The King of Truth
One who rules over people justly, ruling in the fear of God, is like the light of morning, like the sun rising on a cloudless morning …. 2 Samuel 23.
Art-glass detail, "The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, First Presbyterian Church Edwardsville, photo by jch.
Reign of Christ Sunday
Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” —John 18:37
The conversation recorded in today’s gospel lesson took place only because Jesus’ authority came into conflict with Pilate’s authority. This new leader of God’s people was developing a movement that disrupted religious and social stability. Jesus’ message directly or indirectly threatened the political authority of the Roman Empire. It’s not difficult to imagine spiritual authority in conflict with political authority, because we all can tell news stories about politics operating in ways that don’t align with Christian values.
It’s interesting how quickly Jesus turns the conversation about political authority to the subject of truth. “So you are a king?” asks Pilate. Jesus answers, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate, as if weary from years of sorting out the truth claims of many competing factions and leaders, responds with what sounds like a rhetorical question born of despair, “What is truth?” In our time, I think it’s easy to sympathize with Pilate.
A journalist named Jonathan Rauch called my attention to a research study that appeared in the journal Social Science Research Network.[1] The study was conducted under the watch of four professors representing four different research universities. It involved more than 1,100 research subjects, who were sorted by preliminary testing into various demographic categories, including political affiliation and outlook.
During this study, people were presented with one consistent table of data, but labeled in two different ways. One time, people were told that data set resulted from an experiment to test a skin-rash cream treatment. They were asked to examine the data, and decide whether the skin cream made the problem of skin rash better or worse. The data was complicated, even somewhat inconclusive, so there was a range of responses, and the respondent’s political affiliation didn’t seem to make a difference.
Later, during another part of the study, people were presented with the same data, but this time the table was labeled to show it resulted from an experiment to test a ban on concealed weapons. People were asked to examine the data, and decide whether the concealed-weapons ban made the problem of urban crime better or worse. Again, the data was complicated, with a range of responses.
But this time, there was a curious difference. If I’m interpreting the study correctly, then those who identified as liberal Democrats were more likely to misinterpret the data as meaning that a concealed-weapons ban decreased urban crime. And those who identified as conservative Republicans were more likely to misinterpret the data as meaning that a concealed-weapons ban increased crime.
Jonathan Rauch, in the chapter that summarizes this study, provides an interpretation. Sometimes, “what matters most … is not that a person forms beliefs which are true; it is that she forms beliefs which lead to social success. In effect, what matters most is not what I believe or what you believe but what we believe.”[2] Believe what the group believes, and you belong. Believe something different, and you may find yourself on the outside, or “canceled.” “Think of it this way,” says Rauch. “Humans are equipped with … mental circuitry to protect us from changing our minds when doing so might alienate us from the group.”[3]
Pilate, in his role has Roman governor, had to discern the truth claims of the Jewish tribunal in the context of the truth claims of the Roman Empire. His question “What is truth?” is one we might be asking ourselves almost any day that perspectives clash in our contentious society. Is truth the editorializing of Fox News or MSNBC? Is truth the claims of the Oath Keepers or the January 6th Commission?
When we ask the question “What is truth?” like Pilate, I believe we are acknowledging the reality of something we may call “tribal truth.” Tribal truth is a set of beliefs that define a group’s identity, that knit it together cohesively. Unfortunately, tribal truth can become so dominant in framing reality that humans become unwilling and even unable to see another perspective.
Today’s reading from 2 Samuel comes from time in history when a government led by a soldier-king or emperor was the dominant model. They knew about emperors whose tribal truth threatened their security and well-being. They now had a king themselves, and were learning that an authoritarian leader could quickly turn from a blessing into a curse. A self-serving king could invent truth to fit whatever agenda he concocted. But a king whose perspective was tempered by reverence for a higher power and a wisdom greater than himself stood a chance of serving as the channel of God’s blessings. The truth of the King of Israel should be subject to the truth of the King of Creation. The text seems almost a foreshadowing of Jesus’ words to Pilate, “Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
Of course, the nation of Israel and its leaders didn’t always discern God’s voice correctly. The Church and its leaders haven’t always listened carefully for Jesus’ voice. As a religious institution, the Church also has darker chapters in its history when its doctrines or practices degenerated into unhealthy tribal truths that justified selfish and evil aims. Some of those chapters are disturbing enough that they still make people turn away.
I imagine that the Church’s dark chapters and unhealthy history may have been at the heart of a question asked by a graduate student at seminar I attended virtually. The seminar was held at the Danforth Center for Religion and Politics at Washington University, and carried the intriguing title, “The Assault on Truth – And What to Do About It.” It was a panel discussion with three scholars, two of whom are Evangelical-Christians and identify as politically conservative. The evening was wrapping up with a question-and-answer time. The graduate student was saying how he understood the importance of a larger social fabric that brings people together and prepares them to speak the truth to counter lies. But, he wondered aloud, whether religion and religious institutions are necessary.
The source of the answer surprised me. It came not from the two Evangelical-Christian scholars, but from the journalist I quoted earlier, Jonathan Rauch. Mr. Rauch said that his identity as an atheistic, homosexual Jew uniquely qualified him to answer. His Evangelical-conservative friends chuckled nervously, and let him go on.
Rauch said that the founders did not expect the system of democracy they were setting up to answer our spiritual needs. But they did count on a foundation of virtue, and propagation of virtue, especially in religious institutions.
Twenty years before, he says, he wrote a piece for a major magazine lauding the rise of religious apathy, because people don’t care about God, and that’s a real advance, and now we don’t have to argue about religion. “It’s probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever written,” he said. “Because it turns out that if American religious institutions are not doing their job of providing a greater vision, a thicker sense of community, a sense of purpose in life, and undergirding civic values, the substitutes are worse. Everything from… Q-anon, Wokeness …. These divide us further, but they don’t provide that civic substrate. They actually do the opposite. So, what we’re discovering, is that if religion falls asleep at the wheel, the ship starts to sink.” As one of Jonathan Rauch’s co-panelists said, “I agree with the atheist.”[4]
The Presbyterian Church I was trained in and served as a young pastor was a safe place for dialogue for people of varying political persuasions. For example, I remember how representatives of law enforcement and advocates for abolishing capital punishment could gather in the same room, listen to one another, close with a unison Lord’s Prayer, and go away wishing their friends a good week. Most of the time, most people went away feeling not that they were belittled or ostracized for their views, but valued and respected for their contributions to understanding a larger truth greater than each small piece of it. I miss those days. More importantly, I think our society misses those days.
All of which brings us to the question of “What is the truth for you, personally?” Is it a tribal truth you’re convinced you already know, or a larger Truth that we all are only beginning to understand? And if it’s really the latter, are you committed to being present in worship on a regular basis for sermons, moments-for-mission, and prayers that sometimes reinforce your understanding, but sometimes also challenge it? Will you engage in faith formation to an extent that you’re willing to sit in the same room with people of different social and political perspectives? Will you learn with them, and from them?
I’m grateful to all of you here, in person or virtually, who give your time, talents, and resources to these efforts already. As a final reminder to us all, I’ll share again the truest statement I’ve ever heard about today’s theme: Remember that Christ never will be the king of this world until Christ is King in you.
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
NOTES
[1] Kahan, Dan, et. al. “Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government,” Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54-86, Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 307, revised 5 Jun. 2017, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992, accessed 12 Nov. 2022.
[2] Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2021, p. 45.
[3] Rauch, p. 47
[4] Personal Notes, “The Assault on Truth – And What to Do About It.” Webinar at the John C. Danforth Center for Religion and Politics, Washington University, St. Louis, 19 Oct. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVHWTJplWd8 accessed 16 Nov 2022.
READ MORE, https://www.fpcedw.org/blog
