Can Truth Be Plural? A response to "Manifold Witness" by John Franke

Clearly, I’m going to need to pick up a copy of Franke’s book. You may also be interested in Merold Westphal’s latest work, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? Here Westphal also espouses plurality amongst Christian points-of-view and how our current plurality of theologies may just be pieces to the larger puzzle. Beyond this, Westphal defends this point-of-view from an “anything goes” sort of relativism (which you mention above). I’ve been blogging a bit about this lately and find it very interesting…thanks for the recommendation!

Stephen,

What I appreciated about Manifold Witness is the way Franke reframes the conversation from a postmodern problem to a theology asset.

And thanks for the recommendation. I will have to check out Westphal’s latest.

It is clear from your review that the author of this book does not have the correct definition of the word Truth. Please visit the above web site for a clear exposition.

So Franke is arguing that truth must be understood as viewed through the “lens of interpretation.” Fair enough. But this in itself is a truth claim. So can Franke’s criteria be applied to his own statements of truth? Is it fair to say that a conservative who reads Franke as a relativist and a progressive who reads Franke’s argument as an expansion of meaning, are simply expressing the plural nature of a single truth being expressed through diverse mediums? Or would the conservative be wrong as this article seems to suggest? Is it fair to say to the one who sees Franke as a relativist, “No. You have missed Franke’s intent and are viewing his words through your own philosophical bias?” If Franke would allow this, then has he undone his own argument about the nature of truth being plural? What am I missing?

alan, i don’t mean to engage you in a drawn out debate, but i would offer this in response to what i presume is a sincere question.

i agree with you that rational analysis leaves us in a conundrum. and perhaps we would be stuck there, if strict rationalism were our only way of knowing, but as people of faith, our blessed assurance is that it is not (rationally speaking, we even know there are more ways of knowing than just faith and reason).

franke’s argument is not a rationally abstract one. it’s an observation. he is acknowledging the pluralism he sees in scripture and in the world. one could make a rationally abstract argument against that or for it. one could make a strictly rational argument to justify any belief, but he often does so while bracketing out contradictory experience, information, etc.

one of the gifts of the emergent conversation has been to bring many previously marginalized experiences to the forefront for open consideration. we can cover our ears and close our eyes and say over and over to ourselves (cause we’re the only ones still listening) that the earth is only 6,000 years old and homosexuals are an abomination to the LORD, but archeologists haven’t stop finding bones and folks haven’t stopped being LGBT. at some point, in fidelity and faithfulness and integrity as followers of God in the way of Jesus, we have to get around to living in grace towards these various realities that we may not fully understand and perhaps heretofore thought disqualified some from participation in God’s hopes, dreams and desires.

as difficult as it may be at times and as imperfect as we are at it, we welcome you at the table. your disagreement doesn’t undermine franke’s argument, it validates it. we should be worried if we were all sitting around saying, “yes, yes, we agree.” (one thing you may have gotten hung up on is that pluralism doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone is ‘right’ about everything or that some understandings/responses aren’t more appropriate than others, but it may mean that we turn our energies toward wrestling to find better, more apt, more useful language than always ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and turn away from attacking one another in the name of the Prince of Peace.)

I am a Catholic who is fascinated by some of the Emergent Church theology (more by the questions than the answers, really). But pluralism has always existed in truth – and historically, theological “systems” have been at odds, yet within a single ecclesial system (for example the disputes in the Catholic Church among Franciscans and Dominicans on various topics). The truth of Christ is at heart a mystery, and cannot be understood. But it does not mean that it cannot be approached. It will be approached in different ways, but those ways must be going towards the mystery, not away from it.

Perhaps Franke had just read that Sikh legend about the ten blind men and the elephant…

I liked this, Amy:
“Truth doesn’t look like us. It looks like all of us.”

Or should I say thank you, Jonathon! I suppose a thank you to both of you is in order.

RobeFre,
I had the same thought as I was reading his book.

I could’ve sworn I left a comment here. It was a good one too. :)

Weird.

I promise I didn’t delete it, Mike. Do you want to try again?

My basic understanding of truth is that it cannot contradict itself. It may be expressed in various ways but it will always be the same—it does not change. Does the emergent church propose differently? From the little that I have just read on this site, one would say that it is being proposed that all religions are true—not just the various Christian denominations. Bottom line then is what is truth—only for Christians? if so, then the argument doesnt hold unless we accept an even more basic understanding of truth—message is the same and it does not contradict itself. What then is the argument. What is the problem that was seen that needed to be addressed? Everyone comes as an individual but we are one body. One truth.

I will be picking up a copy asap…

Jim

Diana, the problem you pose is one that leaves me stammering. Buying into the post-liberal thesis “all religions are languages games pointing towards meaning” is unsatisfactory, as it means that most of each religion is categorically wrong. That we are Christians believing in an existensial “Easter faith” is also disastrous as it is faith in faith itself, and thus vapid.

But the simple teleology is that other people are quite convinced in, and produce apologetically solid arguments (as sound as our own) for, their own beliefs.

What do we do? Well, I hope we all agree on the efficacy and reality of prayer; it is to a real Something. I hope we all agree on the atoning centrality of Jesus Christ, for the Christian at least. If that’s the case we have to accept the cloud of unknowing and step out with a torch that lights the way only a little distance ahead. We must preach the Gospel with conviction, whilst not spending our time blindly condemning the beliefs of those who disagree. We have to witness and spread our own “facet” of the truth, even if it’s not the only one.

I plan on reading this book, but would encourage many of you on this message board to take a look at the work of Donald Davdison. As a post-analytic philosopher Davidson argued for a full intersubjective notion of meaning/truth. In brief, “truth” is not relative, but entirely objective – it just so happens that to find “truth” requires interaction with (an)other and depends upon the specific physical and material conditions of that interaction.
The emergent communities insistence on defending a Platonic (i.e. non-Hebrew) notion of truth stifles the exploration and revisioning of the faith to better reflect the conditions under which we currently interact with the Trinity.

There are so many dimensions and varying definitions of what “truth” can / should mean. One can look at it as a reality that exists independent of the one examining and interpreting that reality. This aspect of truth could be summed up as “what exists objectively”.

Or we could look at it from the personal and relational angle by asking the question how truth can be personified (as Christ claims) and in its relevance for the way we interact – which could be summed up as “why and what for it exists”.

I’m not going to try and explain Eastern thought that it’s illusion to presume that anything does exist in the first place. I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around that one!

If there’s one inevitable conclusion (not as result of stringent philosophical argumentation but of plain observation as Melvin pointed out) it is this:

No created being can claim exclusive and comprehensive access and understanding of all that truth entails and what we can and need to know about it. Not even you, Ben (#3). Sorry buddy! :)