What are The Truth Tests?
In her book, Total
Truth, Nancy Pearcey tells a typical story occurring among many
of today's Christians. She writes about a young lady who got saved
in a contemporary church and continued on with her education then
career.
Although she was sincere about her conversion,
she found herself living in three worlds. On Sundays she was in the Christian-world.
On Mondays she was in her university science class world. On Sundays
she would hear all kinds of helpful messages (and occasionally something
from the Bible). But on Mondays she would move into her other world where
things of the Bible are not only denied- they are ridiculed. Somehow
she was able to live in her Christian world on Sundays by telling herself
that what she knew to be true from her Monday science world was a different
kind of truth from what she was now hearing. Therefore, when she entered
her third world she saw no dilemma. That's why she saw no problem in
taking a job as a technician in an Abortion Clinic. She had done what
many Christians are now doing. She had compartmentalised truth into different
worldviews.
During the recent Parliamentary debate on the availability of RU486
(the "abortion pill") we heard this same kind of confused
worldviews from several members of Parliament. Some Parliamentarians
expressed their "Christian faith" while simultaneously supporting
a Bill that will most certainly violate the sixth commandment (do
not murder). Other Parliamentarians promoted an even worse kind
of truth categorisation when they insisted that religion and morality
should have no bearing on legislative decision making. This sounded
as gentle as "the Church should look after it's own affairs
and stop meddling with the affairs that affect the broader community" and
as viscious as - "Get your Rosaries off my Ovaries!" In
either case the subtle message was that while Christianity might deal
in the truth, this was a realm of "different" truth where
the Church and Christians had no place participating. Several Parliamentarians
scolded those with Christian views as being "biased" which
is an absurdly remarkable statement to think that those who are atheists
are "objective" and those who have accepted the reality of
God and His claims on creation as "biased". (Romans 1:21
actually says that those who reject God and His Word are biased with
their minds darkened by their religious position.)
Nancy Pearcey points out in her book (Total
Truth) that while many trendy churches are claiming huge numbers
of converts, many of these converts are failing to appreciate the truth
of God's claims in all areas of life. They see no problem
in dissecting truth into compartments that cannot be harmonised. Thus,
when the science teacher says that the earth is around 4.56 billion
years old (which it probably is) and their preacher says that earth
is only 6,000 years old (a slight difference of opinion!) they simply
regard them as both being right, despite how illogical this position
is.
Truth and facts are not necessarily the
same. For something to be true it must be so without qualification. That
is, truth is not subject to time, place, circumstances, or acceptance.
It is true despite all of these things. Facts, on the other hand, are
subject to change. For example, a person's exact age can be known factually,
but the truth is the answer changes al the time. Another example is in
1968 it was a fact that man could not walk on the moon- but it wasn't true.
Facts change, truth doesn't. Understanding this distinction helps us
to realise that when someone says-"That's true for you, but not
for me!" they possibly don't understand the difference between facts
and truth.
As Christians we sometime do a similar
thing when dealing with truth. We form an incomplete or even incorrect
understanding of the truth then refuse to change our opinion about it-
despite all the facts providing evidence that our opinion of what is
true is wrong. Based on Biblical comments like the rising of the
sun some ancient Christians agreed with the Greeks that the earth
must be stationary and flat. As the science of astronomy developed, this
notion about earth became increasingly implausible. Yet some (even today)
believe that it is true that the earth is flat despite the photographic
evidence from lunar voyages! This should cause the Christian in the face
of overwhelming evidence to question whether it is the truth that is
wrong- or their opinion of it. Is it true that the Bible teaches that
the earth is just 6,000 - 10,000 years old? Is it true that the Bible
predicts the ultimate demise of the Church and the rise of an ungodly
one-world government? I wonder whether these are opinions or whether
they are the truth?
Recently in Australia our Federal politicians
debated the merits of the Health Minister having special powers to prevent
the legal availability of a drug that was originally in 2000 considered
so abhorrent that its ban received universal support from all political
parties at that time (thus giving the Health Minister the right to exercise
extraordinary powers to make it illegal in Australia). This legislation
was originally introduced by Tasmanian Senator, Brian Harradine, an ardent
Christian. The arguments put forward in February 2006 on both sides of
the debate were, on the whole, reasonable and balanced. But there were
several appeals to "truth" by certain politicians that deserve
closer scrutiny.
- Is it true that the RU486 debate had nothing to do with abortion?
- Is it true that the life of the developing baby is of no consequence
in this debate?
- Is it true that these developing babies are better off aborted if
they are unwanted and unloved?
- Is it true that the abortion debate is "now settled" in
Australia since Abortion was made legal by the States of Australia
some 20 years ago and that recent developments in ultrasound and (especially
4D ultrasound) technology now shows us something about inter-utero
development of a baby that couldn't have possibly have known then?
Some quoted the lesser known statement
by Sir Edmund Bourke (who famously said that all it takes for evil
to triumph is for good men to do nothing) when he said something
like- an elected member of parliament does a disservice to those
who elected him if he not only represents their views but fails to give
his own opinion on a matter for which he was elected to make
decisions. I'm not sure about the context of this quote, but I think
that this quote was used by some as a justification for ignoring the
overwhelming expression of public input into this debate which urged
parliamentarians to allow the ban to be maintained. It was similar to
a debate held in Tasmania a few years ago when 70% of electors urged
their elected members not to introduce a piece of contentious legislation.
One parliamentarian resented the fact that she was being asked to represent
the views of her electorate, curiously implying that this was not how
parliamentary democracy functioned. Despite the massive numbers of people
objecting to this Bill, most Parliamentarians ignored the electorate
and voted the Bill into Law (presumably trusting that when the next election
came around four years later the electorate would have forgotten all
about it!).
How can we test whether a statement or
claim is true? There are some ancient and logical tests. These include-
- Is it contradictory? (Something cannot be true if its essential facts
disagree.)
- Is it supported by the evidence? (If all the evidence suggests otherwise
then the claim is questionable.)
- Can it be verified? (This is known as falsifiability.)
- Is it conclusive? (Is it a blend of partly true and opinion or guesswork?
For something to be true it should be able to stand alone.)
Thus, when a Parliamentarian says that
debating the availability of RU486 (the Abortion Pill) has nothing to
do with the morality of abortion their claim is clearly untrue because
it has dire consequences for abortion rates. Or, when a Parliamentarian
says that RU486 is about a mother's right to choose they fail to be truthful
because they don't adequately define "choice" which truthfully
is a choice between letting their yet-to-born-baby live or die. When
The Australian Greens Party says that a person becomes "a
human" the moment they are born, they are not being truthful with
the science of biology that says a human zygote is 100% human (though
not fully formed, which continues to take place after birthing by the
way). When a Parliamentarian says that they are privately opposed to
something but publically they have to support it, they are not being
truthful about their real position.
There is a saying that says- What's new is probably
not true and what's true is probably not new. Facts change, truth
doesn't. To arrive at certainty I believe that Christians in particular
need to be more sceptical. Being "sceptical" means
that we are reluctant to believe unless we have a high degree of certainty.
Unfortunately too many Christians think sola scriptura ("the
Scriptures alone" which speaks of the Bible's unique authority),
means that God only has one revelation to mankind. But the Bible itself
speaks of several other forms of Divine revelation that can be used
to have certainty about the truth-
- The record of creation, including biology, geology and astronomy
(Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Romans 1)
- The person of Jesus Christ (Heb. 1)
When we apply the tests of truth to any claim we can
be more certain of arriving at the truth. For those interested in truth
in public office, particularly among our politicians, recent events make
it plain that a person's worldview dramatically affects the decisions
they make. Rather than an atheist or a non-religionist being expected
to be the only ones qualified to make unbiased decisions, the opposite
is found to be true. That's why Christians should not be niave about
who they vote for. Good government is much more than simply ensuring
an economy is running efficiently. Many brutal and evil dictators have
also been good economic managers! That doesn't mean that we should only
expect good politicians to be inept economic managers- but we must guard
against being fooled into thinking that as long as the economy is being
managed well any other decision with a moral implication doesn't really
matter.
Unfortunately, we should also expect more of pastors
and church leaders. Their claims should also be subjected to the tests
of truth. This means that when a pastor or church leader discourages
someone from scrutinising their teaching they are discouraging the quest
for the truth.
Then Pilate said to him, “So
you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a
king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come
into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is
of the truth listens to my voice.”
John 18:37
All truth agrees with God and His Word. That's why science
and Bible are compatible! It's also why politics and Christianity
are compatible. We need Christians who know and love the truth stepping
up to the public plates of influence in the arena of society and culture
and batting for truth. Because, there really is only one kind of truth.
Andrew
Corbett, February 2006
