Orland Evangelical Free Church | Is Truth Relative?

Evangelicals have complained of what they call relativism for decades. Our culture no longer believes in absolute truth. Ethics are situational rather than permanent. Truth is whatever works for you. It all depends on your point of view.

How would John attack relativism? Would he agree that truth is absolute and has nothing to do with an individual's point of view?

Time for a philosophical migrain.

John would agree with a key premise of what we call relativism but not its conclusions. And he would definitely say everyone needs to find truth for himself.

John's Gospel explains the hostility between God and human beings by using points of view. His favored technique is to lay out two conflicting perspectives and let them duel in dialogue.

For instance, John sets the point of view of the woman at the well (4.1-26) and shows her in dialogue with Jesus. As a Samaritan mired in sexual immorality, she is hostile to this Jewish rabbi who insists on asking bizarre questions. Can she give him a drink? As if he wants to drink from her cup!

Given who she is, we're almost on her side while she pushes Jesus away. In John's hands, her point of view makes sense.

But John also shows how Jesus' point of view overcomes her hostility. He persists in saying, "We already have a relationship, even though you won't acknowledge it." The request for water is his first iteration. Then he says he gives "living water" and "eternal life". Even further, he reveals he conversed with her while knowing her sexual sins.

We recall how John set Jesus' perspective (1.11): "He came to his own, and those who were his own did not receive him." John is interested in showing how the Samaritan woman saw this for herself.

John's most intense use of point of view involves the Pharisees. Nicodemus, for example, comes ready to approve Jesus - but on Pharisaical terms (3.1-15). "Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

John allows Jesus' reply to look as abrupt and confusing to us as it must've been to Nicodemus. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Throughout the conversation, we understand why Nicodemus is struggling with Jesus' teaching. His attempt at bridge-building makes sense within his perspective, but will never fit Jesus' purposes.

Nicodemus has to wrestle with Jesus point of view more than anything else. Nicodemus has to escape his political and institutional bonds and see the truth for himself.

I said John would agree with a key premise of so-called relativism. The premise is this: truth can only be known from within a specific point of view. John would agree that we cannot escape the limitations of human reasoning.

But if the conclusion is that all points of view are equally valid, John would disagree. He would say, "Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. His point of view, as much sense as it made on Pharisaical terms, was nothing but darkness. The only point of view from which truth can be known belongs to Jesus."

It's worth noting that the term "relativism" is not one secular people recognize. You will never hear someone on TV or radio defending relativism. Nor will you find many scholarly papers advocating it by that name.

From the secular point of view, evangelicals lack the ability to engage meaningfully with people who are different - an ability generally acknowledged to be the foundation of maturity. Their perception is difficult to disprove.

John's sophistication in understanding others is worth studying.