“Truth” is Tricky
If vertical learning requires reading widely and hearing ideas that conflict with my own then Matthew Petrusek’s book, Evangelization and Ideology, helped me grow like a weed this week. Maybe that’s an over-exaggeration. There were times I thought, “Great point, I could see that”, then other times I thought: “Hmm, that seems condescending and a bit presumptuous.” After thinking about it, most of my issues with this book, and many religious leaders and thinkers in general, is epistemology. This is one of those big, academic, philosophical words that essentially means, “How do we know what we know?” and “How sure should we be of what we know?”
This book is long, so I didn’t have the capacity or time to pick through it with a fine tooth comb, which inevitably means I could have missed some points of clarification. What I did notice as a reader engaging with a book about bringing “truth” to the world, was that for me at least, a simple acknowledgment like, “I am Catholic which means I hold a certain view of the world based on my Roman Catholic tradition”, goes a long way. Instead, although he shows his cards, I felt like he was assuming his views, theology, and moral framework were ultimately the right ones. He states, “Some truths are fixed. They are permanent, immutable, eternal. They cannot not be… The Catholic social thought tradition is made up of those truths (and for those who scoff at the idea of ‘truth,’ ask them if they believe that the claim ‘there is no universal objective truth’ is true.)”[i]
When it comes to epistemology or what we can know and how can we know it, I agree with Matthew on some points. There is a prevailing Western assumption that knowledge can only be gained through the senses, or that “only scientific knowledge is meaningful knowledge.”[ii] I think philosophy and reasoning, as well as anecdotal stories that meet certain criteria, are just as valuable as the scientific method in understanding our universe and pursuing the big questions. However, when it comes to theology, religious doctrines, historical reconstruction, and many scientific theories the best we can do is work in probabilities based on a combination of observable evidence, philosophy/reason, claims our holy books and traditions make, historical sources, and collective human experience.
“Truth is Tricky” for several reasons:
–Feelings and passion do not always determine “truth”. (Hitler spoke with great conviction to annihilate the weak)[iii]
-Reason, IQ, and persuasive arguments do not always determine “truth”. (Leaning on Jonathan Haidt here, who argues that IQ determines how well you can argue what you already believe NOT what reflects reality)[iv]
-The moral/religious majority does not always determine “truth”. (Galileo, Charles Darwin, Julius Wellhausen, Wilberforce)[v]
-Our experiences do not always determine “truth”. (Religious or spiritual experiences do not confirm all of our religious doctrines, but may happen despite them)[vi]
-Religious orthodoxy does not always determine “truth”. (The Reformation, The Great Schism, The Enlightenment)[vii]
-Conventional wisdom does not always determine “truth”. (This varies from generation to generation and from one culture to another)[viii]
-Interpretations of our Scriptures do not always determine “truth”. (Thousands of Christian denominations and counting)[ix]
Kathyrn Schultz, in Being Wrong, gives humans a large margin of error based on our track record. I am not saying beliefs are not important or that seeking the truth is futile.[x] I’ve spent a lot of time, money, and travel miles seeking truth. I am suggesting that when it comes to theology, science, morals, doctrines, eschatology, politics, and reconstructing history the best we can do is work in probabilities, make room for complexity and exceptions, and leave room for error in even our most sacred belief systems. Anything other than that is unwise.
When it comes to engaging others who hold different views, I agree with Petrusek who says, “You can run. You can submit. You can bloody your knuckles. Or you can craft a better argument and make your case boldly.”[xi] I think we must stand for our convictions and make our cases boldly, while paradoxically admitting our biases, unique backgrounds, theological assumptions, and moral frameworks. Otherwise, we will come across to others as condescending and dismissive which is what I perceived at times in this book. This does not help in our cause to engage the culture with our Christian convictions. Many do not like the post-modern idea that truth is relative or subjective but we are at a point when we have the tools and resources to critically asses human history’s shifting belief systems and assumptions from 30,000 feet to identify trends.
Steven Hassan, a professor of psychology at Stanford University and ex-member of the Moonies, which he describes as a destructive cult, now rescues people from destructive organizations and aids in deprograming cult followers from indoctrination. His book Combating Cult Mind Control identifies characteristics of destructive cults that come dangerously close to what happens in major religions, science communities, political parties, and denominations at times. When he discusses the doctrine of dangerous cults, he lists characteristics that are usually present: black and white thinking, all or nothing categorizations, claiming beliefs as facts, simplistic, and “us versus them” mentalities.[xii] They are conditioned to believe that anything someone says that is outside of their belief system is considered dangerous, deceptive, and persecution which immediately shuts down further engagement keeping them locked into their belief system. This sounds all too familiar.
It is a fascinating read and I am not saying Protestantism (my faith tradition), Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, etc. are cults but it would be easy for any of us to fall into this type of dualistic mentality using our religious tradition as reinforcement. Once again, our faith traditions have complex histories. I loved Petrusek’s statement about those who might be black and white when it comes to immigration policy, “Absolutely sure you know what immigration policy should be? Get to know someone who left his friends, family, home, and lucrative career in Mexico to escape, in the middle of the night, from regional cartel thugs who were seeking to punish him and his family because he refused to be bribed.”[xiii]
How do we distinguish truth?
I’ll share wisdom from Matthew’s Gospel on this one: 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
When it comes to policies, traditions, doctrines, rituals, methods, philosophies, belief systems, etc. what fruit is it or they producing? This begs the next incredibly important question: How do we define “fruit” as followers of Jesus?
[i] Petrusek, Matthew R. Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. Park Ridge, IL: published by the Word on Fire Institute, an imprint of Word on Fire, 2023. 449.
[ii] Petrusek, Evangelization, 24.
[iii] Metaxas, Eric, and Timothy Keller. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. Revised and Updated. Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Books, an imprint of Thomas Nelson, 2020. 354
[iv] Haidt, Jonathan, ed. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. 1. Vintage books ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2013.
[v] Holland, Tom. Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind. London: ABACUS, 2020.
[vi] James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. North Charleston, South Carolina: CreateSpace.
[vii] Holland, Dominion, 373.
[viii] Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Joel Weinsheimer, and Donald G. Marshall. Truth and Method. The Bloomsbury Revelations Series. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
[ix] Mead, Frank S., Samuel S. Hill, and Craig D. Atwood. Handbook of Denominations in the United States. 11th ed. / revised by Craig D. Atwood. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
[x] Schulz, Kathryn. Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. First Ecco Paperback edition. New York: Ecco, 2011.
[xi] Petrusek, Evangelization,39.
[xii] Hassan, Steven. Combating Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-Selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults. (Newton, MA: Freedom of Mind Press, 2015), 186.
[xiii] Petrusek, Evangelization,450.
About the Author
Adam Harris
I am currently the Associate Pastor at a church called Godwhy in Hendersonville, TN near Nashville. We love questions and love people even more. Our faith community embraces God and education wholeheartedly. I graduated from Oral Roberts University for undergrad and Vanderbilt for my masters. I teach historical critical Biblical studies at my church to help our community through their questions and ultimately deepen their faith. I love research, writing, learning, and teaching. I oversee our staff and leadership development. Before being at Godwhy I worked as a regional sales coach and director for Anytime Fitness. I've been married for over 13 years to my best friend and we have two amazing boys that keep us busy.12 responses to ““Truth” is Tricky”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Adam,
First off, before I ever read your post I looked at your footnotes. Wow! I need to up my game. I am curious about how many of your references are from your readings for you NPO?
I love the wisdom of your words,
“…the best we can do is work in probabilities, make room for complexity and exceptions, and leave room for error in even our most sacred belief systems. Anything other than that is unwise.”
“I think we must stand for our convictions and make our cases boldly, while paradoxically admitting our biases, unique backgrounds, theological assumptions, and moral frameworks.”
Regarding black and white thinking…
“…it would be easy for any of us to fall into this type of dualistic mentality using our religious tradition as reinforcement. Once again, our faith traditions have complex histories.”
Thank you for your succinct statements, wisdom, and the Hassan book recommendation!
Your final question is important. I can only offer a few more questions in response. Does the fruit point me to Jesus or away from Him? Does the fruit move me to love my neighbor?
Thanks Jenny! Most of these books I’ve read over the years, some I’ve used for my NPO and others came to mind while writing this. This is a subject (epistemology) that is near and dear to my heart! I would agree, “Is it moving us toward Jesus and his heart which is love for neighbor?”
I’m finishing up Tom Holland’s book right now Dominion and it is a wonderful read. He is very honest about the beautiful and dark sides of Western Christian history. One of the things that stands out is how many people, including whole villages were killed due to them “not believing the right orthodoxy.” This means the people killing them DID hold the “right orthodoxy” and this belief system did nothing to nurture the heart of Christ in them for their neighbours. That’s why truth is complicated. Thanks for the response!
Adam, I had a few extra minutes at this coffee shop to read a few blogs of people farther along than me. So, I came across yours. It makes me look forward to some future reading and discussions. I used to see the world all in black and white. Right vs. wrong. Guess which side I was always on? Then, I started to see grey. This doesn’t mean that grey is wishy-washy and uncommited, but rather it is black and white that make grey. You can’t have grey without both. I find myself often in this area.
The other Adam!! Hey man, I appreciate you cross examining other cohorts, I do that myself from time to time. Seeing you respond was a pleasant surprise. Hope all is going well in your first year!
As far as the posts, this subject (epistemology) is one that makes me think and calls my “knowing” into question. I’m sure you’ve heard Jason say, “As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.” I constantly feel like I don’t know on some subjects and that grey is the wisest route. Thanks again for the response. God speed!
Okay, so you were so much more eloquent, intellectual, and well-reasoned in your disagreement with Petrusek than I was. Dangit, this guy made me angry and my anger showed forth in my blog post! Anyway, thank you for pointing out what I just couldn’t seem to articulate – that “a simple acknowledgment like, “I am Catholic which means I hold a certain view of the world based on my Roman Catholic tradition”, goes a long way.”‘ I was able to say that he thought his way was the only right way but I couldn’t find the postivie way he could have worded it.
You also point out, “How do we distinguish truth?” or who gets to define what “fruit” is. This is where I think I struggled the most with Petrusek. He seemed to believe he held the “truth” and anyone who might disagree with him was wrong. He claims to be a Christian as do I, yet I did not agree with one thing I read in that book (granted, I only inspectionally read it). So, who gets to claim Christianity here?
Thank you Adam for articulating what I could not.
Ha, I had several emotions myself! I’m grateful we read Annabel Beerel’s book last week because, I truly did think “Alright, here we go, speaking of “reading widely” and getting “exposure to other worldviews”, which I really don’t have a problem with and try to do, it was more how he went about it throughout the book and the tone I was picking up, which now I’m realizing, I was not the only one. I also watched some of his videos online and that didn’t help.
Just some acknowledgment would have gone a long way. As a book dealing with “engaging culture”, I would have assumed it would have had a different approach and tone to it. Thanks for the response, I’m going to head over and read your blog now!
Hi Adam,
I so missed this, “I loved Petrusek’s statement about those who might be black and white when it comes to immigration policy, “Absolutely sure you know what immigration policy should be? Get to know someone who left his friends, family, home, and lucrative career in Mexico to escape, in the middle of the night, from regional cartel thugs who were seeking to punish him and his family because he refused to be bribed.”[xiii]”
Thanks for pointing this out to me. I will head back into Petrusek!
Hopefully I will be able to put a “HUMAN FACE” on the immigration issue for my symposium.
Selah…
Glad I could point that out, I have to say, as soon as I read that part I thought about YOU! You have become associated with immigration in my mind. Love your passion and heart to meet this need in the world. I did appreciate this challenge to talk with people while crafting our ideologies and ideas regarding policies.
Adam I think you were able to articulate something I was scratching the surface of. It’s not that I disagreed with all of Petrusek’s ideas, but that it was hard to work through them because of a lack of humility.
Pastor Jack Hayford used to teach “Nobody has a corner on the truth” and while he had strong opinions he left room for the possibility that he or anyone hadn’t figured it all out.
Somewhere we can boldly argue “for this reason, this is why I strongly believe the world should work this way” but with open hands that there is always more to learn, even learning where we may be wrong in our rationale. I thought Petrusek missed the mark on that.
Couldn’t agree more Tim, I love that Jack held that Spirit and mindset and I know you do as well. I don’t think that approach diminishes our personal convictions or values in the least, but opens up way better dialogue between people. It’s the whole “as our island of knowledge grows, so does our shore of ignorance”. Yes, there is always more to learn. Finding that out in this program and I love it!
Adam,
You are a guru of research and reading. I am thankful for your friendship and wisdom. I don’t have more questions for you, just want to say Thank you!
Ahh, I am thankful for our friendship as well! I’m just curious by nature, I spent years trying to find “the absolute correct” way to see things to no avail and had a paradigm shift along the way.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Jesus talking to the woman at the well who says there will come a day when we will “worship in Spirit and in truth”. I think the Spirit is mentioned first on purpose. Catch the Spirit of Christ and it will guide all of our “truths”. Prioritize our “truths” and it will put the Spirit of Christ in the backseat every time. Christian history proves this over and over again.