My Truth, Your Truth

If philosophical analysis is not quite "your cup of tea" as the Brits say, at least scroll down to the video below, take a look, and then come back to this.  Or not.  

Some people have been trained to make a virtue out of doubt. They ask questions like: Who can know? Who can tell? Who can judge? For that matter what can we know? These people will approach the question of Truth in a particular way.

If you believe in a supreme Creator who is trustworthy, incapable of deceit, and has been revealed to us in various ways, that is to say, a God who has not been silent, then you’re going to approach the subject of Truth differently.

See my post “But, I Love That Body” for additional detail about God’s knowable integrated creation. In the “Let’s Go Deeper” section of that fairly long post there is a relevant graph for you to think about.

Now let’s take these meditations right down the scale to the individual person. Harmony between our inner perceptions of the external world and the external world as it actually exists.22 How? Because our Trustworthy God created a world where the visible (the outer object) and invisible (our subjective ideas & impressions) can meet and know each other. Not exhaustively but truly.23

This quote above and the content of footnotes 22 & 23 touch on the “mind-body” problem I briefly introduced in my “Starting Again” post. In the post from last year, “But, I Love That Body,” I emphasized God’s intended creational harmony between, among other things, the mind and the body. God intends perfect alignment between our mind (soul) and body. The goal of human wholeness brings perfect alignment. Just like God intends perfect overlapping and interlocking alignment between Heaven and Earth. The central image here is marriage. (You’ll have to read my other posts discussing the Equal Dualism of God’s bi-natured world to get the bigger picture.)

God’s bi-natured creation was designed to be an integrated whole. Today’s gender ideologues argue against any divinely designed human integration and seek to “convert” biological fact so that it aligns with identity desires. The human desire to identify as a gender different than your biological sex takes precedent over God’s creational design. [Even if you are not a Christian you surely see the “conversion” logic at work here. See my last post and the section asking the question: “Who is the conversion therapist?”]. Of course, Christians know all of us humans have inordinate desires. But we don’t affirm those desires. We seek healing.

Now let’s look at the footnotes from the above paragraph. First reread the sentences where you find the footnotes.

Footnote 22 – “Philosophy students will recognize this addresses a long standing Epistemological puzzle.”

[Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, specifically addressing the questions; how do we know what we know? What are our methods for knowing, and what is the scope of possible knowledge?]

Footnote 23 – “For those of you interested in an important distinction, I subscribe to the biblical “hermeneutic of trust” and not the Postmodern “hermeneutic of suspicion.” God created an apprehensible world that may be known by persons created in God’s image and shared in common with other persons created in God’s image via a variety of communication methods, including texts. Again, not exhaustively, but truly. Our experiences as humans are not hermetically sealed and incommunicable to others. Or speaking more broadly, Gender, Ethnicity, Race & Culture do form patterns of experience which should be accounted for and respected, but in the Spirit of a Trustworthy Creator these boundaries may be lovingly crossed. I share the Postmodern critique of the pretensions of Enlightenment Modernity but if nothing can be taken on trust & everything is regarded with suspicion you have a philosophy that “eats its own tail.” Why should anyone trust a philosophy which says nothing can be trusted? Finally, I also share the excitement of Christians who believe the discoveries of Modern Physics, i.e. quantum theory, opens up new paths to explore theologically, for example, as it relates to genuine freedom in the Universe. And yet, we must refuse to worship at the altar of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The words and deeds of a Trustworthy Creator argue otherwise.”

[The word “hermeneutic” in note 23 above is about our method of interpretation. In this case, the “hermeneutic of trust” is an interpretive method that extends trust to the “author” of a “text” (text could be any form of communication). We trust that authors are not consciously engaged in subterfuge designed to mask another intention which may be to exercise some level of control over us, the readers. Rather we believe that they are genuinely interested in discussing what is True. They may in fact not be trustworthy for various reasons. But we don’t assume that upfront. Unfortunately, the “hermeneutic of suspicion” suspects all communication is engaged in subterfuge. For appearances of texts are deceptive and explicit content hide deeper meanings or implications. The hermeneutic of suspicion draws its philosophical inspiration from the “masters of suspicion”, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche.]


I put these comments above in footnotes because I wasn’t sure many readers would be interested in this information. And you still might not be! I know if you haven’t studied these issues before, it can be more than slightly opaque. But let me briefly unpack most of footnote 23.

God created a knowable world. The pinnacle of God’s creation, God’s image bearers, are capable of apprehending that world as it truly exists and speaking meaningfully to one another about that world. Put very simply, all mentally healthy individuals know the difference between ‘up’ and ‘down’, for example, or ‘male’ and ‘female,’ at least they should once the terms are properly defined. I know, I know, at the Quantum or Sub-Atomic Level we find, we think, an element of randomness and unpredictability from which, in my opinion, many unwarranted philosophical conclusions are drawn. But I still have faith in a God who created a knowable world. Not exhaustively, but truly knowable. Mysterious at times. But that’s okay. Up here where we human’s live, communicable knowledge and real shared values are possible for God’s Image Bearers.

But today the postmodern “hermeneutic of suspicion” counsels you to interpret every communication with suspicion. There are hidden meanings and intentions underneath. Although philosophical skepticism is ancient, ironically doubt as a method got renewed emphasis in the Western world with the work of a Christian thinker by the name of Rene Descartes (1596-1650). In fairness to Descartes he was trying to develop a philosophical system to tackle the problem of doubt. He failed. But he did succeed in setting us on the philosophical road to human autonomy with the ultimate result being alienation, first and formost from God, but also the alienation of mind from body.

It’s a long story but it ends with the ruling assumption among many of our elites and the teachers of our future generations, that objective reality is finally unknowable and incommunicable. All we are left with are subjective interpretations of our world.

Subjectivism is the doctrine that “our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience.” So as a practical matter, from Elementary school to our institutions of Higher Learning, our young people have been taught you have “your truth” and I have “my truth.” Radical Individualism is one expression of this worldview.

Also taught in our institutions of learning is a less radical worldview which says my group has its truth while your group has a different truth. The worldview animating many parts of the Anti-Racism movement taps into this less radical view of “group truth.” This view can lead one to understand the world as a never ending struggle of competing “interpretations” or “narratives.” To use the common coin of today, it is sometimes seen as a conflict pitting oppressors against oppressed (a dichotomy borrowed from Marxism). For example, Whites vs People of Color, Rich vs Poor, Male vs Female, Binary vs Non-Binary. Since it is assumed group truth is largely inaccessible to members of other groups, especially dominant groups, struggle for group supremacy is inevitable. Revolutionary actions are warranted for those who take a more Marxist view of the conflict. Critical Theory (1930’s) from which we get Critical Race Theory (1970’s, developed by Derrick Bell of Harvard and others) are two theories that draw nourishment from the seed beds planted by the “masters of suspicion” Marx, Freud and Nietzsche. Perhaps you may be somewhat familiar with these less radical worldviews. They’ve been “hangin’ round the house” lately in case you haven’t noticed.

The fundamental teaching is that all Truth is relative and either individuals or groups are the final authority regarding normative questions. There is no universally valid or normative Truth. Of course all Christians recognize, or at least we should, that Truth in some areas may be difficult to ascertain, therefore humility is advised, but this is not the same as saying any universal claims are illegitimate. But that is what our young people are being taught today. And it has real world consequences. [See the video at the end of this post.]


As a Christian, I believe there is a unifying center to reality and that center appeared in Jesus of Nazareth. It is a center that allows all who accept the Lordship of Christ to come together as God’s single family in the Temple of God, Christ’s Body, the Church. As Paul said:

For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.  As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. [the promise of God's worldwide flourishing human community on earth.] - Gal 3:26-29 (NRSV)

Ideally, this family unit won’t be characterized by conflicting power relationships, but by mutual love one to another. Ideally this community will be characterized by patient receptivity not suspicion. We will “read” each other through the kind lens of charity, what I like to call the “hermeneutic of love.” But for this to work, we have to accept each other as family. Not groups pitted against one another. We won’t prejudge anyone based on skin color, for example, or any perceived social status. And, as a Christian, I would argue this community only becomes possible by the power of God’s Spirit. For it won’t be easy. And it cannot be coerced.

There is a single grand narrative, a single Truth. It is the story of a creative, loving, Triune God. And the outworking of God’s purposes from the beginning. Before anything was created, there was Loving Community. That’s our model. We all are part of that story.


Hopefully, after my musings above and viewing the video below you will see how today’s gender ideology draws “nourishment” from and grows out of the philosophical position known as subjectivism and its variant, group identity.

We can only know what we as individuals know, or less radically, what our group knows. Tolerance is regarded as the highest virtue by many, but not all, some remain intolerant revolutionaries. Those involved in Class Struggle or Race Struggle are typically not concerned with Tolerance of every group. Subjugation of perceived oppressors is an ethical imperative for them.

But for most people this perception of human limitations teaches them to be accepting of what others know and believe to be true. So as long as they are not hurting anyone with that belief, it is said, we should tolerate different perspectives.

Which leads me to a classic YouTube video filmed at the University of Washington.

Links from this blog to online resources don’t necessarily mean I support everything the organization producing these resources might believe. But this video is certainly on point about the “no lines, no boundaries” Western world our young people currently live in.

Our students did not learn this on their own. Adults taught them to think this way. You can certainly see how in a “no boundaries” world anxious, dissatisfied, depressed young people might feel at liberty to explore identity options, and in the process disfigure their bodies. Especially when so many of their online “friends” say this is the secret to personal happiness. And you can also see how a worldview like the one on display in this video would affirm any choice an individual makes. Likewise you can see how the many young leaders of Facebook would feel comfortable listing 56 gender options to accommodate the subjective truths of those holding this “no boundaries” worldview.

Tolerance is a fine virtue, still I hope you find this video troubling. Because tolerance of absurdity leads to ruin. There are real world consequences to a “fluid” worldview.

Is this the world we want to live in? We better come up with some answers quick. Things are moving swiftly.


If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated.