For as bats' eyes are to daylight so is our intellectual eye to those truths which are, in their own nature, the most obvious of all.
What happens when my truth and your truth are not the same? I am not speaking here of absolute truths, but I am speaking of both non-provable truths (my argument against yours) and of factual truths (and the tendency to see the facts we want to see, i.e., those that support our truth). I actually only find these problematic when you add the element of the Divine. That is to say, when one or both parties claim their non-provable or factual truths to be supported and backed by G-d. (I will leave other faiths out of this. I am primarily addressing this as a Christian issue.)
Both situations present intellectual obstacles. I will take the second situation, for it is the one with which I am most familiar.
The situation is as such: Two parties, both wielding factual evidence on one particular issue, and both sincerely seeking Him and His will, come to opposing conclusions. My objection is not to the use of factual truths, for I accept that as imperfect humans we will indeed see what we want to see. My difficulty here is with the Divine. For, how can two sincere seekers come to two factually opposing conclusions? This either raises concerns about the sincerity of the seekers, or the consistency of the Maker. I am more concerned with the Maker, for I have no business judging another's heart. Although, it is easier to assume that the other is not sincere, and is only hearing what he or she wants to hear.
But can He tell one seeker Conclusion A, and the other Conclusion B? Are they just apparent opposites from our finite perspective? Is there some magnification of His Glory in the confusion between two truths? This is my best guess. That He is glorified through the process of seeking, and perhaps more glorified by the humble confusion and re-seeking of His will.
My example, however, is not nearly as grey and nuanced as real life. Problems arise when the factual truths happen to one party and are observed by the other. Or when one party uses factual evidence and the other simply argues against it, without presenting their own evidence. I will not even bother with non-provable truths, for that is a puzzlement that includes both the nature of revelation and matters of love and romance; all of which I am a failure at understanding and can offer no promising insights.
3 comments:
I think two people can be acting oppositely in seeking God's will without God being involved. I think part of God's genius is that there is more than one answer to satisfy many different types of seekers. Perhaps people need to pigeon-hole and have a right answer, when maybe there is no one right answer. And the difference is so non-important as to not deserve God's intervention in the matter.
I actually completely disagree with your assesment (which almost proves your point!) But that is my Calvinist bent coming to light.
However, I was more referring to a situation where two believers completely disagree on a factual truth, to the point where it causes discord in the relationship. Perhaps it was my use of 'seeker'? I did not mean one seeking G-d, but one who already knows Him and was seeking guidance.
I actually am referencing Christians seeking guidance. It seems to me that you're assuming that God speaks clearly to those who seek His will. In actuality, the problem is not with God, but with the antennae of His people. I hope that clarifies.
Post a Comment