CTa Intro E “The Foundations of Judeo-Christian Truth/Reality Examined” (Con't)

"The Progression / Regression of Durable Truth" CT3

Overview:  In this section consideration will be given to how secular man views the "growth" of truth.  To be sure it is presented in a simple format.  The first section will be the "progression" of durable truth.  The second will be a discussion of the "regression" of durable truth as man entered the picture.  The final section ask the reader a question, "Which model of truth is more durable?"

THE "PROGRESSION" OF TRUTH

Judeo-Christian Belief:

When one views the panoramas of history there is but one religion which is being currently practiced which pre-dates all other religions.  This would be true unless one holds the conviction that there were peoples who predate the events recorded in open words of the Torah.  The religion is Judaism.

Adding to that statement is a notion held by many if not most people of Christian conviction.  It is that their roots and foundations are in the Jewish faith.  Thus the term Judeo-Christian.  The basic understanding involved is that in order to understand Christianity and Christian thought, one must come to some understanding of Jewish matters and especially those recorded in the Jewish writings (the Old Testament) culture at the time of Christ (the Gospel narratives).

To do divide Christianity from its Jewish roots and the Jewish culture of its times is to tempt the possibility of dealing in mistaken error.  The other end of the spectrum of the false is Christian hearsay. 

These two backgrounds or knowledge foundations then allow for the understanding of Christian Theology.  Though this is by no means a complete treatment of the subject, and indeed an oversimplification, it allows for the following discussion of the place of Judeo-Christian Thought in the larger scheme of how western man has come to view truth and life.

In order to understand this section, reference is made to the material in previous blogs.

Judeo-Christian Foundations of Truth: As previously noted, Judaism predates all other religions and systems of faith.  Beside that which is discussed above there is another reason that the term, Judeo-Christian exists.  It is because there are common threats of truth that course their way through both systems of faith.

• Both agree that there is transcendent truth that finds its origin in the Divine
• Both agree that Divinely revealed truth is completely congruent with the character and nature of God.
• Both agree that such transcendent truth as exists is revealed to mankind
• Both agree that such transcendent truth exists whether it is recognized or ignored
• Both agree that transcendent truth is universal, therefore it has consistency and integrity throughout all ages and among all peoples
• Both agree that transcendent truth is objective and not subjective.

The outcome of such belief is that Judeo-Christian faith is a belief with God about,

• The importance of humanity and a high view of man and human life
• The importance of progress and the critical nature of same
• The importance of reason is found in it relationship with revelation.  
• The importance of interdisciplinary truth and that such truth must have integrity in presupposition, content, and process.

However, with Enlightenment there came a shift that swept across the western world.  The result was and continues to be an emphasis upon man and his capacities, absent the "God Factor."  Today we call it secularism.

The "Regression" of Truth

The more that man has attempted to redefine the origin and transmission of truth, the more confusing that man "discovered" truth became and becomes.  This will be seen in the following material on Modernism and Post-Modernism.  The outcome is that the more man has been involved at the exclusion of God, in this matter of truth, the more unreliable has become that truth!


Modernism attempts to "Trump" Judeo-Christian Truth:  Modernism presents itself as superseding the antiquate and outdated Judeo-Christian thinking.  It held that the "God Factor" at best was myth and at worse was a deliberate attempt to subjugate various races, genders, national groups, etc.

Modernism holds that such truths as exist are not transcendent, that is they do not have their origin in the Divine.  They very much hold that the notion of God is dead!  That is not to say that those who hold this position ever believed that the Divine lived and then died.  It is the idea that the notion and therefore the influence of God on western culture is an antiquated and dead notion.  That death includes all of the attendant truth to include theology, doctrine, the influences of the Church in history, etc.

Without there being the Divine, revelation cannot possibly exist for it would have no origin.

"No revelation, no Divine!  Know revelation, know the Divine."

Therefore such revelation as is embraced throughout Judeo-Christian history is not held to be valid and therefore, such truth as is discovered comes by human rationalism, scientific discovery, and as well such truth as may be postulated from existence.  Such a position is based on a very high view of man, man's capacities.
Because of that high view of man and because God is excluded from the discussion there are the following pathways to truth.

• Rationalism theorizes that through Idealism and Mentalism truth may be known.  Rational processes of the mind are key to this theory.
• Empiricism theorizes that through Science, Naturalism, Materialism, Mechanism truth may be known.  Truth is derived from how one observes and processes those observations.
• Existentialism theorizes that through the Sensationalism truth may be known.  Truth is known through what one senses and feels.

The outcome of such belief is that Modernism is a truth that comes in and of a closed system.  That is to say there is no Divine influence in and upon the system of truth the Modernist postulates.  As to the previously posted discussions of Ethics vs Morals, since there is no transcendent truth, man's best guess at what is right and correct is from these three categories just listed.

For example, in empiricism man may observe and test the values of a culture and decide what at least 51% of that culture hold to be true.  In this example truth is then imply a social construct or a truth born of cultural mores.  Of course just because a majority of the culture believes something to be true does not make it so.

Post Modernism revealed

The Post-Modernist rejects all previous notions of and arguments for truth.  While the Modernist and those of Judeo-Christian belief agree that there is this "stuff" called truth, this group rejects all of the above discussion regarding the matter.

Therefore, there is no God or even god, transcendent truth, revelation, universal truth, objective truth!  All is rejected.  In its extreme forms it is titled, Nihilism.  It is the Post-Modernist that tacitly or directly seeks to remove any and all restraint from the individual.  The outcome is that there is a spiraling descent into ethical chaos.  Such is not without implications for the mental-emotional-volitional-social elements of one's being.

Notice that without some way to know and embrace truth in the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and actions of life; there are consequences to include but not be limited to the following.

• There is no basis for values thus no basis for judging right from wrong and good from evil.  
• There is no basis for gaining a sense of confidence which results from right action.
• There is no definition of roles and boundaries.
• There is no basis for meaningful discussions of truth for common presupposition does not exist
• There is no common way to process information--logic does not exist
• There is no basis for building self esteem which comes from aligning one's thoughts and actions with belief.
• There is no basis for relationship (in theory)

One might comfortably conclude that without the restraint of a belief (truth) system there is a type of anarchy both in the individual and as well in the relationships of those individuals who believe and accept post modernism.

One of the tests of the validity and veracity of truth is whether it is even possible for such to exist.  Take for example the previously listed qualities of the Post-Modernist.  If more than one person holds the Post- Modern position and discusses same with another some sort of relationship has to exist.

Relationships can only come when there is common language, common thought and/or common purpose.  In this case there is a common value in rejecting Judeo-Christian belief and Modernism.  Thus there is common thought and in some cases, corporate action.  In the expression of a common value, a form of "truth" is being acknowledged  and accepted.  Thus there is a truth standard and a major flaw in Post-Modernism.

WHICH IS THE MORE DURABLE TRUTH?

My thought is that most people seem to find comfort and security in the notion of durability.  That is to say that if something or someone can be counted upon when all else fails, it gives a certain confidence, a certain sense of comfort, a feeling of security where otherwise none exists.

With that thought the following is offered.

The reality of truth is that, if the best you can do is man’s truth (Modernism), it is better than no truth (Post-Modernism)!  Therefore, I believe that Post-Modernism is trumped by Modernism.  However, I believe that the prudent thinker will conclude that Judeo-Christian belief trumps both of the previous.

Also consider, if you can have a truth that is, external to the individual and culture and thus is universal,   objective in the sense that it does not change with the circumstances, most of all transcendent in that it finds its origin in the Divine, the outcome is an open system of truth (Judeo-Christian).  Such truth is a more durable truth and my view is a more durable truth which has stood the test of time, culture, race, etc. is to be preferred over all other truth systems.

CTb II Cultural Competence

CTa Intro A "The Chaplain"

There is perhaps no other position that requires the occupant to carefully serve in the often misunderstood relationship of church and state than that of public service chaplaincy.  It may well be in the military setting, public hospital, corrections, or emergency services that the chaplain experiences firsthand the attendant challenges and tensions.

BALANCING THE DEMANDS OF TWO MASTERS

The chaplain serves in a unique place for several reasons a few of which will follow.  As you read through the list you will note that each has the potential for misunderstanding and tension. 

Chaplains Serve Under Two Authorities

The Public Service Chaplain who is officially recognized by an agency, say a police department serves under the authority of that department but also under recognized ecclesiastical authority.  That in the practical means that such a chaplain must meet and satisfy such requirements as may be required by both entities.

Ecclesiastical Authority:  Clergy service in the public sector can only be recognized by public sector entities when recognized ecclesiastical authority endorses said clergyman.  In most cases that means that the chaplain has met his faith body requirements for ministerial recognition, met such experience requirements as levied by that faith body, and then received their endorsement for service with a particular agency.

Public Agency Authority:  The chaplain then will most often have to meet the requirements levied by the public service agency in order to serve that agency.  For example a background check is often required, specialized training, and even serve probationary time.  This leads directly to the next point.

Establishment Clause:  If the chaplain serves without an endorsement from a recognized ecclesiastical body the public service agency runs the risk of being seen as establishing a religion.

Misunderstanding:  Owing to the drift of culture toward secularism, one should not expect that the unchurched members of the department will understand the ecclesiastical elements of one’s chaplaincy, not should one expect the opposite to be true.  Such can lead to tensions.

Chaplains Serve in Unique Places

Once granted entrance into the institution or department, the chaplain serves in places that for a number of reasons must restrict public access. 

In the case of the Law Enforcement chaplain two come to mind.  Chaplain service may be conducted in a danger or threat environment.  As well chaplain service might expose the chaplain to sensitive information that if broadly known might compromise an active investigation.  Simply stated you cannot have just anyone and everyone seeking to serve in sensitive places.

There is another unique quality that needs to be considered and that is the chaplain must become acquainted with those he serves based upon a trust relationship.  Such comes with two qualities.  First is contact time.  As someone once said, “Ministry by purposefully loitering.”

The second is understanding.  The chaplain in order to serve effectively must be someone who is on some level acquainted with qualities, mind set, department environment, family life, emotional issues, and as well someone who understands the relationships within the department etc.

CHURCH STATE TENSIONS

In the course of serving in the public arena, care must be observed to not violate the conditions of one’s ministerial recognition and endorsement.  In an environment in which one entity may not understand the other, there can be issues such as the following.

§  Freedom of religion issues

§  Ethical issues that lead to problems

§  The chaplain can become overburdened with requirements of both entities

§  The prioritizing of ecclesiastical standards and practices (church) over the standards and practices of the department (state) may not be understood

§  The religious approach to service at most times is within but at times it may be necessary to prioritized over state interests

§  The tension when a chaplain is asked to perform services outside the conditions of his ordination and ecclesiastical endorsement

§  Issues that bear upon the establishing of a “state religion” issues are important to the discussion

KEYS TO PRIVATE SECTOR VS PUBLIC SECTOR SERVICE

There can be difficulties when the chaplain does not make a clear distinction between serving as a member (e.g. in a congregation) and serving as a guest (e.g. in a department).  Consider the differences as follows using the notion of member or guest.

Private Sector (Congregation/Church) vs. Public Sector (Department/State)

Consider the following comparison of the two sectors and the difference in relationships and roles that are a part of each one.  In the following the word “church” is considered to be the local congregation and not the regional or national denomination.

§  The Church is situated in a private setting while the Department is in a public setting

You probably want to check with your denominational attorney on this.  I think that even when the local congregation rents out a public building for meetings, it is considered to be a private setting.

Also since your church is a private entity, you may not know this but you can trespass a person from your church property when that person is disruptive or a danger to the congregation

§  The Church is subject to limited outside scrutiny and oversight while the Department has broader outside scrutiny and oversight.

There is little government and media attention and oversight of a Church while the Department is subject to much oversight and scrutiny by its critics, the ACLU, and the media.

For example you can restrict the media’s access to church property.

§  The Church and you as a pastor have limited potential for lawsuit while the Department and you as a member of your Department have greater potential.

Generally speaking except for negligence as in not doing diligence in background checks on child care and youth workers, most churches never have a lawsuit.  However, even in small departments it is not uncommon for there to be some sort of court action.

§  The Church has wide speech parameters and can be open about their position on sensitive issues while the Department has much more narrowly defined speech parameters and often must be closed about sensitive issues.

As to speech the pastor can bring whatever message he deems appropriate within the guidance of doctrine and church polity.  However, such is not so in your department and wise is the chaplain who is careful in how he packages his doctrine in the public square.

My personal policy while serving in the military chaplaincy was anything that was mandatory got a general prayer unless the senior officer present requested otherwise.  Non-mandatory activities were a different matter.

However, let me suggest that you have freedom of religion rights as well.  Even so we need to respect those to whom we have been called to serve.

§  The Church has greater freedom to take action which might be viewed in the public sector as discrimination as it seeks to live out its doctrine

For example you may choose to discriminate against someone who does not comply with church doctrine.  However, your department does not have that latitude.  As long as the person can meet qualifications such as height, weight, strength, intelligence, etc.

This washes both ways as a church might be able to hire a blind pastor but a police department would not be able to hire a blind police officer—well I suppose they could if he could pass the driving test and qualify on the range.

§  The pastor in the Church has limited potential to offend while the same pastor if a chaplain must be careful in order to reduce the potential for offense.

SUMMARY AND CLOSE

Besides the member/guest question, there are other questions that one might consider when sorting through all of the issues involved in serving under two authorities.  Among them are the following. 

§  Who is it that you are you serving?

§  Where is it that are you serving?

§  How is it that you serving (approach/demeanor)?

§  What is it that you trying to accomplish?

§  When is it that you are serving?  

Final Definition

Chaplaincy:  “Service (ministry) born of a relationship with an Ecclesiastical body and then with the State”

CTa Intro D “The Foundations of Judeo-Christian Truth/Reality Examined”

(Note:  There are two items to note:  1.  If your belief does not fit into the broad category of Judeo-Christian belief, may I suggest that you read the following for an understanding of those who embrace such.  However, may I also suggest that you consider fitting your religious truth system into a similar presentation format and forwarding it to me.  2.  The material in this section serves as something of an introduction the the next two sections)

Returning to the subject of the previous blog, consider again the external versus internal origins of truth only this time focusing upon the Judeo-Christian belief.  Certainly there elements common to both.  Rationally discovering trends and systems of truth is not the private property of Judeo-Christian Theology.  However, there are at least two distinctive which will be considered below.

TERMS TO CONSIDER

Before giving consideration to a very general overview of the History of Truth/Reality the following terms are offered as a starting place.

§  The Great Enlightenment

§  Rational Optimism

§  Skepticism

§  Pessimism

§  Pragmatism

§  Modernism

§  Post-modernism

In broad brush strokes, Judeo-Christian belief held predominance in the West even into and through the Dark Ages.  Then in the period between 1650-1750, rationalism began to offer other alternatives to the faith view.  The result was that in time this rationalism took precedence to

The following quote by John MacArtheur, pastor, commentator, and author will put some of these terms in perspective.

 “The belief that mankind, on his own, could formulate the perfect philosophical system—one that would fully explain all of reality—reached its peak during the Enlightenment.  Human reason, it was thought would eventually discover the answers to all of life’s questions, and thereby solve all of society’s problems.  The assumption was that through intellectual achievement and the growing body of scientific knowledge, humanity would eventually bring about a utopia.  Hence there was no need for religion, which had kept people in stifling darkness for centuries.  There was no interest in divine revelation or salvation, since man believed he could save himself from his problems.

“But the optimism of the Enlightenment has faded to black in recent times.  The unimaginable slaughter of two world wars, the unfathomable evil of the Holocaust, and the terrifying reality of nuclear war quickly shattered the unrealistic idealism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  In its place, skepticism and pessimism began to take old, as feelings of uncertainty (about life and even reality) became more and more widespread.  Increasingly, the very concept of truth itself came under fire, especially the possibility of knowing absolute truth... 

“The skepticism of the twentieth century culminated with the rise of postmodernism, a worldview that is still in vogue today.  In contrast to the modernists, whose rationalistic optimism flowed out of the Enlightenment, postmodernists reject the notion that ultimate truth is knowable or even exists.  Rather, they contend that the “truth” people believe are merely societal norms created by the culture in which they live.  Thus there are no timeless truths, only ephemeral preferences.  Whatever works for people is truth for them; pragmatism and relativism reign supreme. (Ironically, the only thing postmodernists are absolutely certain of is that nothing is absolutely certain.  As a result, they are forced to defend an illogical position—namely that it is a universal, comprehensive truth that there are no universal, comprehensive truths.)

MacArthur, John The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, John 1-11 (Chicago:  Moody Press, 2006) pp. 351-53.

AGE SUGGESTS THE DURABILITY OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

Far older in age than Modernism and Post-Modernism, which will be consider a bit later, there has existed the belief in Judeo-Christian truth.  Most certainly there are those who argue against age as a validating factor in order to favor some notion of progressive thought as being superior.  However, consideration must be given to the durability of truth as compared to the more recent thought fads that seem to be in vogue.

THE BROAD ACCEPTANCE OF JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

When consideration is given to the numbers of adherents to Judeo-Christian truth, it is apparent that it has been embraced by a higher number of people than any other religion.   Even today, when all Judeo-Christian faith groups are totaled something over 2.1 billion label themselves as Christian or adherent to Judaism (Judaism alone has on the order of 13-15 adherients).

USER FRIENDLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

It is Judeo-Christian truth that requires no particular level of intelligence or education for understanding and yet when mined for deeper truth, their depth is inexhaustible.  The fact is that these Scriptures and the truths and principles contained therein come of transcendent revelation and are nothing short of miraculous in nature.  That transcendent revelation contains two elements which are supernatural in nature.  

Judeo-Christian Truth is Transcendent

The first supernatural element is that its origins are from the exterior of the universe or the previously mentioned box as we know it.  Indeed it finds its origins in the Divine.  

Judeo-Christian Truth is Accessible

The second supernatural element is that it is revealed to the believer on his level of comprehension.  That is to say that the Scriptures are made available to everyone upon his level.  That is exactly why the child who is learning to read can comprehend the Scriptures as can the intellectual.

Thus the mystery and the miracle of Divine revelation is that such revelation is made available to all people of all times on their level.  Take for example the simple statement "God is love." From the earliest days of a child's understanding, through the developing years, the productive years, the retirement years, all the way through to last days of one's life, that statement can be understood, the only difference is in the depth of understanding.  So it is with other elements of Judeo-Christian faith.

UNIVERSAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

Too basic Judeo-Christian belief is universal in that it applies to all.  That is to say that it may find cultural application but the basic tenants and principles present are universal. 

OBJECTIVE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRUTH

This is a truth that is objective in that it does not depend upon circumstance.  It simply exists without regard to time, culture, and the individual.  It is as eternal as the God whose character and nature it reflects.  While nuances of application may vary over time, according to culture, and in the individual, the basic elements of its existence does not!  Thus love is always love, murder is always murder, deceit is always deceit, etc.

The best way to describe such truth/reality is that it is not so much a belief in God as it is a belief with God.  In other words, it is completely compatible and consistent with the nature and character of the Divine, the God who is!