Truth Creates Boundaries

University of Chicago professor, Allan Bloom, wrote in his 1987 book, Closing of the American Mind, that “almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”1 Objective truth had been trampled on university campuses by relativism promoted under the banner of tolerance, inclusivity and diversity.

This problem of relativism, however, does not exist just in liberal academic corridors. It exists in the culture and most disturbingly in the church even among evangelicals. Charles Colson, in his book, The Body, describes a 1991 George Barna poll which found 67 percent of American people believe there is no such thing as absolute truth.2 Absolute truth did not fare much better even among conservative believers. Colson writes, “53 percent of those claiming to be Bible-believing, conservative Christians said there is no such thing as absolute truth.”3 “A majority of those who follow the One who says, ‘I am the truth,’ profess not to believe in the truth,” Colson observes.4

This rejection of absolute truth has not led to belief in nothing, but belief in everything. Michael Novak, recent recipient of the Templeton Prize, said in his acceptance address, “ours is a cynical age…Ours is not an age of unbelief. It is an age of arrogant gullibility.”5 Objective truth is the plumb line which divides truth and falsehood creating a boundary. Without that boundary, everything is believable.

This denial of boundaries with its resultant gullible acceptance of everything as truth, dramatically alters our understanding of who God is and who we are. When there is no objective truth about who God is (and therefore who he is not) then everything is worshiped as God. G.K. Chesterton identified the gullibility malady when he wrote, “When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing. They believe in anything. And everything.”6 The rise of pagan and neo-pagan cults, even within mainline denominations as evidenced by the 1993 Re-Imagining Conference, shows the popularity of the “anything god.”

This “anything god” originates in the imagination of its worshipers and its function is to make authoritative the subjective, inner, self-affirming “truth” of its worshiper. Speaker Rita Brock encouraged Re-Imagining participants to use the mirror as a guide in creating the anything god. She challenged, “what re-imagining of God… would allow us to look in the mirror and see someone we love.”

When the “anything god” blesses our subjective truth as authoritative, we become gods and goddesses. After all, the one who authoritatively defines truth is a god. The pagan teachings at Re-Imagining bear striking similarity to feminist witchcraft described by Naomi Goldenberg in her 1979 book, Changing of the Gods. She writes, “In feminist witchcraft however, since each woman is considered a Goddess, all of her creations are in a sense holy. No one has the right to put another person’s feelings into categories of sacred or profane, religious or secular. Thus, not only are the inner dynamics of a woman’s psyche seen as religious processes but she is perceived as capable of evaluating these processes herself. Each is the priestess of her own religion.”7

When the boundaries which define God are denied, everything becomes god. Not only are we gods and goddesses but creation becomes divine. In The Spiral Dance, witch Starhawk proclaims, “The Goddess does not rule the world; She is the world. Manifest in each of us, She can be known internally by every individual, in all her magnificent diversity….In Witchcraft, each of us must reveal our own truth. … Sexuality is a sacrament. Religion is a matter of relinking, with the divine within and with her outer manifestations in all of the human and natural world.”8

When the boundaries created by the biblical truth about God are denied, the boundaries which define us disappear. Not only do we cease to be bound by our fallenness and instead rise to become gods and goddesses but all action becomes permissible. Feodor Dostoevsky rightly observed, “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.”9 When the boundaries which define God disappear, the boundaries which define moral and immoral acts disappear.

“Witchcraft has no concept of a primal sin committed by our ancestors nor does it have a concept of a covenant against which one can sin,” writes Goldenberg.10 All actions are permissible as long as they reflect the one truth of paganism: “be true to yourself.” A person’s will is sacred. According to Goldenberg the only restriction placed on the will is the “golden rule” of witchcraft: “Do what thou wilt, so long as it harms none.”11 Of course the individual god or goddess decides what harms another.

In contrast to paganism’s rejection of boundaries, God’s Word of truth in Scripture creates boundaries. The Ten Commandments, for example, define boundaries. They are boundaries between us and God as well as between us and our neighbor. God says, “thou shalt not steal” because everything belongs to God and to take what God has not given us is to steal from God. Yet “thou shalt not steal” also creates boundaries around our neighbor’s possessions. Similarly the other commandments stipulate that my neighbor has a boundary around his or her life, spouse, and reputation.

If by denying objective truth, we deny the existence of boundaries, how can we recover truth and its resultant boundaries? Donald Bloesch suggests in Crumbling Foundations, “the surest way to reaffirm orthodoxy is to rediscover heresy.”12 To affirm truth, we must identify what is false. If we attempt to reaffirm orthodoxy without rediscovering heresy we deny the boundaries and we embrace the syncretism of pagan religions.

Pagan syncretism was the constant pitfall of the Israelites. They never rejected God, they just worshiped him and all their other gods. They were masters of theological tolerance, diversity and inclusivity. They refused to recognize the boundaries imposed by God’s truth. God’s first commandment clearly sets the boundaries that his being demands, “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods.” Yet in Exodus 32 we read that the people impatient for Moses to return from Mt. Sinai, dance around the golden calf having “a feast to Yahweh.”

The Gospel of Mark describes how Jesus confronted a culture and religious community that had rejected the boundaries imposed by God’s truth and embraced heresy. In Mark, Jesus interacts with three groups of people: the multitudes, the disciples and the religious leaders. Jesus teaches the multitudes but we rarely hear the actual teaching. Instead Jesus teaches by action. He displays his authority by healing and feeding and calming seas. Jesus teaches the disciples about coming events in order to equip them for the days ahead and their ministry.

The bulk of Jesus’ teaching in Mark is directed toward the religious leaders who are promoting the heresy. Jesus reestablishes the boundaries imposed by truth in response to their questions. He uses various techniques in forming his response. Sometimes his response involves logic, as in the exchange in Mark 3 when the scribes accuse Jesus of healing by the power of Satan. At other times it is a rebuke showing that the leadership is rejecting God’s clear Word, as in Mark 7. Sometimes it is an exposition of Scripture as in Mark 10 when Jesus discusses marriage. Jesus always begins with the questions people ask, even when those questions are not asked in serious inquiry but are intended to ridicule Jesus. Jesus shows how the truth of God creates boundaries as it cuts like a two-edged sword between truth and falsehood.

We have a unique opportunity today to witness to the truth of the Gospel by responding to the questions raised by the heresies and false teachings which are currently embraced by so many. In the midst of their rejection of Jesus Christ are questions. These are the questions Christian faith must address. They are the context of faith today.

Re-Imagining speakers were asking questions in the midst of their rejection of Christian faith. Why isn’t Scripture uniquely authoritative? Why can’t we worship the god within us? Why is God transcendent and not pantheistically immanent? It’s not enough to reject their teachings, although that is certainly part of our response. We also have to answer the question, “why not believe what they claim?” Is truth relative and subjective? Can we shape a god from our human experience? Why not? Our response has to use logic and reason to reflect the truth revealed in Scripture and to defend it as the only plausible explanation of reality.

If we deal with the heresy by beginning to redraw the boundaries set by God and for a long time rejected by us, two things will happen: the questions being raised will get harder and we will recover truths we have long forgotten. We will be changed by the engagement.

Scripture details Moses’ metamorphosis from the burning bush, where he is a whining complainer who does not know God’s name, to Exodus 33, where God speaks to him, “as a man speaks to his friend.” Moses’ metamorphosis begins with the Pharaoh’s question, “who is this god that I should obey him?” It is only as God through Moses answers the Pharaoh again and again that the Hebrew people understand who God is and Moses grows in his faith and understanding of God. The boundary between God as the only Lord of heaven and earth and the false Egyptian gods is drawn when God directs the plagues against the false gods and frees the people. It is in the midst of drawing the boundaries that Moses grows in his relationship with God.

We live in a world where a significant number of people have rejected Jesus Christ and his truth. To some degree all of us have lost the ability to articulate the truth of our faith. Biblical and doctrinal illiteracy are wide-spread. A 1979 Christianity Today survey revealed that while 81% of the people in this country claim to be Christian, only 26% of the general public and 43% of evangelicals believe Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.13 Only 42% of those who considered themselves Christian knew Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount and only 46% could name the four Gospels.14 A recent poll in Great Britain found that while 85% of those polled professed to be Christian, only 34% knew what happened on the first Easter.15

The heresies of our day, including the pagan radical feminism taught at Re-Imagining, have given us an opportunity to reaffirm orthodoxy, not by offering an alternative, but by rediscovering heresy; by showing that there is only One who is the way, the truth and the life. We can only do that by engaging the heresy in debate and argument to logically and biblically show that Christ is the only answer. Only Christian faith with its boundaries is internally self-consistent and leads to hope. All other belief systems either are not self-consistent or lead to nihilism and despair. In the process of reaffirming orthodoxy, our faith and understanding of who God is will deepen.

As we respond to the questions raised by the heresies, we will be forced to think deeply about our faith and the One in whom we believe. Biblical and doctrinal illiteracy will disappear as we hungrily study Scripture and our confessions for answers. We may stumble and struggle just as Moses did. We will be driven to our knees in humility and repentance. We will beg God to create a new heart in us as we realize how many heresies we have accepted and how faithless we have been. The struggle will not be easy. Yet, we are called to the struggle, in obedience, for our sake as well as our neighbor. Only God’s Word in Christ accurately describes reality: the truth about God and us and the universe. Our challenge is as Peter instructed us, to give a defense of our hope in Jesus Christ. He is the only hope of the world.(16)

By discussing the boundaries of Christian faith beginning with the claims and questions of the feminists, Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry will provide resources to help us as Presbyterians respond to the issues being raised and, as we do, to grow in our own understanding of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 1995).