Subjective Truth versus Objective Truth

When did subjective truth become the enemy of Christianity? As a teacher in Christian schools for about five years, one thing I noticed in the curriculum and in the overall academic stance is that, in the quest to insure that students have a clearly articulated belief system, the knowing that takes place in the head is emphasized over and above the knowing that happens through experience. In fact, I have very often heard postmodern thinking, which emphasizes experiential knowing, pegged as the enemy of Christian belief. Specifically, subjective truth is generally regarded as the biggest threat to Christian belief in such circles. Recently, I have come to realize that subjective truth is a victim of aggressive pendulum swinging. In efforts to protect objective truth, the subjective is often wrongly invalidated. It is the baby that goes out with the bathwater.

Perhaps semantics is the issue. When some think of subjective truth, they think of one’s own personal truth from within—as if each individual makes it up for himself. That is a problem. But truth can be personal or subjective without originating from within. In fact, I believe objective truth—or what some would call absolute truth— must be experienced subjectively. That’s not to say it originates from within, but objective truth must be moved there. Truth is not simply an object; it is given life when it touches our hearts and minds, when it is experienced. Otherwise, what good is it? Objective understanding has no value if it does not lead to change. If it simply sits, dead, it can’t change you. That’s not to say objective truth doesn’t matter. But it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t change you. Truth has to be both objective and subjective.

What we get without subjective truth is generations of Christians who know all about God, but have no personal experience of God. Personal experience of God leads to transformation. Ideas about God cannot substitute for experience of him. I’ve heard it said that a truth not practiced is a truth not believed, and I tend to agree at least in this sense, I don’t really believe something is true unless I’m willing to act on it. Last year, when I was coming to terms with this idea, I wrote these lines:

I know You rescue, but I won’t leap
I know Your gifts are good, but I won’t receive
I know You won’t leave, but I don’t want to wait and see
Because I know, but I don’t believe
So I don’t know
I don’t know You

If I really believe what God says is true, then I will take the leap of faith that Kierkegaard writes about. According to Kierkegaard, our choice is either to take a leap of faith and truly live or to just conform and exist inauthentically, “To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily. Not to dare is to lose oneself.”