EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
I've been mulling over a sermon that my pastor, Mike Erre, gave a few months ago (look up his blog...he's a swell guy). Anyway, he was talking about how as Christians, we have the freedom to claim truth wherever we find it. All truth is God's truth, and since we are the children of God, we can claim it as our own. It's an amazing and liberating concept (there's a chapter about this in Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell). One of the examples Mike gave was of a song by Linkin Park called "In the End". Now, Linkin Park is a secular band, yet this song is basically a rewrite of Ecclesiastes...anything you strive for on this earth is essentially meaningless and unfulfilling. As a Christian, I can claim this song as proclaiming God's truth (whether or not it was the intention of the band). It got me thinking about what other songs by secular bands (those not signed to Christian labels or part of the CCM scene) also contain spiritual truths that resonate within me whenever I listen to them. I've listed a few below off the top of my head and I hope you all can add some more to the list. If you get a chance, listen to the songs...Google the lyrics...find the truth within and claim it as yours. Bad Religion - "Sorrow" Angels and Airwaves - " A Little's Enough" Killswitch Engage - "The End of Heartache" Thrice - "For Miles" Brand New - "Jesus Christ"
|
Comments
Nice to have you back with another thought-provoking entry. I could not agree more about the notion that truth is found in all sorts of places. I don't follow Linkin Park, but I did take note of "What I've Done," their big hit from the most recent album. Clearly the song is intended to show how we've wasted resources and ignored the poor while living selfishly (and piggishly) in a land filled with abundance. You don't need to be a person of faith to appreciate the guilt message, but it certainly applies to what the Bible has to say about the depravity of humankind.
By the way, check out today's blog from Craig Detweiler (Dr. Film). He highlights a film called WAR/DANCE. There's a connection with Invisible Children.
Yeah, I actually saw WAR/DANCE about 2 weeks ago...it's an amazing film. I highly recommend it!
That is a great Thrice song, but the truths expressed in it are intended to be Christian truths. Perhaps you know this already, but the lead singer is a serious Christian; so you don't have to "claim" it, you can just "receive" it, as it were. :-)
Also, I'm not entirely sure what this means: "as Christians, we have the freedom to claim truth wherever we find it. All truth is God's truth, and since we are the children of God, we can claim it as our own."
-- What does it mean to "claim" truth?
-- There are very many (graphic, explicit, depressing, debased) truths about the porn industry. You say "we have the freedom to claim truth wherever we find it." Do we have the freedom to "claim" that truth? *Should* we?
-- Or another example: there are many (disgusting, horrific) truths about effective torture techniques. You say "all truth is God's truth." Are those truths "God's truths"? Doesn't that suggest that God in some way condones or supports these truths?
Shouldn't we rather just say that these are truths alright, and therefore God in His omniscience knows them, but that He *hates* them? Shouldn't we say that it would be better if we as Christians didn't "claim" these truths, but rather *denounced* them?
I don't mean to be aggressive and snarky; I certainly don't mean to suggest that you think we should do anything improper or indecent with respect to those examples. I'm just wondering what you mean to say with what you said above.
You raise some valid concerns and I do apologize for not being more thorough in my original post...
I believe the basic idea behind "claiming truth" that Mike was referring to was the understanding that things can be known outside of the Bible. Many times, we as Christians find ourselves closed off to anything that is not found specifically within the Bible or our self-imposed Christian "bubble". Although the Bible may be our *standard* of truth, it is not the only *source* of truth. Stan Jantz referred me to a summary of a speech that J.P. Moreland gave at the ETS that sheds light on this position. You can find it here: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/11/postcard_f...
You are correct in saying that just because something is true does not necessarily make it good. I do believe we need to use our reason, discretion, and God's Word to evaluate truths and their purpose. By "claiming" it, we are merely affirming that we have found something to be true (in light of God's revelation) that resonates within us and we are free to reflect on it and use it.
The simplest example I could think of was the same that Mike used...he heard a song written by a non-Christian band, found the lyrics to be true in light of Scripture, and is free to accept those words and use that song as a means of spiritual reflection.
I hope I was able to clear up some confusion...please don't stone me ;)
Hi Ralph,
Thanks for the reply. You said:
>>I believe the basic idea behind "claiming truth" that Mike was referring to was the understanding that things can be known outside of the Bible.>>
I agree with that; I think everyone does. Every time I operate my car or a computer, I realize that there are obviously plenty of things I know that don't come by way of the Bible. I understand that you were communicating the basic idea behind what Mike said, but surely he meant more than this. I'll have a look at that JP Moreland summary you linked to.
You also said:
>>The simplest example I could think of was the same that Mike used...he heard a song written by a non-Christian band, found the lyrics to be true in light of Scripture, and is free to accept those words and use that song as a means of spiritual reflection.>>
I'm inclined to agree with this, but I'm wondering if it applies in all cases. Doesn't the artist's intention matter as well? Take the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, for instance. I have some of their Christmas music, but listening to it makes me uneasy. Is that weird? The reason is that, though they are saying things like "Jesus" and "God," I know that they have very different intentions when they say these words than when a Christian says these words. "Jesus" means something substantially different in their mouths than in my mouth.
Is there any truth here that I can and should "claim"? The words they sing, ripped from the context and intention of the choir, could be God-glorifying. But when they sing, I find it somewhat contemptible. Am I being unreasonable? I'm open to that possibility; my wife tells me I'm being a bit nuts... :-)
I hear what you're saying, but in my mind, it raises two concerns:
1. Is truth still true regardless of its source?
2. Is truth still true regardless of the intentions behind its source?
My fear is that if the answer to both of the above is "no", then truth begins to appear quite relative.
You used the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as an example (and quite a valid one at that!). I looked up their most recent Christmas CD and noticed that they sing "Hark the Herald" and "Silent Night". Now, unless they've changed the words to those songs, are the lyrics no longer true just because they are being sung by Mormons? Are "God and sinners" no longer "reconciled"? Is "Christ the Savior" no longer "born"? I understand that they may have different interpretations of those words, but I find it hard to believe that those words are no longer true.
I'll put it another way. If I said "2 + 2 = 4" you would agree with me. However, if in my mind I believed that the symbol for "2" really represented the amount of "5", would my earlier statement be wrong? Does my misunderstanding of the number "2" invalidate the earlier truth I had spoken? I would say that the problem lies in my interpretation of the truth, and not in the truth itself.
I believe there is a standard of truth and at some point or another we all vary on our interpretation of that truth, but that does not invalidate the truth itself. For even the demons are liars and they called Jesus "Son of the Most High God" (Mark 5:7).
I don't think you're being unreasonable, just cautious (and I respect that).
Hi Ralph,
Thanks again for the reply. You asked me these questions:
1. Is truth still true regardless of its source?
2. Is truth still true regardless of the intentions behind its source?
My answer to these is "Yes": truth is truth regardless of _______ (fill in the blank). What I'm worried about is whether the truth-value of utterances or sentences can change depending on context. And the answer to that question is clearly "Yes." At a daycare, I proudly utter the sentence "I am the tallest person here." This utterance expresses a truth. In the locker room of an NBA team, I delusionally utter the sentence "I am the tallest person here." This utterance expresses a falsehood, even though it is the same type of utterance as before.
My Mexican neighbor says of his mischievous son "Jesus is up to no good." This sentence may express a truth, even though I -- intending to speak about Jesus Christ -- wouldn't express a truth by uttering it.
So we have to distinguish between sentences/utterances and that which they express (what philosophers call "propositions"). "It's raining" and "Es regnet" are two distinct types of sentences that express the same proposition. "Jesus is up to no good" is a sentence type that can express different propositions depending on the context and the speaker's intention.
The question is, when a Mormon says "Jesus is top-notch," does he express the same proposition that I express by that same utterance? Well, given that by "Jesus" he means "The supernatural first-born spirit-child of Elohim, who has a body of flesh and bone and lives on a planet near the star Kolob, who also visited North America after his resurrection," it's plausible to say that we express different propositions. And given that -- on his understanding -- the name "Jesus" does not refer to anyone (nobody answers to that description; there is no Elohim and no Kolob, so there are no spirit-children of Elohim), what the Mormon has expressed with his utterance is false.
So the same sentence or utterance type (e.g. "Jesus is top-notch") may express a truth in the mouth of a Christian, but a falsehood in the mouth of a Mormon. So these Christmas songs that I'm listening to as sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir may just be strings of (blasphemous?) falsehoods. In that case there would be no truth there to "claim," only blasphemous utterances to abhor and lament.
And the same may go with some of the other non-Christian songs that are considered in your blog. I can't say that I've listened to them all, and I don't know what truth you mean to claim in them.
Final note: If you uttered "2+2=4" I would take you to mean that 2+2=4, and I would nod my head in agreement. Given the usual conventions of our language, "2+2=4" expresses the proposition 2+2=4. However, if you had a different intention behind that utterance, if in fact by "2+2=4" you meant that 2+2=5, then of course I disagree with you. So meaning has a lot to do with speaker intention. Which is why I worry about my Mormon Tabernacle Choir CD.
A very well put argument! I see what you're saying and I would have to agree. I was also reading J.P. Moreland's "Kingdom Triangle" the other day and he also describes what you are talking about. He says:
"...the thing that is either true or false is not a sentence but a proposition. A proposition is the content of a sentence. For example, "It is raining" and "Es regnet" are two different sentences that express the same proposition. A sentence is a linguistic object consisting of a sense perceptible string of markings formed according to a culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules, a grammatically well-formed string of spoken or written scratchings/sounds. Sentences are true to the extent that they express a true proposition or content."
Thanks for the insightful and engaging conversation...it's been fun :)