r u ABSOLUTELY sure?

In the previous blog on Faith & Consequences I discussed the consequences of what we believe to be true because of our faith. What we trust to be true guides our actions in most every way. The BIG questions around truth (and thus faith) are these:
is there an absolute truth or ONE truth that trumps all other perspectives of fact? And if there is, then how do i find it?

I began the discussion on absolute truth by framing the question this way:
   
if truth is relative and thereby any person's truth is just as valid as another's, then must we see our enemies as morally equivalent?


Star Wars has made popular an ageless idea of the battles of good and evil. Where does the notion that something is good and something is evil come from? The writer of the story knows, but why is his view right? Maybe war is only the struggle for power and dominance and has no moral imperative. For if everyone's perception of fact is equally valid, no one has a right to defeat another for the sake of bringing them into subjection to truth.

Religious wars would have been purposeless except to subordinate one group to another. While the idea that others should respect my truth as equally valid as theirs feels right, the logical conclusion of this position does not seem to square with the universal desire people have to seek moral superiority. All people know down in their hearts that Nazi Germany, Islamic terrorists, and African genocides are not right, Everyone throughout history has sought to be right and correct the wrongs of their world. If truth were relative and based on what a person perceives it to be, then the quest for "right" is worthless because "being right" is simply what that person believes it to be The virtue of tolerance has been hijacked by many in our culture to mean moral equivalency, but it really means that we each should respect the right for others to hold to separate beliefs, not that we accept their truth as valid.

The fact that anyone would absolutely believe that truth is relative has violated the notion that there is no absolute truth.  

Now, how do we find THE ONE TRUTH about anything? Here are a few ideas I'd like to share with you to ponder.

While anything that is rational is not absolute truth, absolute truth must be rational. "An eye for an eye" is a rational way to respond to being violated or harmed. It has a rationale actually based in justice, getting what you deserve. However, we have found that revenge is not the best way to resolve offense. It is a downward spiral of destruction. reconciliation based on forgiveness is a rational way to deal with offense that results in healing and restoration and betterment for all involved.

One way to see the difference between the rationale of truth vs. truth is rational is the fact that absolute truth deals with what's right in the "big picture" vs. a narrow or limited perspective. The "picture" is big when long periods of time and a broad view of impacts are considered. Stealing money to meet an immediate need is rational, but stealing has negative affects on the person who loses what's stolen. In addition, the person who steals has taken a path to meeting their own needs that does not solve their problem long term and ignores the benefits to them and others that may come from receiving help from others. Thus, the notion that stealing is wrong has a rational based in the "big picture."

Another perspective on the difference between the rationale of truth vs truth is rational deals with the difference between practical and principled decisions. For example, China saw abortion as a rational way to control population. In the US abortion is considered "right" because it gives a woman more control in her circumstances. Both rationales are based on what is a practical solution to an existential problem. The principled approach to abortion would be to see that the unborn child is a life and that society must protect the life of all people, especially those that are vulnerable and cannot protect themselves. Seeing the principle as true has a rationale that the respect for life has a significant positive implication on the overall satisfaction of a society across time.

To discover what is true, you must expose the idols or counterfeits for truth that you have chosen to worship. If Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe God alone is worthy to be worshiped, why are so many of all faiths devoted to the idols of power, hatred, judgmentalism, pleasure, comfort, safety, performance, etc.?   Human nature has a tendency to put affection toward something that can deliver gratification in some area of life, but fails to satisfy or destroys the overall satisfaction of the soul. When you select something to be true that does not work in harmony across all facets of life satisfaction then you have affection for something that is not absolute truth.

One mistake we make in trying to find truth is to think that if we get enough knowledge, then we do not have to have faith. In many ways seeking knowledge can be helpful because we gain more perspective on the 'big picture", but the quest for knowledge can be a pride thing, a desire to trust ourselves and not trusting the author of absolute truth. We should accept that we will not be an expert in everything. A juror does not become an expert to judge what is true in a court case. Rather a juror must depend on testimonies of experts and eye witnesses when discerning what is true about a case. This would be a helpful model for us, seeking knowledge but also respecting its limits while trusting the testimonies of others who have perspective on truth.

These are just some helpful hints to finding absolute truth. If there were a pill you could take to find truth, everyone would come to the same conclusion on truth. The absolute truth about absolute truth is that you will ultimately have to rely on faith, not irrational, blind assumptions, but trust in something or someone whose rationale incorporates the "big picture" and works completely for the satisfaction of the whole soul.

At least it is ....

Faith & Consequences

Western Civilization has seen in the past 15 years what Islamic Jihad looks like up close and personally. At some level you have to at least take notice, if not admire, the commitment to their beliefs, Suicide missions involve giving your all. The question this raises for us westerners is not

"why don't we have the faith in our faith like the Jihadist do?", but rather "isn't the target of our faith really the factor in the consequences of our faith?"


Each serious person of faith starts with a sincere need for their life to have a positive impact on the world around them. However, the myth that sends us down the wrong stream of conscientiousness is that our sincerity is the most important aspect of the impact of our faith. It is true that commitment does increase the intensity of our effort and the direction of our behavior. BUT, in reality the aspect of faith that matters most to the consequences is the validity of our faith.

Historic Jesus tells us that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains. In context of His narrative, He is contrasting quantity with object of faith. If you and a friend came to a river and needed to cross to the other side, your experience would not be determined by how much you believed the river was shallow enough to cross. Rather whether the actual depth was passable would determine your fate.

The next myth concerning faith & consequences is whether truth is relative or absolute. The definition of truth is 'perceived fact of reality'. Absolute truth removes the notion of 'perceived'. If truth were relative, then sincerity would be the only measure by which we could judge truth. The logical extension of that would be that the Islamic Jihad is just as valid as anyone else's morality. We would have to accept their claim of jihad because they sincerely believed it, and along with this, the consequences.

More evidence that truth must be absolute is found in the practice of navigation. Anyone trying to move about the globe in any direction must know where north is and trust the compass to signify north. The virtue of tolerance has "tricked" society into believing that truth is not absolute, yet the civilized world is not willing to accept moral equivalency of Islamic Jihad, nor will they travel without a compass. This is a major contradiction in worldviews that leaves individuals and communities in chaos.

One aspect of absolute truth that forces many people back into relativism is 'who's truth is the one that counts?' In the face of having to 'pick one', culture forces people back into the virtue of tolerance - and round we go, opening ourselves up to legitimizing any faith, regardless of its consequences.

There must be a way to determine absolute truth. We can get a hint about finding truth from jurors. They are not the experts or the eye witnesses, they must listen to experts and eye witnesses with humility and a yearning for the truth. However, their judgment is ultimately on who they trust, not what they know. There is NEVER enough physical evidence to PROVE what is true. There are more tips on faith, but that's another blog. For now it is just

Lessons from an orphan girl

While your social identity helps you form a sense of belonging, your personal identity is how you see yourself and the image you project to others. Here’s a simple story to illustrate personal identity and how it works within people’s perspective of what is true about themselves.

Once there was an orphan girl who lived in the slums of the city. She felt abandoned, was alone and had to find ways to feed and clothe herself from the garbage heaps around the town. One day the rich man who lived in the mansion on top of the hill above the city was moved with compassion for the orphan girl and chose to adopt her. Thus, she came to live with him in the mansion on top of the hill above the city. She had access to all new clothes and could feast at the rich man’s banquet table. However, while the girl knew she was adopted, she still felt like an orphan. She identified more with the street people than as a child of the rich man. She was more comfortable in the slums because she still saw herself as destitute. Instead of receiving the provisions and privileges of her new father, daily she would go back down into the city and look for food and clothes in the garbage. Although she had been given a new identity, she still viewed herself as an orphan.

So, here's a little test question, why do you think the girl could not feel, think and act as an adopted child of the kind rich man?

A.      She felt she did not deserve such favor from the rich man

B.      While she knew her new life was better, she felt more comfortable with her old life

C.      She saw her adoption as an obligation to the rich man rather than a privilege

D.      She desired to hang onto her old life rather than to receive the love of her new father
E.   She felt shame because she believes receiving gifts from the rich man is not fair to other orphans.

If you selected A, then your worldview may align with this perspective. Often we feel we do not deserve the good things that come our way, especially if we do not feel we earned them. Its amazing how humans have the tendency to feel guilty about good things happening in their life because they do not feel worthy of such favor.

If you selected B, then your worldview may align with this perspective.  Even when something new may be better for us, there is a natural tendency to stay with what we are comfortable. The certainty of our past provides us with a sense of security and comfort, even if the reality of our past suggests we really are not. Often what we know to be true does not motivate us as much as what we feel to be true.

If you selected C, then your worldview may align with this perspective. While the rich man wanted her to enjoy the blessings of being his child, she focused more on how her adoption would make her obligated to the rich man. Being indebted can seem to rob us of our freedom but as we see in this story, rejecting her adoption kept her from receiving his extravagant provisions. While it may be obvious to an outside observer that she would benefit greatly from the adoption, her view of the slums was more freeing to her. 
  . 

If you selected D, then your worldview may align with this perspective. We can sometimes receive love and kindness from someone and not be drawn to them by a thankful heart. This can happen when we focus more on what we left behind or stay stuck in the self pity we had grown accustomed to. Often we are not thankful for what someone does for us because we are cynical of their motive and do not want to be obligated to them. Sometimes it is our pride of self sufficiency that keeps us apart from a father who wants to serve us. Any of these could be reasons the girl could not accept the generosity of her adoption.

If you selected E, then your worldview may align with this perspective. You can feel that receiving from a rich man when other orphans do not is wrong. This likely means that you see total resources as limited or fixed and so when you receive something good then someone else will have less. Many people with this worldview can feel shame or guilt when they receive more favor than others. The shame or guilt can make you feel like an outcast rather than to feel blessed by the generosity of someone who wishes to share their wealth with you.

The orphan girl’s identity or perception of herself apparently did not change just because she was adopted. Something stood between her old identity and the reality of her new one. This is a simple story, but has profound wisdom for you. Like the girl, you too have a story and from your story you receive a self image, but is it true or is it shaped by circumstances that create a false sense of identity? Like the girl in this story, one of your challenges is whether you have the view of your identity that is your true self. Exploring your personal identity and how it shapes your worldview and vice versa is a worthwhile exercise.

What you will find is that the obstacles we have from living in the fullness of provisions and privileges of our Heavenly Father is likely revealed in how we answered the question from the story of the orphan girl. For we too are spiritual orphans who have been adopted by the rich man who lives in a mansion on top of the hill.

   

"He married my daughter"

OK, you may ask, "are you talking about your son-in-law or the pastor who conducted the wedding?" Good question, with only that information you are left to determine the point of the statement from your predisposed notion of who I might be talking about. This orientation to make sense of something a certain way is called your worldview.

To see more clearly you need more information. This is called "context". Within what larger frame of reference did I make this statement? What was the major point I wish you to know?

I could give you his name, but if you didn't know from his name whether he was my son-in-law or the one who conducted the wedding, you would still have to infer from your orientation which person I was talking about.

I could give you information about the person in addition to his name. But again, if the information did not explicitly reference this person in a way that provided you understanding without the need for your orientation to be active, then your worldview is still instrumental in knowing the truth with certainty who I was talking about.

Such it is with reading the Bible. The Bible tells stories about God's story. Often it is not obvious who the characters are, especially in Jesus' parables. Our core assumptions (worldview) about God, the world and ourselves tend to affect how we discern truth from the story.

See, the point of this blog is that its not God's truth that is ambiguous or transitory from situation to situation and person to person, its the flawed orientations or worldviews from which we try to discern truth that causes us to disagree in dogmatism or assume truth is relative.

Which worldview is best?

There is so much going on these days about competing worldviews. I have published a few blogs on this like my grandson's experience at The Summit. Christian apologists have made it their career to discuss and publish perspectives on worldview and these approaches take several different forms, but mainly stay on theological and philosophical tracks, such as origin of the Universe, is there a God, purpose of life, etc.

I too think worldview is very important because it is simply the orientations we have that cause us to think, feel, and act in the way we do. Most people want to do what is right, but how do we determine what right is? However, I have taken a more fundamental approach. I have explored core assumptions that people have from which all of their sense-making is derived. Core beliefs are more fundamental than practice oriented beliefs, such as culture, and the system of beliefs that explain the material and invisible world. In fact, I believe worldview is so fundamental that there are only two, one from the carnal mind and one from the Kingdom mind. The carnal mind is the core assumption that my happiness is the result of successfully exchanging with the world around me, the norm of reciprocity. The result is an obsession with justice, reward systems and punishment. The Kingdom mind is the core assumption that God has given me unmerited favor and that I must simply receive what he has done in faith. My motivation is to receive and reflect, not pursue and produce. Its His glory that matters, not outcomes of my actions. The result is a life of thanksgiving. The focus is on the reward giver, his nature and his purposes.

Let's illustrate how this works.

When you hear the word "LAW", what do you think, feel, and do? Does "law" mean to you a rule to control your actions by declaring offense when you violate its conditions?  Or does "law" mean to you a ruler to inform you that your actions are off target and that outcomes of these actions will not be the best for you. The carnal mind automatically orients our thoughts and feelings to the former. Thus, law is a form of bondage since reward and punishment are related to what we do. The later orientation is the kingdom mind. Law is given to us by God to show us first that exchange is not His plan but more importantly how the Kingdom works so we can experience the privileges and provisions of The Heavenlies.

The Gospels are full of stories Jesus tells to explain The Kingdom. Some are difficult to grasp, but mainly they are difficult when we see them through the lenses of exchange (carnal mind). Here's one of the tough ones. Peter asks Jesus about how many times he should forgive his brother's offenses against him. The Jewish law claimed we must forgive offenses made against us 3 times. Peter offers more than twice as much, SEVEN. Peter's view of the law as a rule is the context for his question. Peter is trying to gain favor with Jesus (context of this passage) so he presents a better exchange, Jesus responds with a story in which He starts by saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king.." Then the story goes like this:

As the king was settling accounts with his servants, one was brought to him that had a debt that was impossible to pay. The master was going to sell him and his family into slavery to settle the debt but the servant pleaded for mercy and patience. the servant swore to ultimately pay back the king but the debt was too big to ever be repaid. Out of his heart for the servant, the king forgave the debt and sent him on his way a free man. The free servant immediately went to one who owed him a much smaller debt and demanded payment. When the debtor of this servant could not pay the debt, the servant had the one indebted to him cast into prison. When the king heard of this, he summoned the servant to him, scolded him because of the servant's response to the king's forgiveness, and delivered him to prison until he could pay his debt in full (which was never).

Jesus concludes the story with these words, "So my Heavenly Father will do to everyone of you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

If we approach understanding this story about the Kingdom with a carnal worldview (exchange), we will conclude that God demands us to forgive according to His expectations (the law) or he punish us. After all, that is justice. If we approach this story with a Kingdom mind, we will hear God's heart for us. The law of forgiveness is like a ruler that informs us that since we have been forgiven much, we have God's provision to forgive others, which is btw, a much smaller debt. The point is NOT - if we disobey God, He will cast us away. But rather if we live outside His design, we will forever be in bondage to exchange. How we grasp God depends on which one of the two worldviews we hold.

This is also illustrated by the servant in the story. He made sense of the king's action with a carnal worldview. His actions show that he thought he could maybe appease the king if he could repay him some of what he owed and so he treated others for his own purposes of exchange. This action stood in stark contrast to the absence of thanksgiving. Implied in Jesus's story is that the provision of Grace is a thankful heart, ready to forgive offenses others have made against us. In fact, Jesus' lesson on forgiveness is that the law of forgiveness is not a quantity of times to forgive others but a heart that sees actions of others as no offense at all, given the Grace we have received from THE KING. The Kingdom bias is the source of all things, not the outcome of things.

Does it really matter?

These are not questions you probably think about on a daily basis. They are not what you ask your friends about in social settings. They may be questions you have never even thought about. So when I set them in front of you for consideration, your tendency maybe to think, "I really don't care." You may conclude it doesn't really matter.

 You may think they are really deep and require too much thought. You most likely have not considered the implications for you of how you answer these questions. However, these may be questions that matter the most to you across your life.

Let's take a minute and explore these questions and why you answers should matter to you.

If you have decided that you will use your experiences to conclude what is true, then you are likely to answer the first question "yes." This means that what you believe about people in general and yourself in particular is a result of how you have observed other people and how they have made you feel about yourself. A good example is your self esteem, which is your belief of your own value or importance. If you have been successful in acquiring material wealth and power and people have told you how good you are, then you probably believe you are pretty important. Of course, the opposite would be true if you had been mainly a failure and not received well by other people. This is just one of many, many beliefs you have that come from how you have observed the world around you and how those experiences have made you feel. You have beliefs about the origin of the universe, about God, about authority, about family, about education and on and on based on what you personally have experienced. The obvious and ultimate conclusion you must reach if you answer the first question yes is that there is no absolute truth. Since truth is determined from our experience, we each have our own version of what is true, what is right and what is wrong.

If you answer the second question yes, then you have decided that there are absolute truths that exist before and beyond your personal experience. In this case you will work to gain more and more knowledge so you can find what is true. Once you have truth, you then perceive and interpret situations in life through the lenses of what is true. Back to example of self esteem. If you answer the second question positively, then you believe that you am important or not regardless of what your experience may suggest. That is, if you believe you are important because God says so, then when you fail and others reject you, it does not affect your self esteem. Similarly with the other areas you have beliefs. If you stand on what you believe and try to understand what just happened through the lenses of your beliefs, you will think, feel, and act differently than if you answered the first question positively.

If the first question is where you stand, then you have resolved the question  "how do I determine truth?" If you answered the second question positively, you have answered the question "is there absolute truth?" but you must resolve the question "how do i know what is true?' This requires faith. In other words, what you settle on as absolute truth will be a result of believing something that you cannot prove.

Many believe that if they take the position that truth is relative to what they believe through experience then they do not need faith. The truth is that answering the first question yes and the second no is having faith in the fact that truth is relative and based on perspective.

Now, if you answer both questions "yes" or both questions "no", you are basically confused and not sure what you believe. These questions are mutually exclusive and demand that you decide. Not making the effort to resolve this is believing you can just float around independent of the effects of truth in your journey and destination. It is kinda like the common statement, "if you don;t know where you are going, then any path will get you there."

    

How do you see the King?

Here's a story that contains a truth that the story teller wishes for you to know.

Once there was a king who owned much land. One day he needed some men to work his land. So he sends his foreman out at 6am in the morning and hires some workers promising a full day’s pay. These workers gladly agreed and worked the full day producing 12 hours of harvest. The king wanted more so he sends out his foreman at 12 noon and hired additional workers. These workers gladly worked producing what they could in 6 hours. Wishing to have more, the landowner again sends his foreman out at 3pm to get workers. More people are hired and gladly work til 6 producing what they can in 3 hours. <move video from speaker to pic below and continue saying> Now when all the workers returned to the King, he pays each worker a full day’s wage. The workers who had worked 12 hours became disgruntled with their reward and left dissatisfied with the King for he had paid the workers who worked only 6 and 3 hours the same as they had received. The King asked, ‘why are you upset with me, cannot the King choose and reward His workers as He pleases?

This is a simple story but provides some really good insights into your worldview, that is, how you make sense of situations. Take a few minutes to explore what truth this story wishes to tells us.

First, which statement below best represents what you believe to be the point of the story.

A. There are many ways to view the fairness of rewards.

B.  Working harder does not produce greater reward.

C.  The King is generous and can reward as he chooses.

D.  Rewarding everyone equally is the best way to keep the most people happy.

While the story is clearly about rewarding people for work, if your answer is A, B or D then you are understanding this story as a lesson about principles of reward systems. Each of these points about rewards could be concluded from this story, but is the story teller trying to tell you the truth about reward systems or truth about the reward giver? If so, what is it that the story teller wants you to know? The King, the one who owns the land, can reward as he chooses and that he is a generous King. This is a story the story teller wishes to use to explain his/her view on the truth about a particular King. Seeing truth in story from the story teller’s worldview is not always easy. 

Furthermore, is the idea that the King wanted "more" have to do with more work or the willingness to have more workers willing to join him in his kingdom? If we have a different worldview from the story teller, then we understand truth about the motives of the king differently from what the story teller wishes for us to know.

Makes me ponder how people determine what is true. How do they work through the myriad of biases, some of which they do not even know they have, to settle on what is right and true?