Surviving the Commute

I rushed to each light, only to wait in the hot car, listening to the radio chattering on. It was the morning commute and I learned to endure it—even enjoy the liminal time between my worlds. It’s was a time to think ahead to the coming day; a time to prepare. I needed this time. Life at work was so different from life at home. At home it was secure, sure, steady. I knew what to expect, and I knew the rules. Work was full of uncertainty. Different personalities and ways of thinking created conflict, discomfort and frustration. I never quite got used to these feelings.

Why is it that we think so differently? Why when I talk to some people do we just miss each other’s meanings completely? Could it have something to do with our ideas of truth? Maybe the foundations of our thinking are made out of very different materials. Maybe we live on two sides of the same river.

Through the River describes what it’s like living on the rocky shore of the river where people believe in a firm truth and rely on logic to get there. Many people today grew up in a world where this was the primary way of thinking. But then people began to get into the river and swim out to the sandy islands to live. They left the rocky shore because they could no longer believe that logic was the only way to truth. But they began to believe in a totally personal truth and became isolated from each other. Not happy with the sandy islands, some people returned to the rocky shore, but others swam onto the other side of the river. These people began to believe in truth that not only can be found through logic, but can be found in other ways—like personal experience and history.

In our lives, we can all think of people who live in one community along the river or another. Perhaps we live on one side and work on the other—commuting back and forth along the river. When I didn’t understand what the difference was, it was discouraging, disorienting and frustrating. But once I understood what the difference among people was in their view of truth, it became much easier to deal with.

One thing that helped me in relating to people in different parts of the river is realizing that it is not my job to change their perspective—to convince them of another way. Your assumptions about truth are not like your eternal salvation. You can be a Christian and live on either side of the river or on the sandy islands. So it is not imperative that I try to win people over to my way of thinking.

But though I may not need to convince people to think like me, understanding how others think helps my relationships and understanding. For instance, if I live on the rocky shore and work in the river, I know that pragmatism drives the decision-making of the people I am working with. Logic will not reach them, but relationships will. I know then that is important to build good relationships and to hear the stories of people in order to understand where they are coming from.

If I live in the river and go to school on the rocky shore then I know it will be important to have arguments for why I believe certain things. I will understand why truth comes first in all conversations, why the story behind things is secondary and why conversations turn to debate more often than not.

If I live on the far shore and come to visit either the sandy islands or the rocky shore, I may always feel at least a little out of place, but I have an advantage. I both affirm the belief in logic of the rocky shore residents and hold valuable the importance of story and personal experience of the sandy island residents. I can begin to build relationships with either person because we have something in common.

So the commute can be hot, frustrating, and tiring, but it can be done. By understanding how others think about truth I have the ability to work with people who think very differently than I think.

What the Bay Bridge Can Teach Us About Truth

That iconic bridge in San Francisco that many people have seen in movies or as tourists is a powerful example of the change in how people understand truth. We got this insight after watching 60 Minute's segment about the new bridge currently being built.

The show focused on the race against time to build the new bridge before a major earthquake strikes the area. According to geologists it is time, but the bridge is far from done. There was the usual drama over time lines and budgets, but that is not what caught our attention.

When they were interviewing one of the builders, he explained how in decades past people thought that the best way to help a structure survive the earthquake was to build it as solid and sturdy as possible. But after a major earthquake hit the area and damaged many of the sturdiest structures, they are now focused on buildings that can sway and move. During the piece, they showed how one particular section of the new bridge had at least 6 feet of sway built into the structure.

What does this say about truth you ask? Well, in the last century the truth lens of positivism ruled the thinking of scientists, builders and financiers alike. This way of thinking said that all truth was knowable and claimed that the job of mankind was to build the most solid foundation possible by accumulating truth in an effort to collect it all.

But just as an earthquake shattered the illusion of safety in sturdy buildings, post-modernity and relativism shattered the idea that all truth was knowable. People began to look at those towers of truth they had built and realized that there were many hidden holes and cracks.

Today a new truth lens is emerging called critical realism (the one we share about in our book "Through the River"). This new way to look at truth says that there is a common foundation on which we can build, however the key to stability is having plenty of give in your structure that will allow for the tumult of the 21st century. Just like the new bridge, those constructing the framework for truth today are creating an environment that establishes the truth we know, but then realizes that there is much truth that we are learning together. The new bridge is dug deep into the San Francisco Bay so that the bridge is anchored firmly in the ground. But the rest of the bridge is attached to the solid tower and is designed to learn and adjust to each earthquake that might come.

So are you building your understanding of truth as a solid structure that strives to defy the earthquake of relativism or are you building a structure that is designed to hold fast by leaving room to grow and learn?

The Journey of Truth as Tourism

This month we continue to respond to the excellent articles being posted on the Lausanne Global Conversation site about pluralism and the struggle to understand truth. This is a key topic and was the focus of our book - Through the River.

Today we want to highlight one of the official responses to the article by Krish Kandiah who serves as executive director of Churches in Mission for the UK Evangelical Alliance. What I love about the response is the use of the analogy of tourism to talk about our truth journey. This ties in so well with our analogy of going through the river of relativism as people interact with truth.

In this response the author challenges us in two key ways:

1. There is a challenge not to be "tactless tourists" that simply ignore what those searching for truth are going through and demand that they understand truth the way we do. Here is a quote that I love, "The tactless approach to pluralism can lead the church to retreat into arrogant absolutism." This is so true. What we have seen as we have studied the way people view truth is that many fight away the uncertainty of relativism through arrogance. This is easy to understand because people are trying to reduce the uncertainty around them but it is a huge mistake because it makes Christianity so irrelevant to the larger community who is struggling with truth.

2. There is also a challenge not to be "reluctant tourists" that cower in the face of the pluralistic approach all around us. In our book we call the "reluctant tourists" the "island dwellers." They live out in the river of relativism on sandy islands where there is truth but it is completely personal. Unfortunately most believers in the West live in this world of personal truth where there are no bridges to others. I agree with this great quote from that section, "A fast-food message cannot compare to the nourishment offered by a local flavoursome organic church." What a powerful way to combat the idea that truth can no longer be anything but personal. In our book we talk about a third way that is very compatible with how this article approaches the subject. We talk about a humble approach to truth that is derived in relationship to God and in community with believers.

Our prayer is that this global conversation hosted by Lausanne will be a catalyst to bring that kind of truth discussion to the forefront.

Truth in a Human Context

I am very excited about the upcoming Lausanne Capetown 2010 conference in South Africa. It is a key moment in the life of the 21st Century global church. You can follow Capetown on twitter at www.twitter.com/capetown2010.

This month the Global Conversation leading up to the event is focused on how our world understands truth. This is a key topic for this century and it needs some fresh thinking. I want to focus on one paragraph from Mark Chan's article in Christianity Today and on the Global Conversation:

"Our common humanity is a good starting place to share the truth of Christ. It is in the safety of genuine friendship, where trust is earned and respected, that we may honestly question assumptions. Christians can learn to sow seeds of subversion in the field of relativism by raising questions about the adequacy of moral relativism as a guide for life."

What I like about his approach is that he is starting from a position of human relationship when he talks about truth. The mistake we make so often is to force truth into an objective and sterile world. The age of modernity pushed this as the ultimate goal. But in making the truth sterile they also made it completely without meaning to humanity. It was a bunch of numbers and facts on a page without any context.

In the context of relationship we can validate the truth that we know and understand and commit to learn the rest of the truth in humble community. Mark did not really go there and I wish he would have taken that next step and challenged people not just to fight against relativism but to actively learn truth together.

One of the great challenges that we run up against in the "fight for truth" today is that people think they have to defend the truth. One of the things that Mindy and I have realized as we wrote the book with Dr. Paul Hiebert about our truth lenses is that the best defense for truth is a strong commitment to learning in community. It provides accountability and it also allows our understanding to be framed by what God is telling people across many backgrounds, cultures and experiences.

As we share about in our book, relativism is a natural progression from the short-comings of modernity. The key challenge I would like to throw out there is that the answer is not to pull people back from the raging river of relativism to the rocky shore of modernity. There is another side to the river where absolute truth can exist within the context of learning in community. That is what will appeal to those tired of being buffeted by the waves of relativism.

An Intentional Journey: Thoughts after KKMS Interview

So I (Jon) recently did an interview on KKMS in Minneapolis, MN. Great station and wonderful hosts for afternoon drive time. One of the things we talked about was the difference between evangelism from the Rocky Shore where people believe they can know and represent all truth to the Far Shore where people believe there is truth you know and truth you are learning.

As we talked about it a cool thought came out of the discussion. Really the main difference is that on the Rocky Shore you are trying to convince people that you can know all truth and if they accept your ideas you will lead them to a fuller understanding. A Rock Dweller holds out to people the idea that this is a key piece of truth that they must know as they strive to know all things completely.

Many times, those in the river of relativism or the Island Dwellers who represent isolated personal truth, feel that this is very arrogant. They have experienced other ways of knowing truth beyond reason and logic and are convinced that the people on the Rocky Shore are delusional.

Now on the Far Shore the Valley Dwellers do believe there is a foundation of truth. But the basic assumption about truth is different. They believe that a foundation of truth is possible in community and through the study of God's Word, but the rest is a process of learning together and trusting God. So when a Valley Dweller engages with a non-christian about faith, they explain the foundation but readily admit that there is so much to learn and so many things to know. They will even say that many of these things won't be known till we are in Heaven with God and that this is OK.

This approach to truth is seen by those in the river as much more humble and approachable. They still have to come to an understanding that there is a common foundation of truth, but it is easier for them to take a step out of the river towards the Valley Dweller's community rather than the harsher reality on the Rocky Shore.

The Valley Dwellers have a foundation but are very happy to go on a journey with non-believers as they study, think, talk, learn. This doesn't mean that the Valley Dweller's have given up their foundation of truth, but it does mean that it isn't a simple yes/no dialogue.

The greatest challenge with the Valley Dweller approach is that it requires deep relationships with non-believers and an investment that may never pay off in a salvation prayer. It requires a deep love and commitment to the person and an investment in their growth. This is a great sacrifice in our "microwave culture" where we want results quickly. That is the great challenge of life on the Far Shore - nothing is quick.

It is an intentional journey!

Opinion or positivism (Rock Dwellers)?

On a radio interview today, the show host, Bob Dutko from WMUZ, asked a very good question. To summarize the idea: What is the difference between holding an opinion and being a rock dweller in our analogy of River Town? Like many things, the answer is a heart issue.

An opinion by definition is a view that’s held at arms length, knowing that there is enough evidence to invoke doubt. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion The question of truth lenses runs deeper. It asks about knowledge and the nature of that knowledge.

Positivism, or the truth lens held by the rock dwellers, tells them that they can know truth and know it fully, if they just work hard enough. It’s more than holding opinions, it is the belief that you are right without doubt or room for more information outside of logic and reason.

An Island Dweller and a Valley Dweller can hold opinions, but what their truth lenses tell them about their knowledge is very different. The Island Dwellers believe that their opinions are only applicable to themselves. The Valley Dwellers believe that they cannot know the whole truth fully in this lifetime, so an opinion remains an opinion as they discover truth in community.

Then comes the question. Can you be a Valley Dweller and believe in undeniable truth? The answer is yes. There exists undeniable truth, but we will never in ourselves be able to understand that truth fully in this lifetime. We can, in community, learn more truth than we know today, but we still “see through a glass darkly.” We do, however, as Christians believe in the One who does understand undeniable truth and have faith in Him and what He tells us in the Bible. In our book we share a great story and application about faith, hope and love . . . make sure to check it out.

When Humility Becomes Tolerance

We were on WMUZ in Detroit today and the show's host Bob Dutko asked a very good question. I'm going to paraphrase the idea. He wanted to know the line between humility that leads to learning and truth and tolerance that leads to relativism and a destruction of truth. Great question.

The reason it is such a good question is that the line is very thin. In our book we talk about three truth lenses (ways to understand truth) that define most people in America today. Most of modernity focused on people who live on the rocky shore. They believe truth is completely knowable. However in the past 75 years or so people have gotten frustrated with this way of viewing truth. They moved to the islands because they wanted to allow for personal truth and they rejected the idea that logic and reason were enough. The Island Dwellers defined tolerance. They said that we can know truth but it is personal. This means that my truth is not something that can be transfered to you but is only applicable to me. In that situation there is no sharing or learning. All we can do is "live and let live."

But the islands became places of isolation so people moved to the far shore where people built a community that understood truth and had a foundation but realized that much of God's truth was not yet known. The Valley Dwellers focused on the truth they know and the truth they are learning. On the Far Shore, a common foundation of truth makes it so that you can learn together in humility. It is not "live and let live" it is "live and learn." In this community humility creates a posture where we can admit when we are wrong, set aside preconcieved ideas and allow others to help us see truth more fully in the context of relationship.

So the Islands allow for tolerance and the Valley focuses on humility. Both groups might use the same language, but their motives or reasons for what they say are very different. When you are interacting about our foundation of truth, Island dwellers will try to say that the discussion doesn't matter and people can believe whatever they want. I know, I was one. But Valley Dwellers will validate truth, discuss it, understand it and then move on to deeper things that they desire to know about their world, their faith and their God.

So as you are on your truth journey, be looking out for the fine line between humility and tolerance and be serious about pointing out the differences.