“What is truth?”

This blog's title is a quotation. It was posed by Pontius Pilate in a conversation with Jesus in John chapter 18. It seems rhetorical; certainly, we have no recorded answer. For whatever reason, Jesus didn’t metaphorically shove his foot in the door and say, “I’m so glad you asked … let me tell you”—and give him the gospel. Perhaps that’s because you don’t speak to someone like Pilate in that world unless you are very sure he wants to hear your answer; it’s called “wisdom,” and possibly, “survival.” Maybe Jesus was listening to the voice of the Spirit and sensed this wasn’t the appropriate time for a TED talk on Truth (yes, there are inappropriate times to be trying to “get the gospel in”).     

Some will say that the very notion of “truth” is under threat in today’s world. That may be so, but I suspect that those in power (or seeking power) have always had a somewhat tenuous relationship with truth as most of us would understand it. The recent phenomenon of labelling anything that someone doesn’t want to hear as “fake news” exemplifies that. Truth becomes what someone wants it to be—what they say it is. Sadly, so many seem happy to tolerate that, if it fits their worldview.

Traditionally (is that the right word?), there’s always been a clear distinction between the idea of “objective” truth (things that are demonstrably true for all, irrespective of one’s personal perspective) and “subjective” truth (things that are true only for some—specifically, oneself). These categories have become rather muddled, though, with the emergence of the postmodern concept of “What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.” In other words, your truth isn’t necessarily my truth.

In one sense, this can be welcomed, as a tolerant attitude to difference. It’s a potentially peace-making approach, and certainly to be preferred to fighting (perhaps literally) over whose version of a truth is the correct one. But in another sense, the basis for affirming that there is such a thing as objective truth (which is sometimes called “absolute” truth) is thereby compromised.          

Christianity—and religion in general—can understandably feel somewhat threatened by this trajectory. Or at least, it’s perfectly understandable, given that by their very nature religions tend to be based on a claim to know the truth and have the truth. Typically, it’s a claim to uniquely know and have the truth.

Is truth itself, therefore, under threat? And if so, from whom, or what? And most importantly, how are those who believe so to fight back? How should truth be defended?

I very nearly wrote, “How should we defend our truth?” in that last sentence. But perhaps that illustrates the problem.    

Before thinking about the cure, let’s examine the cause.

How we “know what we know” is called “epistemology.” Postmodern thinking about “truth” is in many ways a reaction against—and a rejection of—the sure and certain truth claims of the era of Modernity that preceded it.

The particular challenge posed to Christian faith today is that we are living in overlapping eras: the epistemology of Modernity (taken to be self-evidently obvious by most older people) and the epistemology of Postmodernity (taken to be self-evidently obvious by most younger people). Once we run through their contrasting features, the bases for significant disagreement will become clear. This involves not just what truth is, but how we know it to be true, and especially, how the concept of certainty sits within that. As will be seen, most of Postmodernity’s defining features are in some sense a reaction against a sure and certain insistence on “rightness” claimed by Modernity’s advocates.               

The first contrasting feature is the one we’ve already mentioned: the distinction between objective truth and subjective understandings of truth. Objective means being verifiably true wholly independently of the observer. Subjective identifies perceptions of truth as unavoidably influenced by the observer’s personal circumstances and experience.  

Modernity asserts the certainty and universality of truth (the same truth for all people, always and everywhere). Postmodernity recognises how our understanding of truth is shaped by culture and context, and places greater value on provisionality and humility in making truth claims.

Modernity places confidence in institutions, authority, and established knowledge. Postmodernity is sceptical of motives and suspicious of whose interests are being served; authority claims are especially mistrusted.      

Modernity has confidence in the ability of language to communicate self-evident realities. Postmodernity asks questions about the interpretation of language; what is self-evident to one is not self-evident to all.       

And finally, Modernity envisages a central or “normal” model for human life, relations, and society; other lifestyles, relations, and ways of organising society are viewed as less-than-ideal deviations (and possibly threats). Postmodernity, by contrast, highly values tolerance, difference, and paying particular attention to marginalised and minority voices.       

It may already be self-evident how viewing some of the features of Christianity through a Postmodern lens will cause friction with those viewing them through a Modern lens. Modernity is characterised by a high level of confidence in knowing and then asserting truth; Postmodernity is more circumspect—it readily recognises the limitations, challenges, and even inherent contradictions.     

Take “the truths of the Bible” as an example. A Modern perspective will happily say, “The Bible says…” or “The Bible clearly teaches…” (plus a verse) and take that to be stating a self-evidently established truth. “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it” is a typically Modern assertion. Postmoderns, however, will point out that the extent of interpretation between the text itself and the meaning being claimed for the text is not being recognised in such statements. The many different Bible versions now available offer a hint of the place of interpretive choices. Postmoderns are also more likely to recognise that translations themselves are not immune from being shaped by publishers’ doctrinal presuppositions.

The adjective “woke” is not one you may have associated with worldviews. It came into use in the twentieth century to refer to “waking up” to racial prejudice and injustice. In the twenty-first century, it’s entered the mainstream and expanded to a wider range of political and social issues, especially LGBTQIA+-related. Political and social conservatives use it as a pejorative scattergun term to critique “progressive” and “liberal” initiatives, such as DEI. It is easy to identify Modern versus Postmodern perspectives coming to the fore in this debate.     

How, then, does all of this affect Christianity’s truth claims?

We began with Pilate’s rhetorical question: “What is truth?” We may find it interesting that Jesus did not give him an answer (maybe Jesus was not such a good evangelical after all, scorning the opportunity as he did).

The first thing we need to be aware of—indeed, the critical thing for us to be aware of—is that we even have a worldview in the first place. They say a fish doesn’t know what water is because nothing else has ever occurred to it. It’s just the way things are. Water is “obvious.” And that’s the big problem with different worldviews: each considers their instinctive perspective to be “obvious.”

Scroll back in the blog and think about how a Modern and a Postmodern perspective will think differently about Christian truth claims and you will perhaps see what I mean. Each will be mindful of different Scriptures shaping their version of “Christian truth”—which is really a different worldview concerning Christian truth.

Once we can recognise this, we are in a position to dialogue about it. We can see where each worldview is coming from and why. Optimist that I am, we will then perhaps even respect the other perspective.         

Ephesians chapter 4 distinguishes between the “unity of the Spirit” and the “unity of the faith.” The former is God’s desire within his church and reflects what his presence will naturally bring about if we cooperate with him and allow it. The latter is by nature more challenging and reflects a future goal that we should be growing towards. Since the unity of the Spirit is inherent in his presence within a community, our role is to “make every effort” to “keep” it or “maintain” it (not undermine it)—verse 3. The chapter is a roadmap for understanding and respecting one another’s worldviews. A key value amongst others is “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”

Lastly, try to forget the idea that there is one self-evidently obvious “Christian” worldview, or one self-evidently obvious “biblical” worldview (that should therefore be obvious to everyone). There will always be both interpretation and prioritisation (of values and truths: Bible-verse ping-pong) going on when we speak in such terms. Certainly some claims for what constitutes Christian truth within a worldview will be more obvious than others—more easily agreed upon than others. But whether we instinctively come at Christian truth from a Modern or Postmodern direction is less important than how we understand and hear each other’s perspectives. We are more likely to arrive at a fuller understanding of truth when we take seriously perspectives other than those that are naturally our own.