from “The Flame of The Search”
by A.H. Almaas
How do you know that the knowledge you get from others is the truth? How do you know that your teachers, or even the great philosophers, have the answer that is appropriate for you? Christ says to love your neighbor. Do you really know that that is what you need to do? Buddha says that enlightenment is the best thing. How do you know that is what you need?
Some people say you have to learn to be yourself. It sounds good. Some people say you should be free from your personality and develop your Essence. It sounds great. How do you know it will resolve your situation? You don’t really know whether any of these ideas are relevant or true for you. You can’t know with certainty until you have experimented and learned from your own experience. Until then your action is based on faith or belief. If you assume unquestioningly that what someone else says is the truth, your inner flame will be extinguished. You will believe that you have answered questions when you haven’t answered them; someone else has. And they haven’t answered them for you, but for themselves. We comfort ourselves by believing that others know, and that we can use their knowledge. It’s a very comforting thought; it encourages us to be lazy. We comfort ourselves by saying to ourselves, “Somebody knows, and in time I’ll get around to studying it. It’s already known and always available to me.”
But do you, yourself, really know in your heart what is supposed to happen? Do you ever allow yourself to question, to have a burning question–and not put out the flame quickly with the first answer that you hear? You put out the flame so that you can return to your sense of comfort and security.
Someone tells you that it’s good to pay attention, to be aware. When you try it, it helps a little–but you still don’t know whether it’s the answer. You don’t know whether it will actually resolve your situation. And if you believe you know, you’re lying to yourself. You need to keep the question alive while you investigate for yourself.
How do I know that I was reading some so-called English written by so called A H Almaas posted on so-called wordpress.com. All because I’m a so-called Christian yet I firmly believe in God.
solitude,
Yes, but did you “own” it first? It’s all about experience, not merely adopting attitudes or opinions.
Hrmmm…. yes and no. A.H. Almaas talks very clearly about truth, whether true for one person or the next. Webster definse truth as “that which is true, fact, or in accordance with reality.”
Here’s something interesting… Last night, at the weekly young adult’s ministry I help out with called Damascus Road, the pastor was teaching on the cost of discipleship (Luke 14: 25-35). It’s an interesting and very difficult passage, but one of his points was that to have faith in Christ, full knowledge of God is not necessary, and the Holy Spirit will share additional knowledge during your walk. Very very few Christians really know what they are getting themselves into when they make that first proverbial leap of faith. But almost all find it simultaneously more difficult and more rewarding than they originally thought.
I say this because the discussion of truth is incredibly important to that of faith. Without OBJECTIVE truth, our faith, and the truthfulness of what we believe, is directly proportional to how strongly we believe it. Thus, if I believe that it is my faith in Christ that “saves” me and not my good works, what happens when my faith is shaky or unsteady? Am I truly saved? That guilt and struggle is completely contradictory to scripture, and more depressing (to me at least) than not having any faith at all. God does not mean for us to live in such a depressing and contradictory pluralism.
“Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
(“THE way, THE truth, and THE life,” not “A way, A truth, and A life..”).
“Without OBJECTIVE truth, our faith, and the truthfulness of what we believe, is directly proportional to how strongly we believe it.”
Well, that it the one true thing you said there Brad.
Since Christianity has no objective truth it is just an arbitrarty decision to believe, “just because you want to”, as someone said.
This still does not make it true.
Brad,
I don’t believe in objective truth. Call me a relativist, which I’m not, but all viewpoints are subjective in that we cannot step outside ourselves and look upon ourselves as observers. We wish we could, hence our incessant dualistic natures, but I don’t think it possible. We can adopt ideas if we want, but experience is the only true teacher.
Whew… ok….
Nooga,
“Since Christianity has no objective truth it is just an arbitrarty decision to believe, “just because you want to”, as someone said.”
I beg to differ, yet we are obviously working on different assumptions.
1.) How do you define objective truth? Is it that which is gleaned from use of the scientific method? Historical record?
2.) Considering Christ’s rhetoric on truth, I would say that Christianity is most definitely NOT an arbitrary decision to believe. It may appear that way or be communicated that way by modern Christians, but that is just not supported in any way shape or form by scripture.
MOI,
OK…. I see at least somewhat of what you are saying… I would agree that experience is quite vital. In becoming a Christian, I was led through a series of experiences I would summarize as a “call” from God to faith in Him. However, the bible itself is intended to be that “detached perspective” that you speak of, so that we can experience it as we live it out.
I don’t feel like I’m explaining this very well… OK, so you have a foundation (truth) that you want to build something on (your faith). If the foundation is still wet and moldable or maleable, it will be very difficult to build anything on it that will last. But if it is dry, solid, and lasting, then you can make a building unique to your created self (personal faith).
This is probably why I’m so confident in the doctrine of solo scriptura, without an objective foundation, I can’t see a faith lasting through the storm.
Make sense?
Brad,
Makes perfect sense because I used to believe in sola scriptura, but quasi-catholic that I am, I see that this stance is incomplete. It has produced numerous denominations all emphasizing a different point of doctrine or “word of truth” according to the interpreter of scripture. How can this be any foundation if it produces countless differing results?
You may say the results aren’t that different in essentials, but they differ in the meaning of the essence of salvation, justification, and sanctification. What’s an honest believer to do but chuck the whole shebang? If it’s confusing to believers and dumbed down for converts just to get them in the fold, no wonder many become Christians and subsequently disillusioned! I know I did.
hehe, I’m glad you asked!
The solution is an objective historical-contextual hermaneutic. Basically, this means that the interpretation needs to be read from the perspective of the author, historical context, and audience in order to derive a true intent. It is very difficult to do this in a pure 100% form, of course, and it is very hard not to read our own agenda into scripture sometimes, but if this effort is there, any illumination from the Holy Spirit will “fine tune” much of the rest.
Idealist? Probably. But without that intent, what standard exists? Without it, we can read any agenda or unintended doctrine into whatever we want.
As far as the plurality of denominations, I see no problem with it. My own denomination, (EPC) has a motto that is very Augustinian:
“In Essentials, Unity. In Non-Essentials, Liberty. In all things, Charity.”
However, the essential meanings of justification, salvation, etc. are key. While they will differ slightly, I would say that they do not differ enough (for the majority of denominations) to disqualify one from saving grace. The distinction is still important, and can give us a clearer picture of God (leading to greater joy in relationship), but I will not say that it disqualifies anyone from salvation.
In short, one can be a little wrong and not be completely wrong. Noone has it perfect on this side of heaven, anyway.
Brad,
Well Stanley Fish would take issue with “historical-contextual hermaneutic” since what the author intended can never be fully known. Without the author’s intent, the standard resides with the reader. True lit. theorist that I am, I know that the only standard is a subjective one since history is never written objectively and these are primarily historical texts. The communities for which the texts are written are the interpreters of the text. Once outside those communities, interpretation differs of course and this carries over into every faith community.
Good thoughts!
hrmmm… very true. We will never have it 100% right, so I agree to a limited subjectivity. But the pendulum should not swing too far in that direction.
Thanks! My English-degree wife has taught me well.
Brad,
Yay! I think you should give your wife a big, fat kiss for being an English major! Hard to do when everyone tells you it gets you nowhere! I beg to differ.