Why Christians Must Be to Loyal to Truth, Not Political Party or Brand
Image
My thoughts below predate COVID-19, masks, hydroxychloroquine, or churches defying public health emergency orders. Last fall, different controversies were exposing problems in how believers evaluate conflicting claims and decide what to believe.
But those problems are still with us, and the current raft of controversies is exposing them even more painfully.
Many Christians who claim to revere the Bible lack biblical habits for evaluating truth claims and consequently lack skill in judging the ethics of situations in a biblical way. It seems almost ubiquitous now—the habit of putting the political/culture-war lenses on first, and embracing or rejecting claims based solely on source classification (friend or foe). The result is that ideas are accepted uncritically if they’re perceived to be from “our people” and rejected reflexively if they’re seen as from “the other side.”
What’s missing is weighing ideas and claims on their own merits—on things like evidence and sound reasoning. Increasingly, what’s completely missing is any nonpolitical consideration of what Scripture teaches and what sound application requires of us.
More than ever, believers need to meditate on a genuinely Christian view of truth and on a genuinely Christian approach to evaluating truth claims. At least five principles are are fundamental that effort.
Principle 1: Only Scripture is infallible.
Christians understand that God is completely reliable on the subject of reality, which is what I mean here by “truth”—what actually is.
- let God be true though every one were a liar… (ESV, Romans 3:4)
- in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:3)
- “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
- God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
It follows that God’s word is completely reliable in all that it represents as truth.
- Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way. (Psalm 119:128)
- Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17)
- And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19)
- All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction (2 Timothy 3:16)
By contrast, human beings are extremely unreliable as sources of truth, not only because we’re deceitful creatures (Jer. 17:9, John 8:44) but because we’re so often wrong even in what we genuinely believe to be true.
How should this shape our habits? It should lead us to view all truth claims as suspect, regardless of how much we want them to be true or are afraid that they’re true—or how much we like the source.
Principle 2: Truth is more powerful than human leaders.
Leaders come and go. Some lead well for years and do a lot of good, only to catastrophically fail and make us question everything they ever taught or supported. Movements and institutions come and go much the same way.
Truth, on the other hand, continues along, unaffected by what we think or claim. And its inherent power is undiminished.
- How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver. (Proverbs 16:16)
- and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)
- Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens. (Psalm 119:89)
In the end, truth wins. Given enough time, it tends to win in human history, but even when truth loses the battle for minds in human history, it is, itself, unaltered and will eventually be known to all.
- Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. (Luke12:2)
- So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:25)
- if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. (Philippians 3:15)
- For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)
Principle 3: Our sources aren’t always right.
We’re all easily misled into prizing a person or group more than we prize the truth. It’s not hard to see why. We’re wired to adore and bow before a Person who makes no mistakes. But since Jesus Christ is not physically present to respond to current events, we tend to look to other human authorities to tell us what to think—and we take their word as gospel. It’s understandable, but it’s still idolatrous.
Relying on trusted sources is unavoidable, to some extent. Where it goes off the rails is when we forget that “our team” is capable of error, and we fail to examine and test truth claims before accepting them as certain or echoing them as facts.
But even the best of “our guys” are wrong sometimes.
- Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. (John 11:13)
- [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:26)
- But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” (Acts 10:14)
- I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:14)
Principle 4: “Their” sources aren’t always wrong.
When “us vs. them” thinking takes over, we not only tend to value group loyalty above truth, but we also tend to value defeating the other team above truth. Both of these are species of idolatry, because pursuing truth is part of our loyalty to Christ. Anything we allow to interfere with that is a displacement of Christ’s agenda for someone else’s agenda.
- We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:5)
- test everything; hold fast what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
- But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14)
- The spiritual person judges all things, (1 Corinthians 2:15)
The Scriptures remind us that sometimes truth comes from unexpected places—sometimes from sources that, from our point of view, aren’t reliable.
- Children: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children” (Matthew 11:25)
- The Pharisee, Gamaliel: So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:38–39)
- Pagan poets: as even some of your own poets have said (Acts 17:28)
- Rhoda: They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” (Acts 12:15)
- Women who reported the resurrection: … but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. (Luke 24:10-11)
Principle 5: We should seek genuine understanding, even of what we reject.
- A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. (Proverbs 18:2)
- If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Proverbs 18:13)
- The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, (Proverbs 15:28)
The current state of public discourse is only a recent expression of a long-standing human problem—also a long-standing Christian problem: in our fondness for strife and winning, we don’t go to the trouble to truly understand opposing views. We don’t listen. Listening involves seeking to understand why people think what they think. We often assume their reasons, but how do they explain their reasons?
Two things can happen when we gain understanding of opposing views.
- We may find points of agreement we didn’t know existed.
- We may more effectively refute those views because we’re no longer distorting them or lobbing distraction fallacies at them (“Oh yeah, well what about…”?).
When we understand, we argue less, or we argue more precisely, or both. And this is a desire of all who love truth.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 4 views
[TylerR]I have the idea of having a mask custom-made that reads, “The Breath of Life,” but nobody in my family thinks it’s funny.
My son-in-law lives in SC, and has mostly avoided getting and wearing masks until now. The one he got reads PLACEBO across the front. I’m sure not everyone will find that funny, but I sure did. I’d say go ahead and get a funny one. We need some humor during these times, and for most of my family, when times get darker, black humor is the funniest of all.
Dave Barnhart
[Aaron Blumer]A bit more context helps, but mostly, it just needs more careful reading. I bolded part to help with that…
Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.
In calling for me to read more carefully, you miss the mark again. The bolded statement you call attention to is for RESPIRATORS, not masks. It’s not the same thing at all. There simply isn’t any more proof that masks work than there is that HCQ works when it comes to Coronavirus. You can cite studies from ten years ago of a different infection and say that indicates masks should work or might work. But you cannot (medically and scientifcially) say in honesty that those studies prove they do.
Masks are not required in Holland for that very reason. “From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,” said Dutch Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark.
[Robert Byers]Masks are not required in Holland for that very reason. “From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,” said Dutch Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark.
Robert, who cares what Holland does or does not allow? I follow what my local and state and federal health official recommend. It is plain common sense that a virus floating in a water droplet gets stopped somewhat by a mask, if worn properly. Masks also help prevent you from touching your mouth and nose.
Why all the resistance? Seriously, why? Do you think a governor or city council member is looking for the chance to control your life just for kicks?
[Mark_Smith]Robert, who cares what Holland does or does not allow? I follow what my local and state and federal health official recommend. It is plain common sense that a virus floating in a water droplet gets stopped somewhat by a mask, if worn properly. Masks also help prevent you from touching your mouth and nose.
Why all the resistance? Seriously, why? Do you think a governor or city council member is looking for the chance to control your life just for kicks?
Why all the [mask] resistance? Seriously, why?
I agree .
If the magistrate mandates masks … obey! How hard is this (Romans 13:1-7 ; 1 Peter 2:13)
As an aside, I’m no Aaron sycophant, but Robert your tone towards him is disrepectful!
[Mark_Smith]Robert, who cares what Holland does or does not allow? I follow what my local and state and federal health official recommend. It is plain common sense that a virus floating in a water droplet gets stopped somewhat by a mask, if worn properly. Masks also help prevent you from touching your mouth and nose.
Why all the resistance? Seriously, why? Do you think a governor or city council member is looking for the chance to control your life just for kicks?
Um, I hate to be contrary, but they don’t. In my admittedly limited experience they encourage/demand face and nose touching at a much higher frequency than w/o.
[Jim]As an aside, I’m no Aaron sycophant, but Robert your tone towards him is disrepectful!
He is more than welcome to start being honest and worthy of respect at any point. Or he could just pitch me off his site. But he can’t hide the lies unless he deletes the whole thread. Not sure why you think that should be respected.
[Mark_Smith]Robert, who cares what Holland does or does not allow? I follow what my local and state and federal health official recommend. It is plain common sense that a virus floating in a water droplet gets stopped somewhat by a mask, if worn properly. Masks also help prevent you from touching your mouth and nose.
Why all the resistance? Seriously, why? Do you think a governor or city council member is looking for the chance to control your life just for kicks?
The issue is not whether the health officials in Holland or the health officials in America are right. The issue is that the science is NOT settled—far from it. This is from a report on the JAMA website today: “There is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of masks in the general population for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in public areas. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate the association of mandatory mask-wearing policies with behaviors associated with the transmission of COVID-19.” Incidentally this report did show a decline in face touching by people wearing masks, which is a good thing…but not definitive.
The point behind the issue is that the voices decrying HCQ for lack of scientific proof and making fun of the people who believe it may work are backing the masks vociferously on just as little if not less evidence. That’s hypocritical at best. And dangerous at worst.
And that’s why I keep pounding the point again and again.
You can cite studies from ten years ago of a different infection and say that indicates masks should work or might work. But you cannot (medically and scientifcially) say in honesty that those studies prove they do.
We actually agree on this point. I have never claimed there is proof that masks work.
There is certainly evidence that they do. But I’ve never claimed more than probability.
I’ll have to look back again at that quote about intermittent use not working well in a clinical setting, but I’m pretty sure surgical masks were in reference there also.
Article on the topic posts tomorrow.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Mark_Smith]…who cares what Holland does or does not allow? I follow what my local and state and federal health official recommend. It is plain common sense that a virus floating in a water droplet gets stopped somewhat by a mask, if worn properly. Masks also help prevent you from touching your mouth and nose.
Why all the resistance? Seriously, why? Do you think a governor or city council member is looking for the chance to control your life just for kicks?
I agree with you only to the extent that I follow the laws, and this includes laws about masks. Beyond that, it’s interesting to see that other countries are not requiring masks or living in a culture of fear and are not seeing all the infections, hospitalizations, and deaths that authorities over here are predicting. Why is that? Why can we not question the “settled” (ha!) “science” being quoted and used by authorities here? When I see news from Europe and I get different data and points of view than here in the US, why do I have to say my government is right and theirs is wrong? Is it sedition to believe something opposed to what my government authorities are saying and telling others about it? If Sweden or the Netherlands have data showing our government may not have all the facts, why shouldn’t I care about it?
I don’t fault the authorities for trying to do what they think is necessary to protect the citizens under their care. I do fault them for trying to paint honest disagreement as “getting people killed,” and them trying to stop all opposing sources of information. I also fault them for taking an obviously political stance of saying “protests are important, we’re not going to criticize them or prosecute people for not wearing masks in a protest,” but still going after other groups. If they really believed what they are saying about masks, they would go after ALL cases of not following the law.
I think you are not being honest with your question about resistance, because it implies you do not know why there is a spirit of resistance. Sounds like you are advocating something like “my government says it, I do it, and I ask no questions, because I know they are right.” Thankfully, the US system does not require that. We do have rule of law, and people should obey the laws. However, it’s not only our right, but our responsibility to question if things are being done rightly, and to use all legal means to make changes if they are not. And it most certainly is legal and right for us to discuss why they might be doing things wrong, and to point out evidence that may go against the official position.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion