Beware of "My Truth" Demands

When someone makes a demand to express “My Truth,” I have learned to BEWARE!  It has been my experience that when a person has a "My Truth" starting point to a conversation, several unhelpful things will follow:

• They will fight to protect “Their Truth.”  Both me and my perspective present a personal threat to them and “Their Truth” and indeed the very identity they have built on “Their Truth.”
• They will be unable to imagine any other “Truth” that is not theirs alone, even if I agree with them.
• They will be unable to even imagine a “Truth” that is big enough to speak both to their perspective and to mine.

And worst of all, those problems are "baked in" to their thinking.  The problems necessarily follow from the premise that "I have the truth" in my sole possesion.

A different starting point that leads to different conversations and better outcomes is realizing that everyone has their experience and/or perspective on "The Truth."

It is more helpful to say "I had this experience and it was true."  Great! is my response.  How does your experience connect with my own experience, even if different, and help us both get a clearer glimplse of "The Truth."

It is more helpful to say "This is my perspective on this matter."  Great! is my response.  Perhaps your persepective can enlarge or enlighten my perspective.  We are both better off to discover that.

It can be the case that your perspective might disagree with my perspective.  Fair enough.  But we can still be people who are pursuing "The Truth."  At this point, our perspectives simply disagree.  Neither of us need be a threat to the other person.

The "My Truth" orientation is exclusive and necessarily leads to conflict.  After all, if "My Truth" and is different that your "My Truth," then your "My Truth" is wrong and such a falsehood must be set right.  That is to say, surrendered to my "My Truth."

Better - and I would say closer to the reality of our world - to say that "The Truth" exists independently of me.  I certainly may have an experience of that "Truth" or a perspective on it.  But I do not own Truth.

When "The Truth" exists apart from either me or you, then it is easy for me to realize that I may have only a parital experience or perspective on "The Truth."  The next step is to realize that perhaps you have an experience or persepctive that would better inform my own.  Picture me moving from a 20% grasp of "The Truth" to a 22% of "The Truth" because of what I learn from your experience or perspective.

As you can see, such a starting point draws us to community and reconciliation rather than conflict.

In closing - and with a big grin as I type - if what I am saying is off base and and you need to let me hear "Your Truth" on this, give me a call through the church office and I will be happy to listen.  I am certain I can benefit from your perspective.

Added on June 24, 2024

CLICK HERE for ‘Live My Truth’: The Gospel in an Age of Privatized Faith by Trevin Wax

When we talk about Jesus or share the gospel, most people today will assume we’re talking about a private, personalized faith, as if we’re asking them to adopt the same hobby. I’m just speaking “my” truth or sharing about the religious identity that works “for me.”

CS Lewis On The Dilema Of A "Christian" Political Party

I meet regularly with a friend to talk through a chapter from CS Lewis' book "God in the Dock."  Hmmmm.  Lewis was a citizen of England, and an Oxford University Professor of Medieval literature who died November 22, 1963, the same day that President John Kennedy was assinated here in the United States.  When the reading was "Meditation on the Third Commandment," (The one about not "Taking the LORD's Name in Vain")  I was sure the chapter would be a snoozer.  Boy, was I surprised!

First paragraph:

We learn of the growing desire for a Christian ‘party’, a Christian ‘front’, or a Christian ‘platform’ in politics. Nothing is so earnestly to be wished as a real assault by Christianity on the politics of the world: nothing, at first sight, so fitted to deliver this assault as a Christian Party.  .  .  .

The Christian Party must either confine itself to stating what ends are desirable and what means are lawful, or else it must go further and select from among the lawful means those which it deems possible and efficacious and give to these its practical support. If it chooses the first alternative, it will not be a political party. Nearly all parties agree in professing ends which we admit to be desirable—security, a living wage, and the best adjustment between the claims of order and freedom. What distinguishes one party from another is the championship of means. We do not dispute whether the citizens are to be made happy, but whether an egalitarian or a hierarchical State, whether capitalism or socialism, whether despotism or democracy is most likely to make them so.

Lewis nexts illustrates with three hypothetical believers who all prefer different means - think policies - in pursuit of similar ends - public safety and equal opportunity for all citizens for example.  Division will follow, not based on the ends that all three would agree on, but based instead on the different means to achieving those ends.  One group might win the day based on their policies, but in doing that, they become only a part of the believing church, and not the whole. 

Lewis again:

It will be not simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole. By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal. It will be exposed, in an aggravated degree, to that temptation which the Devil spares none of us at any time—the temptation of claiming for our favourite opinions that kind and degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith.

All this comes from pretending that God has spoken when He has not spoken. He will not settle the two brothers’ inheritance: ‘Who made Me a judge or a divider over you?’ (Luke 12:14) By the natural light He has shown us what means are lawful: to find out which one is efficacious He has given us brains. The rest He has left to us.

Lewis closes with sage advice that avoids the problem altogether:

There is a third way (to influence the country with Christian Faith) — by becoming a majority. He who converts his neighbour has performed the most practical Christian-political act of all.

Whoa?!?  He was writing this in 1941, right in the middle of the Nazi "Blitz Bombing" of London in World War II.  It's all of 4 pages, and worth digging in to.  You can purchase  the book from Amazon by CLICKING HERE.  It will include more than 45 MORE fascinating chapters.  Or listen to it read on YouTube by CLICKING HERE.  You will love the British accident for the 8 minutes it takes.

What Do You Mean By That Term: "Christian Nationalism"

During a recent conversation, I had a local elected official say to me "I am a Christian, and I love my country.  That makes me a Christian Naitonalist, right?"  For them, it was a rhetorical question with a self-evident answer of "Certainly!"  I was silent.

In truth, it all depends on how that term - Christian Nationalism - is defined.  That is the challenge in any conversation when someone uses it.  When one term represents different things as different people use it, nothing but confusion and false assumptions can follow.  Since I couldn't ask for some more detail on their definition, I wasn't going to add to the confusion.

Frankly, I think the better term for what my representive may have wanted to express would have been "patriotic Christian."  Grammar Geeks will tell you that it matters which is the adjective and which is the object.

Personally, I am happy to stand with respect when the VFW marches by with the American flag at the Tulip Time parade.  I have performed a Memorial Service at Arlington National Cemetery and been stirred by the sights and history of that setting.  I'm glad to stand for the National Anthem at events, and do my best to sing it.  The people of Celebration-Harderwyk hear me pray for those who govern our nation.  Gold star families have been part of the congregations that I have served.

I am thankful to be a citizen of the United States.  It has afforded me unimaginable blessings and I recognize that many people have sacrificed in a variety of ways to make those possible.  I am disheartened when my country has not lived up to it's dream and want to help pursue that dream for everyone.  I understand why many people yearn to join me in the freedoms, responsibilities and abundance that citizenship affords.  I want to pass it all on to my children, neighbors and any others that want to join me.

But I also know that many Nigerians love their homeland, like I do mine.  The same could be said for many Chinese, Germans, Salvadoreans and on and on and on.  Love of homeland is a good thing.  I would even say a "God thing."

But loving our homeland - or any homeland - more than God Himself is a different matter.  Such disordered love is a form of idolatry.  It blinds us to the shortcomings, sin and brokenness of our own homeland and the people and culture that make it feel like home to us.  Every homeland falls short, to paraphrase Paul in Romans 3.  Every homeland, or better, all the people in it need the Savior: Jesus.

At the end, people from every homeland will gather around the throne of the Lamb of God and give Him praise.  The words of Revelation are "from every tribe and tongue and nation."  But it is Jesus the Lamb that they will worship, not their homeland.

It appears to me that the term "Christian Natonalism" is a slippery one right now.  People use it as a slur for others they disagree with.  Or a point of separation to differentiate themselves from "those people."  Or for virtue signaling.  Or without thinking.  When I hear someone use the term, my first question is always, "What do you mean by that?" long before I say "me too" or "no way."  How do you define the term?  That makes all the difference.

That said, there is an emerging movement of self-identified "Christian Nationalists" I must resist and reject.  Their definition of the term lays out an idolatrous order of love for God and Country.  I'm writing to warn you of this emerging force.

The Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe is the most serious effort I know to make the best case for both "Christian" as well as "Nationalism."  It is nearly 500 pages and scholarly in tone, so I have not read it.  But this review on TheGospelCoalition.org is enough to confirm my concerns.  CLICK HERE for that full review.  It is long and detailed.

Much more readable and helpful on this topic is Trevin Wax's reflections on the recent Rob Reiner "documentary" called "God & Country."  CLICK HERE for that post.  It would be good to read the review and watch the video together.

I've avoided my own definition of Christian Nationalism in this post. I am hoping to point out the existence of a line between patriotism and idolatry.  Getting specific about where to draw the actual line right now may need some conversation.  "What do you mean by that?"

Consider learning more and listening carefully in order to more clearly identify that line in your own life.  If you only take one thing away, may it be the encouragement to first ask, "What do you mean by that?" so you can pursue understanding.

As always, feel free to ask questions or pursue further conversations with me.  Stop me after a service and we can set up a time for conversation.  Call the Harderwyk office and they can help us connect.  Let's be aware and learning.