data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a8334/a8334360deee65d4ab2505f169ae93bb9930a287" alt=""
Wednesday of the fifth week of Lent
915
Readings: Daniel 3: 14-20.24-5.28; Daniel 3: 52-6; John 8:31-42
You will know the truth and the truth will set you free (John 8:32).
‘Truth’ is an ominous word for many people today: like a dangerous animal, truth has to be caged. Its range of activity is strictly demarcated and policed. For example, our culture tends to be happy to talk or think about scientific or empirical truths, yet what counts as ‘truth’ in these circumstances is strictly controlled by the conventions of the scientific method. These conventions carefully define what counts as a truth claim and when such a claim can be made: scientific truth is safely under lock and key.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a8334/a8334360deee65d4ab2505f169ae93bb9930a287" alt=""
Now, the attempt to imprison or restrict or relativize ‘truth’ is very understandable. Both the world around us today and the pages of history books witness to occasions when individuals, organizations and institutions have acted in profoundly oppressive ways, sometimes profoundly evil ways, on the basis of a totalizing ideology, a claim to know the ‘truth’. Against this backdrop, resistance of those who might try to impose a particular world view, a particular vision of ‘truth’ might seem a sensible way of protecting liberty and promoting justice. Yet at this point we run into a problem: isn’t the claim that there is no truth itself a totalizing truth claim that has been imposed on society and which therefore has the potential to be oppressive? And surely we would not want to sanction every opinion or perspective with the stamp of a local or cultural ‘truth’? Surely there are some ideas or actions, for example genocide, that are just wrong? From what foundation, then, and against what criteria, can we distinguish ‘valid’ local ‘truths’, valid visions of the world, from ‘invalid’ or immoral or evil perspectives? To put this another way, if truth is caged, then what else can we use to distinguish right from wrong?
Of course, the above is a caricature, but I think it is fair to say that the integrity of a moral system and indeed of a society more generally is dependent on its grasp of the truth: how things really are. We cannot imprison truth: on the contrary, a lack of truth imprisons us. In other words, a society must have at least a basically correct grasp of what traditionally has been called human nature if it is to be healthy and its members are to flourish. To know how to live with each other, we must first have an at least vaguely accurate picture of who we are; if we are to have a grasp of what it means for a human being to flourish, then we must have a grasp of what a human being is.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5ddc/d5ddc56ae1c8882d4cc1ba69c39db352c6e21d41" alt=""