I watched a very interesting TED talk today. “Wrongologist” Kathryn Schulz describes the necessity of admitting our fallibility. While some dismiss her talk as an argument for tolerance, I find her points extremely applicable to the church. Don’t get me wrong, I am not proposing that compromise Jesus exclusive claim as “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) But, I think we do need to consider our own ability to err.
Christians are often arrogant, maybe because we have a direct line to God. We feel that because we are God’s children we are more informed than everyone else. Be it politics, theology, or church methodology, we have the correct answers. Kathryn Schulz challenges our need to be right all the time. She proposes that we will ultimately find freedom as we give ourselves permission to be wrong.
Even when we are confident in our opinions, our attitudes should reflect the possibility that we are wrong. This mindset is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5. He describes the meek, the poor in spirit, and the peacemakers as “blessed”. We often forget this posture.
As we discern the movement of God in our midst, we may miss the mark. We may not get it all right. An adequate appreciation for our errors will go a long way. Remaining humble, teachable, and open to new directions are essential characteristics for each of us. Take a few minutes to watch and let me know what you think.
Tagged: arrogant, error, humble, wrong
RSS
Email
Twitter
Wade,
Interesting post. I wonder if Schulz thinks she is “wright” about her assessment? Although it is beneficial to think about one’s attitude in communicating absolute, objective truth (1 Peter 3:15-17), Schulz claims touch issues much deeper. Here are a few questions that came to my mind as I listened to her presentation:
How does she explain a correspondence view of truth (i.e. something is true when it corresponds to reality) ?
When we realize we are wrong, aren’t we also affirming the right by negation?
How does one know something is wrong, unless there is an objective right by which to compare it’s “wrongness”? (i.e. Who is morally better, Hitler or Mother Teresa)
If Schulz claims are “right”, then how does the Christian trust the Internal Guide (The Holy Spirit) that leads us into truth?
Obviously these are questions rhetorical. I use them to emphasize an underlying philosophical assumption that even Schulz commits to. These philosophical issues go unanswered, which is a tragedy because they are the philosophical assumptions that under gird Jesus’ own words. It’s funny that Schulz uses the “road runner” analogy to support her initial claim. Philosophers also use this example as an analogy for the fallacy that Schulz commits. Its called the suicide or “roadrunner” tactic. This simply means that one only needs to apply Schulz’s claims to themselves to see whether or not they hold up. For example, Schulz claims that we can not know reality, and yet this is a metaphysical interpretation of reality, therefore we should not trust her own claim.
Check out what God’s word says about truth:
John 17:17; John 16:3; John 8:32; Titus 1:14; John 14:6; etc.
It appears as if the writers of Scripture view truth in the objective sense. That is to say, the truth is true for everyone, at every time.
So, in the attempt to keep this post brief, I would offer the following thoughts.
There is truth (the right) and all opposed to the right is the wrong. (Laws of Non Contradiction, Identity, and Excluded Middle)
We can know the truth even if by doing so apophatically (by negation or realizing we are wrong).
Knowing, and communicating the truth (The Gospel) is the call of the disciple of Jesus, but doing so with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15-17). This may satisfy Schulz astute observations regarding emotional aspect of being “right” or “wrong”.
Anyway, maybe I’m wrong? The question is, where does the evidence lead?
What are your thoughts brother?
Ev
I agree that truth is objective. I also agree that we can know truth. My point is that we could use a dose of humility at times. I also think, as we follow the Spirit, we should continually seek, continually ask God to reveal truth to us.
Too often, Christians act and respond as if they have it all figured out. The older I get, the more I realize that I have made mistakes in the past. All the while, I thought I was in the “right”. A continual posture of humility is appropriate for Christians.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to this. This makes for great discussion.
Hope you are doing well. Miss hanging out with you!
Wade
Yea, me too.
Don’t get me wrong. I absolute agree with your conclusions. That is the exact reason why I addressed Schulz from a philosophical perspective. From Schulz’s perspective, even your claim, “A continual posture of humility is appropriate for Christians” could be potentially wrong. The question for the Christian is then, If Schulz is correct, where do we draw the line?
It appears, upon first glance, that Schulz’s assessment of truth is incompatible with a Christian worldview. That is not to say that she has nothing of value to offer, which you address. However, I am attempting to engage the philosophical undercurrent of her thoughts.
Things are going well. The girls are growing like weeds, which I know you are all too familiar with.
Blessings,
Ev
Thanks for taking the time to engage this post. I really appreciate the dialogue. Engaging the culture is what we are called to do as Christians. Have a great day! Wade