“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32
“I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
Last issue, Nealson Munn suggested in “Christ and the Concept of Truth” that the freedom to which Jesus alludes in John 8:32 is the freedom that comes from epistemological humility. Truth is so big, so dynamic, and so unconquerable, says Munn, that we can gain freedom from pride and small-mindedness by confronting truth in its fullness. My aim in this article is to offer an additional perspective on the sort of freedom that is being offered by Jesus in this same verse.
Munn gave us a survey of a few of the leading philosophical theories of truth– foundationalism, coherence, and correspondence– and showed the inadequacies of each. His objective in this was demonstrating that not only are the contents of truth elusive, but moreover the very concept of truth is difficult to pin down.
But is truth as a concept really so baffling? Perhaps I cannot point to truth defined, but I can still point to truth personified: Jesus himself.
Knowing Jesus, the incarnation of truth, should certainly not be a cause for the intolerance and ignorance that is so prevalent among Christians. But just because a Christian misapplies a sound principle, that does not make the principle any less sound. In fact, the principles of Christianity are so radical that they seem to invite widespread misunderstanding and abuse. Although it’s tempting to weaken the principle in order to humble the abuser, the result is never satisfying.
Paul faces this problem again and again when trying to explain the Christian principle of God’s grace. Immediately, the abusers ask the question, “Well, if grace is so wonderful, and is only brought about by my sin, then shouldn’t I sin all the more so that grace may abound?” Paul’s answer is telling: he refuses to qualify grace. Instead of adding some new restriction or amendment to the original doctrine, which his readers have demonstrated to be apparently full of loop-holes, he simply says instead something to the effect of, “No, don’t do that! Why would you want to abuse so beautiful a principle?”
Similarly, we should refuse to qualify truth. We should refuse to say that we aren’t sure exactly what it is, and we should refuse to say that it’s constantly changing and evolving. It is not. Truth is embodied in the person of Jesus, who is changeless. Anyone who ‘believes in him’ (John’s words, not mine) can know him, and therefore, know truth, by doing nothing more than abiding in and obeying his words. It’s that simple (simple, not easy), and it’s supposed to be that simple. God likes it that way: he’s chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. His reversal of the normal order is breathtaking.
To be sure, such an unequivocal affirmation of truth has and will become a platform for all sorts of evil done in the name of truth, just as a full affirmation of grace will be an excuse for many who are heading down the wrong path. Countless sins have been justified by Christians with a casual wave of the ‘truth’ wand– ‘We’re right because we have God on our side.’ But these are just abusers, and they must be dealt with as abusers. It is when our most cherished doctrines are twisted and perverted by those who use them as justification for their own weaknesses that we must stand firm for the doctrines, rather than lessening them in the hopes of rendering them less embarrassing. The moment we arrive at an abuse-proof doctrine is the same moment that we have arrived at an impotent doctrine.
What I’m saying is this: a good principle in the wrong hands is just as dangerous as a bad principle. That’s why, when a principle is seen doing damage, it’s crucial to determine whether the damage is a result of the principle being bad, or a result of the principle being misapplied. When enough ignorant, close-minded Christian say, “I know the Truth,” as a defense for their ignorance and close-mindedness, it can make one want to attack the Christian doctrine of truth itself, rather than those who wield it. It makes us want to say, “Well, truth isn’t what you think it is. It’s not that clear-cut. What is truth, after all? It’s not quite so black and white, you know.”
But it IS that clear-cut, and it IS that black and white. The problem with these Christians is not that they have too narrow a definition of truth, but rather, that they are not as well acquainted with their ‘narrow’ definition as they should be. These Christians don’t need a broader, more confusing concept of truth; rather, they need a deeper relationship with the Truth they already know.
Perhaps the best illustration of all of this is found in the license plate frames that bear the following slogan: “Know Jesus, Know Truth. No Jesus, No truth.” This sort of slogan is emblematic of the sort of truth-thumping and mental carelessness that is so deplorable, and yet, taken as is, I can’t find anything to argue with. The problem is in the application. When a Christian displays a frame like this one on the back of his car, he is giving at least some evidence that perhaps he does not know Truth as well as he thinks he does. There is something missing from his life.
But what does this person need from us? I would argue that what he does not need is a redefinition of truth– he does not need a destruction of his concept of truth that makes him wonder whether it is right to believe that Jesus equals truth, or make him wonder if he really does know the truth after all. Sewing seeds of doubt and confusion is certainly one way to humble a person, but it’s also a way to destroy a person. Moreover, if the person is stubborn enough, they’ll reject these attempts at ‘broadening’ their view as unwelcome challenges to their faith. It is in many ways a lose-lose situation: either you save the man from his ignorance but take away a foundational principle at the same time, or, you harden the man in his ignorance by offering what he perceives as an attack.
So what does the man need? As was mentioned earlier, he needs a more intimate knowledge of the truth which he already professes in the person of Jesus. He needs to know Jesus, better than he does. Of course that will involve some broadening along the way, as the man learns and unlearns all that he thought he knew, both about Scripture and about his world, but it is broadening not for its own sake– it is broadening that is pointed toward a person. The remarkable thing about the person of Jesus is that he is the only one that can give us unwavering, dogmatic confidence in the truth– the one and only truth– while at the same time making us humble, caring, critical, and open to new ideas, with the compassionate heart of a listener and the quick mind of a learner. Only Jesus can do that, because it is in the person of Jesus that truth ceases to be something cold and hard that you can break yourself against, and becomes something warm and fleshy, breaking himself for us. Again, the divine reversal. You wouldn’t think that truth works that way.
But because it does work that way, the freedom that accompanies the knowledge of Jesus, and therefore, the knowledge of truth, is not just the freedom of humility, but is also freedom from sin. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, whether born of Abraham or not, as Jesus’ hearers find out. And it is on this point that it becomes most clear that truth must exist in Jesus, as a person, and nowhere else. After all, there are many ways to go about remedying ignorance, but where else can a man or woman go for the healing of a depraved mind? The sin problem, above anything else, shows the necessity that truth be embodied in Jesus, for without Jesus, even if we overcome our ignorance, we have still only won half the battle in our search for truth. Truth is found in the person who not only atones and redeems, but also regenerates, so that real thought can begin. Looking anywhere else is a waste of time.
