Real Truth

“Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, ‘I find no guilt in Him.’” John 18:38.

In our focus verse, we see that when Jesus was brought before Pilate at the request of the elders, chief priests, teachers of the law and the Sanhedrin, Pilate asked an intriguing question What is Truth? I have been musing on this question lately as I look at the American culture, and I believe we, as a society, do not have a satisfactory answer to this question. There are individuals who do, but as a whole we lack understanding of what real truth is. People are looking for truth, but without an adequate foundation on which to base it on, it will elude them. The only adequate foundation for truth is an unchanging, all knowing being who transcends truth, and in fact is truth Himself.

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6.

Without an unchanging standard, truth becomes relative and unknowable. Our culture is slowly but surely accepting relativity in their view of truth. And I am afraid that those who do not have a solid foundation will only discover what they deem as truth is in reality not truth at all.

Before I start, I want to say I am addressing America because I have a more thorough understanding of this country than any other. I have lived here all my life and had a great opportunity to observe our culture and the changes that have occurred. However, I will not isolate this as a purely American problem. This issue of the erosion of truth is a world-wide phenomenon. It is not something that has recently entered the scene. Remember the analogy of the frog in hot water. If a frog is dropped into boiling water, it will fight to get out. However, if it is put into warm water which is slowly brought to a boil, it will stay there until it is boiled to death. This is a picture of truth as I see it today.

First, let us look at truth itself. There are essentially two types of truth.  Objective truth is truth that is the same for all people, groups and cultures. It is unchanging; true things will always be true, and false things will always be false.  Our beliefs have no bearing on objective truth or falseness. What is true is always true no matter what we believe, and what is false is always false no matter what we believe.

Subjective truth is a relativistic form based on what we understand or choose to believe. True truth is discovered, not constructed based on what works for the individual, group or culture, whereas relative truth says one truth is as valid as another, even if they are contradictory. As many have said,

“That may be your truth, but it is not my truth.”

Second, let us look at the three basic laws of logic. First, the law of identity. This says that if a statement is true then it is true, and if a statement is false then it is false. In other words, A = A, and not non-A. It is like saying, ‘You are you and not anyone else.” It is a simple idea that tells us whatever we’re talking about is exactly what it is and not something else. It keeps things straightforward: if we call a banana a ‘banana,’ it’s not going to suddenly become an apple. It helps us know that what we see or talk about stays the same no matter what.

Next, the law of noncontradiction. This says, in the same context, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. A is never non-A. If a shelf is made totally of wood, then that same shelf cannot at the same time not be totally made of wood. Subjective truth can be true in one group and false in another. This is not the case with objective truth. Think about it like this: If you’re playing a game where you’re either “safe” or “out,” you can’t be both at the same time when you’re looking at the same play. If someone tries to say you’re both “safe” and “out,” it makes no sense. The Law of Non-Contradiction helps everyone agree that something is either one way or the other, not both, which keeps us from confusion.

And finally, the law of excluded middle. This is the idea that a statement is either true or false, with no other possible alternatives. It is either A or non-A. A shelf is either made totally of wood, or it is not made totally of wood. Something is either true or not true. There is no middle ground.

With this framework in place, let us look at how we are losing the idea of objective truth and replacing it with subjective truth. There are several things we can look at. First, let us start with the eighteenth century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel was instrumental in outlining in his philosophy of discovering truth the idea of shifting truth (my term, not his).  NOTE, It is not the purpose of this post to exhaustively explore this idea, however, there is an aspect that I believe began to push us further into the realm of relative truth, the concept of Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. The Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer in his book “The God Who is There” writes the following. It is somewhat long, but I believe very important.

“What Hegel taught arrived at just the right moment of history for his thinking to have its maximum effect.’ Imagine that Hegel was sitting one day in the local tavern, surrounded by his friends, conversing on the philosophical issues of the day. Suddenly, he put down his mug of beer on the table and said, ‘I have a new idea. From now on let us think in this way; instead of thinking in terms of cause and effect, what we really have is a thesis, and opposite it an antithesis, with the answer to their relationship not a horizontal movement of cause and effect, but the answer is always synthesis.’ Now suppose also a hard-headed German businessman had been standing by and overheard his remark. He might have thought, ‘How abstruse and impractical!’ But he could not have been further from the truth. Because whether Hegel himself or those listening understood it to be the case, when Hegel propounded this idea he changed the world. If one understands the development of philosophy, or morals, or political thought from that day to this, one knows that Hegel and synthesis have won. In other words, Hegel has removed the straight line of previous thought and in its place he has substituted a triangle. Instead of antithesis we have, as modern man’s approach to truth, synthesis.” Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There”, Page 13-14)

What Hegel was saying is that truth can be shifted or changed. Before Hegel, one person would advance a proposition, then another refutes it, either successfully or not. If successfully, then the original proposition is dropped. If not, then the refutation is ignored. But with Hegel, neither is dropped, but a compromise is reached.

As an example, our thesis statement might be “murder is a sin.” The antithesis of this statement is “murder is not a sin” Based on these two, the synthesis could be “some murder is sin.”

See how our original statement of truth, our original thesis has shifted to the synthesis that some, not all murder is sin? This process is repeated again and again, declaring a new thesis which is the previous synthesis, declaring a new antithesis and deriving a new synthesis until the final so-called truth is created,  in other words, a compromise. We can see this shift taking place in many parts of our culture. We have gone from abortion is wrong to abortion is a right. Reading the bible in school is acceptable, to reading the bible in school is offensive. Prayer in public is allowed to prayer in public is seriously frowned upon if not outlawed. And like our frog example above, it was gradual as well as covert and effective.

We also have the idea of “constructed truth.” This is the idea that they construct truth based on what they believe and are willing to accept. To them. truth is relative and not fixed, which means they construct their own truth. And because they believe truth is not absolute, everyone’s truth is completely valid. They claim no one knows anything with absolute surety. To them, truth is a matter of interpretation. This results in all ‘perceived’ truths being subject to being reinterpreted or deconstructed. Interpretations are based on social constructs and beliefs. For instance, upon conception, a new human comes into existence. This “zygote”, (a fertilized egg) has a complete set of genes which, if analyzed, show this to be a unique human being, different from both the mother and the father. This is objective truth. This zygote is a new human being. However, many believe this zygote, even to the point of becoming a fetus and before birth, is nothing but pregnancy tissue. It is not human, just tissue that can be removed. These are two so-called truths on the same issue. One objective, the other subjective. And they are trying to define this child as non-human until up to eighteen months after birth. And if this so-called pregnancy tissue is killed by someone other than by the mother while still in the womb, this is considered murder, while if the mother chooses to kill the baby, it is OK. Is the killing of this new life murder or not? To those who do not accept objective truth, it depends on what or who decides at the moment.

This shifting or reinventing of truth not only takes place in a universal scope, but also within the realms of groups, tribes, and societies. One group may choose to keep objective truth, while others may not approve of the old truth, and they create their own truth based on what they believe and is important to them. Truth becomes what they want it to be, not what it objectively is. Truth, at this point, becomes what you prefer, not what it is. With the elimination of any foundation for truth we end up in a world where the only truth that matters is our own truth. 

Also, these truth constructs are used to assert power and influence over others.  Many politicians will say whatever it takes to stay in power or get what they desire. Much of the news media will write anything that will support their own beliefs and causes or provide the revenue they require to continue in business. Note how Harry Reed and others who supported the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012 accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for ten years when there was evidence that he filed and paid his taxes for the last twenty years. Much of the news media pushed this distortion to the people through network news channels, radio and newspapers. It did not matter what evidence to the contrary was presented, what they declared truth was the important thing. (Note: These declarations are not limited to one political party, or to liberals or conservatives. Almost all do it, and it is wrong whenever it happens)

There is more I could say on this topic of the deconstruction of truth. However, my goal here is to present the idea that because of the removal of God as the foundation of all truth, and the standard setter of what truth actually is, we are left with a form of truth that is not objective, but something that can be created or changed at the whim of an individual or group. With no objective truth, we are left with preference as the arbiter of reality. And this same thing is happening within our churches and seminaries. It is especially sad because we have His truth in His written word and in Christ Himself. I have seen so many preachers on TV and in churches I have visited who preach a different gospel, claiming it as truth even though it is not found in the scriptures. This also is subjective truth and an abomination.

So, what do we as Christians do about this? We must be the ones who stand up for objective truth no matter what form it takes. We must be modern day Bereans.

“The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.” Acts 17:10-12.

We must thoroughly examine any truth claim and determine if it is indeed truth; objective truth that is true for everyone. And if we find it is not, then we must reject it completely and wholeheartedly. If human life begins at conception, then we must not accept, for any reason, the aborting of any unborn. If a politician promotes a policy or idea that goes against what is objectively true, we must reject it completely, even if we never disagreed with them before. We must be willing to stand for true truth, even if no one else stands with us. We must be vocal and visible in this support. If we stay silent on the distortion of truth, then we essentially assent to the distortion. All truth is God’s truth, and it is our job to stand up for all truth whether it be spiritual, scientific, political, cultural, or whatever. It may not be easy, but if we do not stand up and counter the deceit purported to be truth, then we will lose the battle. And if we do, we will find ourselves in a world where truth is determined by the preference of the powerful, influential, or the majority. Objective truth will be ignored, and those who disagree will need to choose between persecution and compromise. I choose to stand strong and accept persecution rather than compromise and fit in. For what I will actually be compromising is the truth and justice of God. And that I will never do.