Truth as Both Emperic and Gnostic
An Answer to J.J. Dewey and His Band

From: "Ridenhour, Linda " <RidenhourL@umkc.edu>
To: <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 12:19 PM
Subject: Truth as Empirical & Gnostic

Sterling, 

Lynn here. You write in a recent post...

 -------------- 

This attitude of repugnance toward and absolute lack of understanding or appreciation for the atonement of Jesus Christ is part of what keeps me having such strong reservations about J.J. This Xavier is in no regard alone in his contempt for the Christ of Christianity. Why do such people feel at home on J.J.'s list? That, to me is a major red flag.

--------------- 

Just a brief observation. Here are some of my hunches. (BTW, excellent post on the Atonement & Blood of Christ!).

One of the struggles you're perhaps feeling with so many of JJ's subscribers is: a difference in criteria for determining Truth's certitude. For example, I believe I would be safe in saying that the majority of JJ's subscribers (perhaps JJ himself) approach Truth as relative. That is, Truth comes from within.

You're saying, however, not only does Truth come from within; it comes from without; i.e., the historical fact of Calvary, Christ's atonement and His shedding of blood. That assumes Truth is absolute. Your position-if I'm reading your posts correctly-says subjective truth is first of all grounded in objectivity-i.e., historical events.

There's the rub, I believe. It's my hunch, most of JJ's subscribers do not embrace absolute Truth. Truth as empirical evidence. Truth as history. Their epistemological fountainhead says-Truth is primarily relative.

It's the old ontological argument-is Truth relative or absolute? Or both? And if both-which flows from which? Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

I believe, you're saying "true" Truth is both absolute and relative. And one follows the other. One flows out of the other. Subjective truth flows from historical events. I believe, most of JJ's subscribers are saying "truth" Truth does not need to flow out of absolute Truth. Does not need to flow from history. It can be primarily relative and existential.

I believe authentic Christianity, on the other hand, takes the epistemological position that "true" Truth flows from the objective to the subjective. For instance, the Holy Spirit (subjective Truth) stamps the reality of Christ's substitutionary death at Calvary (objective Truth) upon our hearts. And that direction of flow is always from: objective to subjective. From absolute to relative. From Christ's Atonement to the Holy Spirit within.

I believe herein lies the epistemological lynchpin. If Truth is primarily relative, (and not absolute) what is our criteria for determining certitude? We cannot say-from within, for, ultimately, how do we even know we exist? The epistemological black hole gets mighty deep.

I believe JJ and many on his list are overreacting against Truth presented as absolute. Fundamentalist Christianity makes that mistake, you know. It buries its head in the sands of history and asks us to embrace historical facts as spirituality. It asks us to "believe the Bible"-meaning, the facts of the Bible. That's the same mistake the Pharisees made regarding Moses. Fundamentalism lacks the subjective side and expression of Truth.

Existential Christianity, on the other hand, swings the pendulum too far. It buries its face in the sands of the gnosis without any regard to absolute truth, and tends to look down on us "Bible thumpers" who do believe religion may embrace the empirical. That's a knee-jerk reaction.

I have no way of knowing if JJ's writings are intentionally "European" or not, but he sure sounds like the old prominent European thinkers: i.e., Tillich, Bultmann, Heidegger, and Sarte. His theology is flavored with the "Death of God" theology of the '60s introduced here in the U.S. by the above thinkers. They're not saying, of course, that God is dead; they're saying that our traditional way of approaching God is dead. For instance, the European thinkers incorporate what I call the "two-story leap of faith" into their theology. So does JJ. On the bottom story is absolute truth, cognitive religion & language, history, facts and empirical evidence. In the upper story is relative truth,

religious faith and language, myth and symbols. The two realms need never meet. In the traditional [Biblical] approach, the two realms always meet and always interchange. Example: I believe in angels without having to make an "upper-story leap of faith." I believe in their actual existence and their spiritual ministry. According to Tillich, Bultmann, Heidegger, Sarte (and JJ) the two stories are not related and do not necessarily interplay. One can, for example, attribute the resurrection of Christ (or angels) to "upper story faith," and deny its historicity. According to European thinking, that's ok. That's not a contradiction but a strange synergism. With this type of thinking, you can even be an atheist and be religious. In the realm of fact and history, you do not have to believe in the existence of God; in the upper story of faith and symbol and religious language, at the same time you could be a priest. Contradiction? Not according to Tillich, Bultmann, and most European thinkers. Truth to them is not an antithesis, but a synthesis. Two opposing truths come together and create a new "existential" truth. (Reminds me of JJ's writings.)

Where does all this leave us? Religion is reduced to the realm of human speculation and interpretation. Example: After a heated exchange, someone always brings up the point, "...but that's just your interpretation..." Meaning--don't be so narrow minded?! How dare you push your views. Problem: when you divorce "true" truth from all absolutes, you end up with the epistemological cat chasing its tail. For instance, if my interpretation is wrong because it's my interpretation, then your opinion of my interpretation is wrong because it's your opinion. And if my opinion of your opinion of my interpretation is wrong because it's my opinion of your opinion, then... See what I mean? The cat is chasing its tail. Invalid paradigm. The New Age paradigm-all truth is relative-self-destructs. And the abyss is deep.

I guess I am saying, biblical Christianity (if I can use the term) presents the God WHO IS THERE who acts in history. And we discover God through the empirical as well as the gnosis. Through history as well as the Holy Spirit. Through absolute and relative truth. Through the objective as well as the subjective.

There is no two-story leap of faith requiring that fact and faith-object and subject--no longer meet and interchange. There is no strange synthesis of truth needed.

Sterling, your criteria for determining certitude is based, I believe, on the historical event of Calvary that's been quickened to your spirit. To you, Truth is both empirical and gnostic.

I would be safe in saying-that's a different paradigm from most of the subscribers on JJ's list.

Anyway, that's my hunch.

Lynn