Relativism and the Emerging Church:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
A discussion between Tony Jones and Sean McDowell
 
(The latest installment of the "Sparks: Iron Sharpens Iron" column in The Journal of Student Ministries) http://www.thejournalofstudentministries.com
 
Tony says:
As you know, Sean, a "straw man argument" is one that's constructed by people simply so that they can tear it down. For instance, an atheist might mischaracterize the Bible's external documentation and then say that proves how unreliable the Bible is.
 
Well, I think that a lot of Christians do that with the concept of relativism. They moan and wail that relativism is a dark danger, the worst thing that's happened to culture and the church since Satan tempted Jesus. They say once you become a relativist, you're on the slippery slope to hell. And, I don't mind pointing out that some leaders raise lots of money and pack arenas with students with this fear-based rhetoric.
 
But the fact is, we're all relativists! Each one of us, everyday, has to make decisions that are relative-that is, they're based on a collection of choices, none of which is perfectly correct.
 
Say, for instance, you walk into your local Christian bookstore shopping for a Bible. Assuming that you're not fluent in Greek and Hebrew, you walk into the English language Bible section, and you're confronted by dozens of Bibles. Which translation will you choose? Which is the "best" translation?
 
In reality, there is no "best" translation. Each Bible was translated by a group or an individual, and each of those translators came to the biblical text with a particular theological agenda. I assume that they all did their best to lay aside their agendas and translate the Bible as faithfully as possible, but Bible translation requires scores of interpretive judgments, and the interpreters' own theological prejudices will surely influence those judgments.
So, I ask again, which Bible will you choose? One that's more "evangelical"? Or one that's more "mainline"? Or maybe one that's more "Catholic"? Will you pick a version that attempts a word-for-word translation, or one that is a bit more readable, or a paraphrase that tries to capture the spirit of the original?
 
In the end, you'll have to make a relative choice (and to be honest, most folks will pick a version that lines up pretty neatly with their own theological predispositions). Then you'll go back to your office to prepare your message for the youth group: Which commentary do you consult to help you understand your biblical passage? What websites do you browse for inspiration? Again, you make relative choices, not perfect choices.
 
Have you slidden down a slippery slope into nihilism where nothing matters and there is no truth? No, you've made faithful choices relative to your many other options. And, I trust, God will honor your faithfulness.
 
Sean says:
It's interesting that you claim it is a "fact" that we're all relativists for that is an objective statement rather than a relative one. If it were a relative statement it would only be true for you, Tony, and therefore not true for anyone else. But the mere fact that you wrote it in your first statement tells me that you think it's not only true for you, but also for me, and for everyone else. Therefore, we're not all relativists.
 
Actually, Tony, I think you've made a "straw man argument" of why many Christians are concerned about relativism. The concern does not stem from the fact that we make daily "imperfect" choices, but rather the idea that truth itself is relative rather than objective. The relativism that many Christians are concerned about is the idea that what we consider knowledge is really only opinion; that moral, religious, and historical facts can be "true for you" and at the same time, "not true for me." Rather than ridiculing Christians who are concerned about relativism you might try engaging their actual arguments. But I guess if you did so it would mean that you believe they are objectively wrong which no longer makes you a relativist, once again.
 
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the resurrection is objectively true and not just a matter of perspective or theological prejudice. Jesus really rose from the grave. If it was not an actual event, Paul says, Christianity is false. There are objective truths outside of us, regardless of our perspectives. In Acts 2:36 Peter proclaimed, "Therefore let all the house of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ."
 
You said, "In reality, there is no best translation." How can you claim to know reality as it is if in fact all our perspectives are relative? It may be that Christians disagree on what translation is best, but it does not follow that there is not a most accurate translation. Otherwise, why not use the Jehovah's Witness Translation? Though it is true, it seems to me, that we characteristically migrate towards opinions that support our own beliefs, it's not the case that this is absolute (no pun intended). People can be open-minded. Knowing which one is the best may take some work, but that doesn't mean they're all equal and in turn, that we're all relativists.
 
Tony says:
Because, Sean, I only can know "reality" through my own perspective. There's no other way to know it, or anything, for that matter. It's also the only way I can know "facts" – through my senses and interpreted through the skrim of my own experience. Just because I point to "facts" and refer to "reality" doesn't mean that I'm not a relativist. I'm still appealing to facts and reality in relation to others who refer to other facts and other realities. Sure I think that my facts and realities-and, thus, the opinions I base them on-are better. I have no trouble saying that.
 
When Einstein "proved" the theory of general relativity, he used "facts" to show that time, which everyone had thought was an absolute constant, is in fact relative. The constancy of time depends on one's relation to the speed of light. That does not make time any less real, or any less factual. Nor does it mean that I can honestly say, "Hey, man, it may be one o'clock for you, but I'm a relativist and it's actually three o'clock for me."
 
In other words, even though time is relative-there is not absolute time-you and I and everyone else agrees to live within and abide by a common understanding of what is time and how to measure that time. I'm not saying that time is an arbitrary human construct that doesn't really exist. I'm saying that it does exist, and that we expend lots of words and sophisticated math equations to figure it out. We get as close to it as we can, then we live within that understanding.
 
Similarly, the Word of God does exist, but we are not able to access it in any objective sense. We approach God and God's revelation(s) through our own limited and fallible perceptions. Thus, we do our best to construct explanations for who God is and who we are in relation to God. And, when that fails, we pray.
 
As you rightly claim, there are better interpretations of reality, and of God's revelation. I aim for the better, and I want our youth to become better at their interpretation and explanation of God.
 
But objectivity? Sorry, it's just not possible. Teaching kids that it is possible is deception – maybe not malicious, maybe with the best of intentions – but deception nonetheless.
 
Sean says:
You say, "But objectivity? Sorry, it's just not possible. Teaching kids that it is possible is deception." Here's my question, Tony: Is this an objectively true statement? If you think so, then you're peddling deception, by your own standards.  If it's only subjectively true (after all, you're a subject, therefore the only thing you can know is subjective truth, as you pointed out), then why are you telling me?  It may be good for your group, but others (e.g., "modernist" Evangelicals) have their own truth on this matter.  Who are you to tell us we're wrong?
 
The real dangerous "deception," Tony, is in taking from our young people the confidence that they can have the same kind of knowledge about truth-particularly the truth about Jesus-as Jesus and the other New Testament writers say we can have. You can give all kinds of illustrations of your postmodern ideas about truth, but it remains clear this is not what Jesus or his followers taught.  Every time I demonstrate this in one form or another (e.g., with Paul and 1 Corinthians 15, or Peter in Acts 2) you simply ignore it.  I have a choice to go with your view or with Jesus' view.  I'm going to stick with Christ.
 
This column was originally published in January/February 2007 issue of The Journal of Student Ministries (italicized with link to home page), © DevelopMinistries. Subscribe here (linked to http://www.qfie.com/jsm/clsSMNewOrd1.asp) or by calling 1.888.799.1395