The Relative Truth
With the growing prominence of postmodernism in popular circles, there is always a backlash. In the most recent First Things, Avery Dulles has an article entitled, "The Orthodox Imperative." The basic gyst of the article is the safety and goodness of orthodoxy, which he maintains means right belief rather than right worship. He notes fives lines of objection to dogma or creed, one of which I want to address here: historical and cultural relativism. Historical relativism is the belief that statements are conditioned by time. So, dogma and creed need to change according to the progression of knowledge through time. At least, so goes the argument. Dulles then mentions John Henry Newman who almost agreed with the statement, but conditioned it to say that development of doctrine cannot counter previous doctrine without it being a corruption. Here I agree with Newman (and Dulles' point).
The second form of relativism is cultural relativism, which says that (for Dulles' purposes) religious statements are culturally formed and therefore different dogmas can be developed in different cultures. Different dogmas can be developed to meet the religious experience from different parts of the globe. Dulles responds that any dogma is either objectively true or false: There is a Right or Wrong response to statements of religious truth. While I don't always find myself overly at home in the philosophical framework in which that makes sense (boiling everything down to barebones and then marking it Right or Wrong), that is necessarily true.
My beef with Dulles is that he overstates his point and therefore loses the war for orthodoxy when he says: "Truth by its nature is universal and permanent. If a statement is true at any time and place, it must be true always and everywhere. This principle of universalism holds for all truth, whether scientific, historical, metaphysical, or religious." Well, no.
The statement, "Aaron Perry, born of Ellard Perry, exists" is true--right now and in all places. However, 30 years ago, it was false. So, truth is not permament. Likewise (here I am thinking of something Peter Leithart wrote a while back), 500 years ago, I could not say, "I can fly across the ocean." That is now true, though. So, truth is not permanent. Nor is truth universal: "The courts are corrupt," may or may not be true depending on your region. It is relative to location.
This is not to say that some truth is not universal: "God loves all people" is universally true, regardless of location and time. Some truth is universal; some truth is relative. In demanding that all truth be universal and permanent, Dulles misargues his point and loses the benefit of orthodoxy. How so, you ask? Probably the two most quoted declarations of orthodox Christianity are Trinity and Incarnation: That God has within himself the ability to become incarnate without ceasing to be transcendant and that God did so. The cultural truth, and therefore not permanent truth (in the sense that God became Incarnate at some point), of Incarnation, however, is exactly what makes that truth universal. If that saving truth were outside culture, then we would be beyond saving because none of us exists without culture. As Oliver O'Donovan has pointed out, it is the humanity of Christ which makes him universally identifiable. That encultured and storied orthodox truth is precisely what opens the door for good, Christian reflection on the immanent religious experience of other cultures--made possible, and likely expected, by a God who became flesh for all in Jesus of Nazareth.
The second form of relativism is cultural relativism, which says that (for Dulles' purposes) religious statements are culturally formed and therefore different dogmas can be developed in different cultures. Different dogmas can be developed to meet the religious experience from different parts of the globe. Dulles responds that any dogma is either objectively true or false: There is a Right or Wrong response to statements of religious truth. While I don't always find myself overly at home in the philosophical framework in which that makes sense (boiling everything down to barebones and then marking it Right or Wrong), that is necessarily true.
My beef with Dulles is that he overstates his point and therefore loses the war for orthodoxy when he says: "Truth by its nature is universal and permanent. If a statement is true at any time and place, it must be true always and everywhere. This principle of universalism holds for all truth, whether scientific, historical, metaphysical, or religious." Well, no.
The statement, "Aaron Perry, born of Ellard Perry, exists" is true--right now and in all places. However, 30 years ago, it was false. So, truth is not permament. Likewise (here I am thinking of something Peter Leithart wrote a while back), 500 years ago, I could not say, "I can fly across the ocean." That is now true, though. So, truth is not permanent. Nor is truth universal: "The courts are corrupt," may or may not be true depending on your region. It is relative to location.
This is not to say that some truth is not universal: "God loves all people" is universally true, regardless of location and time. Some truth is universal; some truth is relative. In demanding that all truth be universal and permanent, Dulles misargues his point and loses the benefit of orthodoxy. How so, you ask? Probably the two most quoted declarations of orthodox Christianity are Trinity and Incarnation: That God has within himself the ability to become incarnate without ceasing to be transcendant and that God did so. The cultural truth, and therefore not permanent truth (in the sense that God became Incarnate at some point), of Incarnation, however, is exactly what makes that truth universal. If that saving truth were outside culture, then we would be beyond saving because none of us exists without culture. As Oliver O'Donovan has pointed out, it is the humanity of Christ which makes him universally identifiable. That encultured and storied orthodox truth is precisely what opens the door for good, Christian reflection on the immanent religious experience of other cultures--made possible, and likely expected, by a God who became flesh for all in Jesus of Nazareth.
posted by Aaron Perry at
8:12 AM
5 Comments:
"Relative" and "contingent" are not synonyms. The truth about AP is contingent historical truth. But it is not relative. Sorry. I'm with the good Cardinal.
CG
The only problem is that I didn't say that me existing was a relative truth. I said it wasn't permanent. It is conditionally true. And it seems to me that admitting conditional truths is admitting non-permanent truths, contra Dulles' poor framing of universal truth.
Courts not being corrupt, however, is both relative and conditional. It is not necessarily the case that the courts are not corrupt--there are contingent factors (trained lawyers, judges, lack of bribes, etc.) that can bring that to be true. So, it is contingent. But even then it is relative to one's location and one's perception. Corrupt courts look different in different region. Transplanting a court from region A to region B may indeed change the truth value of the statement, "Court C is corrupt."
I say that in any theological account of truth even 'universal' truth is relative and 'embodied' in community - the Divine Triune community, which is not static or, in certain very important senses, a-historical or non-storied (as these terms are often understood).
A truthful community is a community which thinks God's thoughts after Him. God's thought are the ultimate context with which we are to conform ourselves if we want to live in the Truth.
But who could search out the depths of God?
And who could say all that needs to be said?
Everything we say or think is always incomplete. There is always more to say, and always different nuances to display. Who could trace out all the logical implications of what they've already said?
So living in the Truth is never done - it is an everlasting journey.
This way is a totally different ballgame from any account of truth which sees the Truth as what you get when the uninterpreted-world-out-there is captured, conquered and ordered by a created mind.
That this is a pipe dream is no surprise to the Church. (Or it ought not be).
I remember that post by Leithart you mentioned in passing. Excellent stuff.
Though I'm still not sure your comments concerning the relativity of statements like "Aaron exists" get at what Dulles means to be pointing his finger. The truth about your existence at a particular time and place is, in a sense, universal. It is relative. But the relative truth is itself universal. It is eternally true that, at that particular time and place, you did (or would) exist.
Orthodoxy gets in the way of seeking in the same way that a boat gets in the way of sailing.
I now wish to revise my first post. I stand with Dulles and Pilgrim.
CG
ed: true. my point in mentioning my existence was not merely to point to its not being permanent. and the statement, "Aaron exists" is different from "Aaron existed" and "Aaron will exist."
If Dulles is as concerned with universal and permanent truth, though, then offering a counter-example to his statement is a devastating blow--especially since he is using logical rules. It there is truth that is not permament, then it is objectively false that "all truth is permanent."
I am quite with you when truth flows from the dynamic, relational Triune Being of God. And I also agree that truth is what God thinks. And that one can never have the total truth.
Neil: If I have truly orthodox (as Dulles defines it) beliefs (beliefs that are right) as they pertain to God, then I am knowing God as he really is. The pursuit of orthodoxy is not to narrow God to a single point of knowledge, but to open up the expansive knowledge of who God from a proper framework. In that way, orthodoxy is both safe and good--and necessary for further proper reflection on knowing God.
If you take orthodoxy in a more negative tone (like, "arrogant dogma of the church") without concern for truth and revelation, but perhaps for power and control, then it would be a limit to knowing God. But I don't know many who consciously aim for that end in orthodoxy.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home