I have recently been having some discussions in the comment sections at Derek L Ramsey's blog, initially in relation to The Trinity (as conceptualized in mainstream Christianity); interactions that have been helpful to me - and apparently to him as well.
In particular, I responded to his question about whether my brand of Romantic Christianity would become relativistic in practice, if it were to become common. He found my answer helpful in clarifying my beliefs - so I reprint it here, edited somewhat:
It isn’t that you hold an explicitly relativist philosophy—you obviously don’t—but that, IMO, the consequences of your beliefs lead to relativism, despite your intentions or stated beliefs.
Imagine there were 100 copies of you, scattered throughout the world. Each one would be gaining divine knowledge directly, but unless you were historically unprecedented, they’d all come to a set of (ultimately) mutually incompatible positions. Without any objective standard, there would be no way to determine what knowledge was correct and what was imagined.
This is ungrounded. Each one of you would think they were right. This is indistinguishable from relativism where truth, morality, and knowledge are not found in the absolute. I don’t see how you avoid this problem.
Am I explaining myself well enough?
Answer from BGC:
Oh yes, I understand you perfectly – and I asked myself the same question.
Recall that when I converted I did so because I thought Christianity could be (and was the only hope of) the basis for a good (or at least good-seeking) society. That was my priority for a few years, and why I found it hard to find a church (either within, or outside, the CofE), why I changed direction a few times.
It’s a matter I have addressed in my blog scores of times; but my answer is not acceptable – nor even regarded as a real answer! My answer is apparently invisible.
One answer is to consider the primacy of motivation.
I believe that, insofar as Christians are honestly motivated, there will be sufficient convergence on the essence of truth to enable salvation at least, and probably a good deal more than that.
Another answer is that this line of questioning derives from a world view that seems the truth of Christianity, the truth that Jesus provided and taught, as bound-up with social organization – that it is bound-up with mechanisms for ensuring (or at least incentivizing) uniformity of beliefs.
In other words; a world view that sees Christianity as church primarily – then state. That sees Christianity as primarily social not individual.
Like the Judaism of the OT – such a Christianity is tribal – the tribe is the nation. For the Ancient Hebrews, the Messiah was understood as primarily a tribal/ national leader. The individual’s spiritual job was merely to serve the tribe. Salvation was of-the-tribe.
And this role was externally forced-upon Jesus during his life, and after (especially by the evangelist Matthew) – pretty successfully!
I do not believe that this Christian tribalism or groupishness is any longer possible; my evidence being – look around and consider the past couple of centuries!
I also believe, more controversially, that the attempt to reintroduce mechanisms for unity of belief can (here-and-now) only lead to evil.
In other words, it is possible even nowadays in The West to enforce unity of belief (e.g. 2020) but this Will Be evil.
Good (i.e. taking the side of God) can no longer be enforced top-down.
I suspect that the only path to good (at least in The West, for you and me) is therefore non-institutional, much more like a family than an organization or nation.
This must develop bottom-up, and from love.
What such a human society would look like if it happened, I do not believe can be foreknown – because there can be no blueprint for it, just as there is no blueprint for a loving family.
4 comments:
In John 7, Jesus says,
John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
So He says "he", not "they" and yes, it's about motivation.
There will be variations, even on pretty basic stuff, depending on background & inclination, but I think these will be what CSL called "second things"
"I believe that, insofar as Christians are honestly motivated, there will be sufficient convergence on the essence of truth to enable salvation"
This is the core insight that must be at the heart of Christian life. I cannot know the motivations in another's heart, but I do immediately understand the pivotal importance of this principle in that I can and do understand my own motivation for seeking Christ. That motivation has deepened over time -- shaped by the Holy Spirit and by my interactions with other well-motivated followers of Jesus (including those on this blog).
Honestly motivated Christians will indeed converge on salvation, just as men in many parts of the world with very different backgrounds may converge on a single geographical point by following a compass.
DLR writes: “Without any objective standard, there would be no way to determine what knowledge was correct and what was imagined.”
The problem is that there IS NO universally accepted objective standard. Each individual has to decide for himself what “objective standard” to accept — whether to be Orthodox or Catholic or sola scritura or Mormon or Trust The Science or something else — and so each individual still ends up having to trust his own discernment, knowing that others will inevitably discern differently. Each person’s judgment is still, inescapably, the foundation on which all else is built. You can’t base everything on the infallibility of the pope (say) until you have first made a personal judgment that the pope is in fact infallible. “Relativism” in that sense is inescapable, no matter how objective the Truth itself may be.
That’s just how it is. I’ve made the point at length in this post:
https://narrowdesert.blogspot.com/2021/10/who-or-what-is-ultimate-spiritual.html
@Wm - Indeed. But there is nonetheless a widespread hope that at some point "people" will agree on what counts as objective, and stick to it for long enough until the arbitrary-ness of the original choice has been forgotten.
In After Virtue (1981) Alasdair MacIntyre proposes that Thomaism ought to be regarded as the objective truth because, he says, it is the most comprehensive and coherent philosophy (once its premises are accepted). I expect he is correct, but those premises are exceedingly abstract and unintuitive - so most people will always find them utterly incomprehensible. The question of their truth cannot really arise, therefore.
Post a Comment