(This post is part of an occasional series on apologetics, doctrine, and why it all matters.)
Perhaps we get intimidated by big words. Perhaps we are embarrassed to ask definitions of words we don’t understand. Or maybe we do know, but we feel the words don’t have application today. If you’re in the last category, I’ll deal with that a few posts down the road. Today is all about explaining the terms.
Here are a few that we should all be comfortable with:
- Truth - agreement with reality
- Objective (truth) – an unchangeable certainty that exists independent of any person’s beliefs; a fact
- Subjective (truth) – a changeable belief that exists only in one’s mind; an opinion
- Postmodernism – the tendency to reject objective truths
- Transcencent – existing beyond the limits of our existence
- Creed - a statement of a belief
- Doctrine - a core principle
- Apologetics - the defense of a position
Today, truth is under attack. Many people agree with the statement, “what’s true for you, may not be true for me”. Well, this all depends on what we mean by “true”. In the winter, my wife may say it’s a fantastic day, while I say it is a dreary day. Which one of us is right? In this case, we both are, because we are each stating subjective truths. The weather that she thinks is ideal rarely is weather that I prefer. Each of us made a truth statement, but each statement was relative to our own opinions. There is nothing wrong with this, but we need to be very clear on the difference between subjective and objective truth, or relational versus absolute truth. You see, if I described that day as being overcast, 34° and snowing heavily, these would be indisputable facts. These would agree with her assessment of the weather and mine, because we were making statements relative to our preferences. Any time opposing truth statements can be reconciled by looking to an absolute truth, you are talking in subjective terms. The trouble comes when we confuse subjective and objective, or worse – when we deny such a thing as objective truth even exists.
At this point, I’m not making any absolute truth claims about my beliefs. But I do want to establish the difference between subjective and objective truth. I want to be very clear that an absolute truth does exist, whether we like that idea or not. The move to reject absolute truth is not new. It is called postmodernism. It is the desire to approve of everything. There is a tendency for kids to all get good grades on a test even when they have differing answers, because we don’t want them to feel bad. Many times, sports for kids don’t even keep score because there are “no winners and losers”. Oftentimes, all parties even get a trophy regardless their performance. We hear talk of redefining marriage because people feel left out. Just so we’re clear – I’m not talking about being exclusive just to be mean. I’m talking about defending the meanings of things. If you want to give kids medals for participating, that’s fine. Tell them they did a good job, but don’t tell them they won. Tell them you can see they are trying on their homework, but don’t tell them it’s right if it is not. If society wants to extend rights to people outside of marriage, that is a discussion for another forum – but it is not marriage. In an attempt to make people feel good, we end up lying to them. But does lying make people feel good? Marriage has a definition. We can argue about the merits of marriage, but changing the definition is ridiculous. Should we change the definition of adolescence or adulthood to make children feel more included? That would be ridiculous, because words mean things. If we detach meaning from words, then we have no meaningful communication. And if we don’t have communication that conveys specific thoughts accurately, we have nothing. You might as well walk around China speaking Portuguese and expect people to understand you.
Postmoderns want people to be included. Everyone gets an A. Everyone’s a winner. Everyone is going to heaven. Postmodernism is very dangerous, because at its root it is based on little more than feelings of perceived fairness. We hear talk of being colorblind, rather than actually noticing someone’s race and choosing to treat them as an equal. Ignorance, pluralism, skepticism and diversity are not inherently beneficial values.
Consider this. If someone says, “there is no absolute truth”, could they be right? Hopefully you’ve noticed their dilemma. They are stating with absolute certainty that we can’t be certain about anything. So why should we believe them? Their own argument defeats itself! It might be their opinion that there is no absolute truth, but what does that count for? If I have the opinion that gravity may be true for you but not for me, does that have any impact on the law of gravity? Do we see people floating away from earth? “Just believe! You’ll come back down if you only believe!” That’s ridiculous! There are things that simply are. There is a sense of morality that we all share. There are properties of physics that are established facts. Logic is real. If logic were not transcendent, we could not have discussions about anything. Our legal system would be useless. Mathematics would not exist. But there are things that exist apart from our acknowledging that they exist. These things are called ‘transcendent’. (More on transcendence in later posts.)
So, we need to agree that truth exists. We need to agree that some truths are relative to our circumstances and preferences, but there exists an absolute truth that trumps them all. I’m not going to attempt to establish now what that truth is, or where it comes from, but we must acknowledge that it exists. Otherwise, there is no point in going any farther, because everything is ultimately meaningless.
A creed is a statement of a belief. It could be subjective or objective. Here is an example J. Warner Wallace used on a radio interview. Let’s say you wanted to come over to my house. What information is necessary? Do I need to tell you about every building you pass and every bump in the road? Do I need to tell you about the field you will pass that used to have a big barn? Do I have to tell you what is on sale at the supermarket you will drive by? The answer to all of these is no, of course. These items are all accurate. They are all true. Actually, they all give you information that may be useful. But the information is not necessary. More likely, I would tell you to head generally North on Hwy 10. Watch for the second stoplight. Turn left there. About 300 yards after the gas station, my house will be on the right. The address is 315 Main St. This is just as accurate as the first set of examples, but it is far more concise. Again – the rest of the information is accurate and beneficial, but it is not necessary. This is a creed. For our purposes, in addition to “a statement of belief”, a creed could also be defined as an “accurate minimum summary”. We all have creeds about all kinds of things. How we drive a car, how we bake a pie, how we do our jobs, how we raise our kids. Our creeds are endless, and they are very important. Some are only opinions on how to accomplish something, but others determine our physical well being, our children’s safety, or our eternal destiny.
Our personal creeds that we use to get ready in the morning, drive to work, and raise our children are important. But there are varying levels of importance. Some creeds have to do with specific religious belief systems. When these creeds rise to a level of importance such that they differentiate between religions or denominations, we use the word ‘doctrine’. Some doctrines are necessary, and some are not. For instance, within Christianity, there are issues (doctrines) that people differ on that do not out of necessity divide the church. For instance, style of worship and acceptable attire are usually considered preferences today, but in the past they have sometimes been major issues of contention. They rose to the level of doctrine for some denominations within Christianity, but most Christians will agree that these are issues of culture and respect that do not determine a person’s salvation. Doctrines within your denomination and/or your individual church are important to understand so that you know the core principles are that differentiate you from other churches and belief systems. Even more important though, is understanding which doctrines are essential and which are not. Some describe doctrines as being in a closed hand or an open hand. Doctrines in the closed hand are the essentials of Christianity. These are issues that differentiate Christians from non-Christians. Countless martyrs have died over these issues. The open hand is comprised primarily of the nonessentials. They may be very casual preferences, or they may be things we hold dear because they seem to define who we are. But the fact of the matter is, they ultimately do not carry the same level of importance that the essentials do. That’s why we use the “open hand / closed hand” terminology. We need to be willing to let go of the nonessentials, and hold tightly to the essentials.
Apologetics comes from the Greek word ‘apologia’ which means “speaking in defense”. It doesn’t have anything to do with apologizing. It doesn’t mean we are cowering or expressing remorse for our beliefs. It means we are offering a defense for our faith. And I’ll tell you right now “because the bible says so” is not a defense. Try it in court and see how far you get! An effective apologetic is a compelling argument in defense of your position – for our purposes, Christianity. An apologist is not necessarily the same as a debater. You don’t need a high level of speaking skill. But you must know your position and why you hold it. Greg Koukl of ‘Stand to Reason‘ speaks in terms of “placing a stone in your opponents shoe.” Your goal is not to offend or to win. It is simply to give them something to think about – something that eventually may lead them to concede your point. But your job is not to overwhelm them all at once.
Ravi Zacharias has said: “The question today is not whether you are an apologist or not – it is whether you are a good one or a bad one.” The bottom line is this: whether you have an answer or not, your position or lack of position, has already spoken. If you do not have a compelling answer, you have no answer at all. And if you have no answer, you are a bad apologist, and you have likely already waved the white flag on many potential opportunities for Christ.
To return to the illustration about my car in my first post, I would not believe just any mechanic’s opinion. But if a mechanic I trust tells me that my car needs service, I’m going to take it to heart. Why? Because he has proven his knowledge, that he is not just interested in taking advantage of me, and the things he has told me in the past have turned out to be true. So why should we be any different? We should start with relationship, illustrating that we actually care about the person we are talking to. But that is not enough in itself. Lots of people care. Once you have established relationship with a friend, a coworker, or your child – what are you going to do with it? We should also have knowledge – not just faith. We should be able to back up what we believe.
This post is far from a definitive reference for these terms, but hopefully it has helped you to understand them. Hopefully it will drive you to pursue to learn more. There are endless resources on the web and elsewhere, and I will be continuing this series in an attempt to add something to the discussion. But your next step is not to become an apologist – you already are an apologist. Your job is to lay hold of the knowledge you need in order to live out 1 Pet 3:15 – “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”
Related posts:
I blog for coffee. Help fuel my habit.
