.” C.S. Lewis.
In our newly minted post-modern society, every nuclear family has one. Every extended family has at least a few. And in our public policies, morals and ethics we find that, in reality, we are greatly outnumbered. They are more than relatives; they are relativists. While our relatives may be relativists, there is a big difference in defining the two terms. The former, of couse, needs no introduction and is used here only for the purposes of word play and jest. The later may now be the predominant philosophy of our culture and, as such, merits its time under the microscope.
Relativism is also known as relative morality. Relative, in this context, is defined as "dependent on relation to something else, not absolute"; morality here means "the practice of right conduct or duties; virtue; ethics; discriminating between right and wrong; verified by reason." Relativism is the idea that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong - all morality is relative to one's circumstances, culture, education, personal opinions, etc. Moral relativists believe that there is no law or commandment that is universally applied to all men. They teach that we create our own truth and that what is right for us might not be right for the next guy. So, we each end up with our own personalized but equal version of the truth.
It is, however, a non-sustainable philosophy which is eventually crushed under the weight of its own inconsistencies. As someone wiser than me once quipped, every man is a relativist until someone steals his watch. Or, perhaps, his wife or child, freedom or dignity. At that point, we all become absolutists. Values indeed may be relative to the individual; but that does not mean, in truth, that all relative values are equally correct, valuable, honest, or truthful. There has to be a standard by which true value is determined. If there is not, we have the collapse of all, including morality, law and truth itself. Some things must be fixed, uniform, immovable and concrete. Even as our self-appointed, new age prophets state that values are relative and that we must not "judge" or "impose," they have broken from relativism and stated what they believe, but will not conceed, to be an absolute. The relativism game cannot be played consistently without constantly changing the rules.
Because I believe the Genesis account of creation, sin and consequence, I do not believe that man, as man, is basically "good." I question, in a relative philosophy, how that term can even be defined. If you and I allow for various subjective interpretations, we cannot both be right and still maintain any consistent standard or definition by which others can declare goodness or badness. Jesus Christ himself says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19). In some sense, even those who do not subscribe to a Judeo-Christian philosophy, and who worship another god, would concur. "Goodness" increases the more one looks like the god whom they have declared good. This is true even if the god being worshiped is self. (See my last post regarding man on the throne of his own heart). The problem of relativism again rears its head, however, when we begin to talk about multiple gods who are ascribed equal authority.
One of the additional fallacies within the larger philosophy of relativism is the inherent problem of mutually exclusive truths. This is often and consistently the case with the philosophy. If there is not a larger, objective, absolute standard of truth, if every individual is his or her own "god" and can subjectively determine what is true, how do we reconcile the inevitable and multiple inconsistent truths which we will necessarily reach. How can the mutually exclusive honestly co-exist as truth? They can't. If two "truths" on the same subject do not agree, then one or both are false. Nature teaches us there are absolutes: mathematical truths, scientific truths, biological truths, medical truths, chemical truths - all absolutes. Why, then, would there not be an ethical, moral, spiritual truth? Why would our ethics be the exception to the rule we see active in every other area of our world?
A philosophy of relativism verses a philosophy of absolutism will lead to different conclusions. As a point of clarification, while I am convinced "true truth" (a term coined by Francis Schaeffer) is absolute, I am well aware that we have wills that are free to disregard the absolute. While we may not be free to ignore the consequences of our disregard of truth, we are all certainly at liberty to reject the absolute. Based on this conviction, then, while it is my responsibility to shine a spot light on the truth, it is not my duty to ensure that another receives that truth. This, I think, is one of the differences between those who would proclaim the gospel (and honestly and decently attempt to live it) and those who would attempt to co-opt it for a lesser agenda. Spiritual truths transcend man's agenda. Those who would attempt to use the absolute as a club to beat others into submission have a fundamental misunderstanding of the truth itself as well as the application to his or her life. Jesus Christ refused most of the "political" debate of His time. Many in His society would have crowned Him a political revolutionary (in the nature of Barabbas) or a national king (to overthrow Rome). He was neither; the purpose was much larger than the politics and thought of the day. The purpose was eternal, not temporary; restoration not revolution. Additionally, the gospels show very clearly that Jesus expected some to reject His teachings; that they would walk away. At times, He seemed to even encourage it. Never did He attempt to compel another to believe. There is invitation and challenge but not compulsion. Today, we see many who would attempt to bastardize eternal truths for personal and temporal gains. I do, however, take some solace in knowing that no matter how poorly an ambassador may represent his emmisary, the ambassador is not the emmisary. We must look to the king and not necessarily his representative if we are to understand his true nature. I would suggest that I have no absolute understanding of truth, but Christ does. As such, my understanding should continually comport with His as the standard.
Absolutism, however, for the sake of absolutism is pointless. Even this philosophy is not above corruption or decay. The value and truth of absolutism depends solely upon to what the absolute is anchored. Who or what is the fixed standard; the concrete and immovable? For this reason it is necessary that there be an ultimate authority. If there is not, and we are left with the inconsistent and various individual truths at which we arrive, then there is really no reason to feed the poor, help the helpless or search for truth. If, ultimately, there is no authority and we ourselves determine the right and wrong subjectively, then the greedy wall street bastard is as right as Mother Theresa and the rapist is as righteous as the saint. What would then be the point of attempting to convince any other of the merits of an argument if we first approached the argument from the “conviction” of tolerance, no ultimate authority and only relative truth? Under such a system, no idea, thought or value is any better or worse than another so why even enter the fray of the debate? By what authority, under a relativist ideology, does one appeal to the other? Such an attempt would be intolerant in and of itself unless there existed a higher and more ultimate authority to which we have recourse. There is simply no way to reconcile relativism to itself as a consistent worldview and action plan. By its definition it negates the value of action and is incapable of long term reconciliation of viewpoints. Unfortunately, as a whole, our world does not understand the limitations of a relativist philosophy any more than it understands the philosophy itself.
That said, I am an absolutist only because I believe (a) there is an ultimate authority and (b) the ultimate authority is the trinitarian God who, through the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ, reconciled man to Himself. In John 14:6, Jesus famously stated, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me.” That is an absolute statement. He is the way: He is the way to the truth and He is Himself the truth. For such a statement and others, I am left with an absolutist conclusion. Here's the problem that Christ presents for every one of us: He does not leave the door open for acceptance only as a good man, fine teacher or intellectual prophet. He claimed to be God. (John 10:30-39; John 17:5, Mark 14:61-62 and many others). He acted as though He were God, said He was, did not rebuke others for accepting that He was, and was apparently convincing enough that most of His first century disciples were violently killed for advancing the proposition that He was, in fact, God. This, then, leaves us with only one of two choices: we take Him at His word, believe that He is God and the only way to the Father; or we dismiss Him as the most insane and delusional of the mentally ill lunatics who have also claimed to be God. But acceptance as a good man is not possible if He was a liar. Acceptance as a good teacher is not possible if He was basing all of His “truth” upon a lie He was perpetrating. And acceptance as an intellectual prophet won't work if He was a delusional madman.
Based upon what I see in this world around me, based on what I know of my own heart, and based on what my own experience shows me, it is inescapable that the conclusion is the first: He was exactly who He said He was. If that is then true, I must take what He said as revelatory truth and act upon it. The result is that if I am to truly follow Christ, I become the absolutist that He was. When He says “Follow me,” I do not have the option of dictating the terms; I follow based on His. It is certainly not a popular theology or philosophy these days. Truth, however, has never been beholden to the masses. When we believed the earth was flat, it was not. And truth then, just as it is today, will not be held hostage to popular sentiment. Truth is transcendant, not mundane; eternal, not culturally evolutionary. If it were anything less than promulgated by an ultimate authority, then we would be back at relativism and would have no basis for even looking for the truth. In that scenario, we simply determine our own and thus end the story and the search.
But our hearts, our nature and our eyes tell us that there is something more.
And so we keep looking.
It helps to look in the right places.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Burnett Ln,Vincennes,United States
No comments:
Post a Comment