The Humility of Absolutes

Hello Everyone,

It has been a long time since I have given you a true post. Much apologies for this lack of writing. However, this post is to be about an idea that I was just thinking about tonight during a discussion of G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”. In his typical genius, Chesterton exposes the futility of the modern notion of relativism and agnosticism. Then, a paradox hit me.

First, a bit of background explanation is necessary to show this point. It has become quite common hear such statements as “Who are we to judge which truth is the actual truth”, or “We really can’t know which truth is really true”. These sort of statements are commonly considered to be extremely humble. In contrast, it also common to hear another claim a bit like, “How much more arrogant can a person be when he believes that he has the only truth”.

It is this belief that I wish to refute: that it is arrogant to believe in absolute truth, and humble to believe that we can’t know what truth is. In fact, I intend to show the exact opposite, that is of the upmost arrogance to deny the existence of absolutes or to think that we can’t know what Truth actually is, since there seems to be so many. Now, this may seem to be a magnificent claim that couldn’t possibly have any logical support, but we must view the underlying premises behind these beliefs to see their validity or lack thereof.

What is a person really saying when they invoke the infamous claim that since there are so many “truths”, we can’t ever know what the real truth is, if there is even a Truth at all? The premise that this person believes, intentionally or not, is that humanity is the measure of all things, all truth. As the old saying goes, “If we can’t do it, no one can”. It assumes that there is no thing that cannot be grasped by people. Can you see the arrogance? These people are basically saying that if humanity can’t come into agreement on an issue, the issue either can’t be known at all, or doesn’t even exist at all. To illustrate it further, can you imagine a group of people that announced that since they did not understand gravity, gravity either couldn’t be understood or didn’t exist? As if this wasn’t absurd enough, imagine more that this group then began to condemn scientists who teach the proven characteristics of gravity, of being arrogant for believing in one explanation of gravity. These people would probably be first in line for a mental hospital as the ultimate narcissists. Yet, this is an extreme form of the rhetoric we hear from the o-so-tolerant relativists. There is not an ounce of consideration to the finiteness of man in this belief; it actually assumes and relies the infinity of man. Truth is one thing humanity cannot seem to come into agreement on, therefore it must not exist or cannot be understood. This, my good friends, is nothing short of an immensely disproportionate view of self.

Now that this has been explained, an explanation of the humility of absolutes is needed. It is rather simple, since it is the exact opposite of what was just shown. Where relativism assumes the infinity of man, the belief in absolute truth assumes the finity of man. For absolute truth to exist, it must be founded on something outside of humanity and bigger than humanity. The relativist says that the plethora of “truths” prove the non-existence of truth. The absolutist says that it is irrelevant that many truths exist, because the Truth isn’t a product of humanity, it instead exists completely separate from man. The absolutist also admits that just because people can’t seem to understand something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or can’t be understood. Why? Because the absolutist asserts his own limits and is content with these limits. The relativist, in his supposed freedom, has bound himself to himself. He is trapped inside his own finiteness while believing in his infiniteness.

 

The Issue of the Church’s “Relevance” to Culture

When looking over the landscape of the American evangelical church, one can quickly see a relatively new breed of churches in existence. Many of them are not tied to a particular denomination, and have sleek, modern looking buildings and decor. They seek to be non-conventional in almost every thing they do because the old way is outdated and irrelevant. Over all of their unique activites, they place an umbrella called “relevance”. They wish to appeal to the modern culture’s current fancies by reinventing the image of church. However, some of these churches miss the point of the duty of the church and the power of the Gospel of Christ, in all its solitary glory.

While the spectrum for these churches is quite large, one common thread runs through them all, and it is a thread that they outwardly and proudly display. This is the thread of “relevance”. When a church invokes this title as a part of their mission, one can usually assume certain characteristics to be found of the church. To these churches, being relevant is way more than just the act of avoiding being irrelevant. No, the word encompasses a new, somewhat revolutionary way of “doing church”. This almost obsessive desire to be relevant effects everything from the music, the preaching, the atmosphere, even the decor of the building. One local church writes in its values section of their website that:

“Just because a program or ministry reached the unchurched yesterday doesn’t mean it is effective today. We believe to win the lost we must be willing to continually change our methods but not the message.”

That quote pretty much sums up the mindset behind the “relevance movement” as I call it. According to it, we as a church, must look over the present society, and adapt our church doings to reflect what the culture desires. In other words, we must market the Gospel to appeal to our audience if we wish to have any hope of successful evangelism. The church previously quoted goes on to say:

“To win the unchurched we believe we must present the Gospel of Jesus Christ in fresh, creative ways (illustrated messages, dramas, video, etc.)”

By now, I hope that some of you are beginning to see some of the errors of this thinking. Churches that operate under beliefs such as those previously quoted are allowing the ever-changing culture (i.e. the world) to dictate the way they function. This is a dangerous thing to do considering that the world is majorly made up of lost people in bondage to their sinful nature. This is not what to Bible wants the Church to be influenced by (Romans 12:2). Also, consider some of the implications behind those quotes. According to the quotes, the power of the Gospel is not in the Gospel itself, but in the packaging of it. As I said before, some of these churches build their existence on the mission to be attractive to the culture in order to draw them through their doors. This mindset doubts the power of both the preaching of the true Gospel and the ordinary means of grace outlined to us by God in His Word. The culture doesn’t want verse-by-verse, expository preaching of the Bible, they want “5 Steps to have a better…”. So following the cultures desires, the church becomes Dr. Phil with a few Bible verses; and this is just what these churches “preach”. Scripture gives us a different picture on how the church should deal with society.

In the first chapter of Romans, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, tells us that in the Gospel, the power of God for salvation and a righteousness for believers is found. In 1 Corinthians 15:2, Paul again tells us that we are saved through the preaching of the Gospel. That is how God has ordained for His elect to be brought to Him. The Great Commission tells us simply to teach what Jesus taught, and God will do the rest. We don’t have to strategize a bunch of bells and whistles as bait to unbelievers. For it is not by our doing that God’s sheep are drawn to Him. 1 Corinthians 1:17 puts it perfectly:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

The Gospel gets watered down when it has to go through the filter of what’s relevant to the culture. It is a paradox when it comes to this; while there is nothing more relevant in the universe to any culture of any time than the Gospel, unregenerate man will view the Gospel as the least relevant thing in the universe. God must first open the eyes of the unbeliever before he can see his need for the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. And He does this through the Gospel alone.

 

The Age of Accountability

There are presuppositions that are held by many Christians that are a product of human logic, not necessarily having substantial Biblical support. One of these assumptions is the doctrine of the “age of accountability” as it is called. In many circles, it is one of those unspoken rules of thumb; it is touted as “what has to be true”. However, this doctrine possesses some clear fallacies that are not hard to uncover if proper examination is applied.

Let us first observe the definition and nature of this doctrine. This belief simply states that people who die before reaching an opportunity of understanding of salvation, repentance, etc (i.e. infants, mentally handicapped, etc.) will not be held accountable by God for their sins since they never had the chance to ask for forgiveness. The logic makes sense to finite human conceptions of justice, innocence, and mercy. Is there a more appropriate picture of innocence on earth than a newborn human baby? To think that the precious child would have to bear the wrath of God if he/she died is an unthinkable, if not barbaric thought. I understand there is immense emotion tied to this issue, since it concerns many parents whose children died at a young age. In the midst of such grief, it is comforting to invoke this doctrine as means of assurance of the child’s well-being. Yet, we need to look at God’s revealed Word to us to formulate our beliefs.

Now, I have called and will continue to call the “age of accountability” a doctrine because it is held by many with the same intensity as other true doctrines of Scripture, and for lack of a better word. Yet, it is really nothing more than a logical conclusion. Statements that are normally associated with the belief are ones that begin like, “God wouldn’t do…”, “God isn’t a God that would…”. Note the use of the word “would”. This word is used to imply truth without specific evidence. We say it when we don’t have actual proof to verify a claim, but may have previous events or behavior to give the claim some validity. This is totally fine when dealing with other people, but it is dangerous to assume things about God’s character that aren’t revealed in the Bible. For God’s definition of justice and mercy are far superior to the measly conceptions of our finite minds. Echoed throughout the Bible in chapters and verses such as Job 38 and Isaiah 40:13, our limited depravity and God immeasurable glory is clear.

Aside from the flawed nature of this doctrine, there are some distinct theological and Scriptural problems to be noted. Let’s examine another one of the basic premises of this doctrine and compare them to what we know to be true from the Bible. One of the first pillars of this belief is that we all aren’t really sinful until we knowingly and intentionally commit a sin. Even though this is rarely stated, it is essential to the doctrine. For age of accountability to function, there cannot be any sin already present in humans from conception. If there was, there would be grounds for the person to be held accountable. However, from a brief look at God’s Word, we find that there is sin from the moment of conception; we all bear the curse of Adam without doing anything (Psalm 51:5). We are in complete rebellion towards God from birth and are abhorrent and offensive to His glory.

By now, some of you might be turning red at my post. Almost everyone either knows someone who has gone through the tragedy of losing a child, or lost one themselves. They would be right to say to me, “What’s the hope?!”, “We can’t help the fact that some babies die!”, “Is all the comfort we are to give to grieving parents is a short “too bad”, and be done with it?” There is a hope and it is one that is often forgotten in the doctrine of age of accountability. Is God surprised when one of the people He created in His image dies? When an infant dies, does God freak out, not knowing what to do with the soul? Absolutely not! Could God, in His omniscience, chose all babies that will die young to be His children? We can’t concretely back up that claim, but it sure wouldn’t be outside God’s power. We do know this from Scripture; that God is infinitely just AND infinitely merciful (Neh. 9:31, Micah 7:18, Rom. 11:32). So to answer the question, “What happens to babies that die before a realization of salvation?”, we can’t make a concrete claim Biblically. But we can take comfort in the fact that God is merciful and perfect and what ever happens to the infants will be a part of His perfect plan for His glory.