The Truth at the Crossings
The Second 2003 Harvey Lectures by the Rev. Eric H.F. Law
"What is truth?" (John 18:38)

This was the question that Pilate asked Jesus at the end of what seemed like a frustrating interrogation. Pilate, who was not a Jew, was caught in an intercultural situation in which he could not understand the values and beliefs of the people who were demanding Jesus' death. He tried to avoid having to be the one to make this life and death decision by asking the crowd, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" (John 18:29) They answered, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you." (John 18:30) This answer did not give him the truth as in actual facts or evidence that he was looking for. Having no success in trying to get the crowd to judge Jesus according to their own law, Pilate went to Jesus and posted this question, "Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?" (John 18:35) Again, Pilate was searching for the truth, as in facts of the criminal acts that Jesus might have committed.

Jesus' answer was no help either. He talked about his "kingdom is not from this world" which must have been totally incomprehensible to Pilate. We can imagine what Pilate was thinking, "Just what is he talking about? Is he crazy?" Perhaps out of frustration or ridicule, 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)

Then, Pilate asked the question, "What is truth?" for which he did not get an answer. One can interpret his question "What is truth?" as a sarcastic remark, because he knew that the truth, as in actual facts -- what Jesus had done that deserved to be punished by death -- had nothing to do with this situation, but politics and power had everything to do with it. Or perhaps Pilate was asking the question that we need to ask today: What is truth in a pluralistic world where there are different values held by different cultural groups to measure what the truth is for them? Or perhaps, Pilate had no conceptual framework to understand what Jesus meant by "the truth," and hence the question.

In the court of law in the United States, a person, before testifying, swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The concept of truth here is contrasted with lie or information not based on observable, physical evidence. This is often how we use this term in our everyday English language. Perhaps this kind of truth was what Pilate was asking of the crowd and of Jesus. In search of the factual truth often means judging and proofing that the other might be lying. But measurable and observable factual truth is often interpreted politically to support one's theory of what is the truth. I call this interpreted truth. Again, in the court of law, the lawyers on both side arranged the same facts in a way that support their different theories of what actually happened -- the truth. The jury is asked to determine which interpreted truth is correct. The one presenting his or her version of the interpreted truth is more interested in winning than finding out what really happened. Because winning means becoming the one who defines the truth, which then may be recorded and become part of history. Finding the truth this way is a political maneuver in which the more powerful group, using what they considered as factual and scientific proof to back up their claim, will eventually take control and define the truth for the others.

There is also, what I called, experienced truth, which is the truth as remembered by a group or a person. Experienced truth, like interpreted truth is by nature subjective. It is the truth as interpreted through the lens of the person or group's cultural framework and worldview. For example, in the experience of a childbirth the factual truth is that a mother gave birth to a child who is a girl, weight 7.5 lb. at 1:15 a.m. Those present were the doctor, a nurse and the father. These are the factual truth. The experienced truth for the mother would be quite different from the father. The experienced truth of the doctor and the nurse would be very different from the parents. The experienced truth of the child would also be very different from the rest of the people in the same room in the same event. All the experienced truths as remembered by the different parties are all true according to their experiences. We cannot really say which one is more true than the others. Alan Jones, in his book, Living the Truth, said,

"What you think is the truth depends on what you believe.
What you think is the truth depends on who you think you are."

In a pluralistic society, if we are to value each group's experienced truth and if these truths are different, how do we determine what is the truth? Whose truth are we talking about? How do we make ethical decision? Does that make everything relative? If each party claims their truth is THE truth, how do we proceed from this crossing of different truths?

Often, like the lawyers in a court, the different groups engage each other in a political process -- let's determine who has more power first and then, the powerful ones' experienced truth become the normative truth. The powerful lay claim to their experience as the ultimate truth while the powerless' experiences are often ignored, put down and even disproved. In that sense, what is accepted as the truth in a society might not be THE truth of what actually happened at all. It might be merely the truth as experienced and defined by the historically dominant group of the society. For example, in the United States, for many years in our history books, we were taught that Columbus discovered America. But for the Native American Indians, that event was the beginning of the invasion of the Europeans resulting in their loss of their land, identity and livelihood. The experienced truth of the Native American Indians was ignored, not taught in our school, left out in our history books because the powerful defined and controlled what would be the truth. Furthermore, they used their power and influence to propagate it through out the system.

The truth to which Jesus testified is a truth of a different order. It is neither factual truth, interpreted or experienced truth. The concept of truth in both the Gospel of John and Paul's writing was much closer to the meaning of the word "truth" in the Hebrew Scripture. The word "truth" corresponds frequently with a Hebrew noun derived from a verb that means "to sustain, to support." This same word in the Hebrew scripture can be translated as steadiness, unchangeableness, stability, soundness, faithfulness, constancy, truth, loyalty or justice according to different contexts. In fact, in many translations of the Bible, this same word for "truth" was translated as "faithfulness."

The concept of truth, with reference to God, seems to designate a quality of God's nature or will. The God of Israel was a God of the truth as opposed to a true god. And this quality of God, the truth, can be discerned by observing God's action. This truth is unchangeable, constant, loyal and just. This truth about God is the reason why we can trust God. God's truth, as in faithfulness, is constantly with the oppressed even at the most devastating time in a people's live. This truth, as in steadfastness and loyalty, is still there even when the people rebelled against God. If we are to speak the truth, we are to speak and act in accordance with God's nature.

O Lord, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill? Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; . . . Psalm 15:1-2

One of the patterns of God's action which expressed this truth is God's consistent raising up of the lowly, empowering those whom society defined as powerless: Issac and Ismaul, (add women) Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his older brothers, the Israelites and Egyptians. Jesus continued this pattern, this truth. A collection of his sayings captured this pattern of truth: "The last shall be first." "Blessed are the poor." "Blessed are the children." "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." Jesus' action also testified to this truth. This is what I called the divine truth. Testifying to the divine truth means to value the people around us consistently as God has done. It means delivering the oppressed, raising up the lowly, liberating the powerless like God has done. It means challenging the powerful to let go and exposing their abuse of power like God has done. To testify to the divine truth is to use our bodies, minds, words, actions as an extension of God's action and will in the world. It means transforming the world as God has done. It means patterning our lives according to God's pattern so well exemplified by Jesus' ministry. It means seeing the truth as Jesus would see it, speaking the truth as Jesus would speak, acting for the truth as Jesus would have done. Jesus calls each one of us to continue this truth in our words and actions by following his way.

If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. John 8:31-32

There are a number attributes I would like to point out in the way Jesus testify to the divine truth.

The divine truth challenged the truth as propagated by the historically dominant group.

And [Jesus] sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the multitude putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. And a poor widow came, and put in two copper coins, which make a penny. And he called his disciples to him, and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For they all contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, her whole living." Mark 12:41-44

The factual truth of this event was that a large sum of money is much more than 2 copper coins. The truth as interpreted by the people watching this event would conclude that the people who gave a large sum of money contributed more than the widow's two copper coins. The truth that Jesus saw was that the poor widow was giving much more proportionately than the rich people who gave large sums. Two copper coins were 100% of this widow's input. Whereas the large sums that the rich people gave might only be a small percentage of their income. If you look at our churches' giving record in the way Jesus looked at the event of the poor widow, you will also discover the same truth -- that the poor churches give proportionately much higher than the churches with members from higher income bracket. If we see the truth as Jesus sees it, do we value the voice of the churches that gave the most money or do we value the voice of the churches that give proportionately higher?

In another story about a woman "who was a sinner" came to the Pharisee's house, weeping and bathing Jesus' feet with her tears and drying them with her hair. The truth as interpreted from the framework of the powerful religious leaders and the people in that household was that this lowly unclean woman intruding on a party, touching a guest making everyone in the room and the food unclean. The truth that Jesus saw was a woman who provided much more hospitality than Simon, the Pharisee who did not offer Jesus any of the customary welcome. Jesus had a different way of assessing the truth, not just from the powerful's perspective, but from a different angle with a different set of criteria that raised up the powerless. Jesus' approach to revealing the truth which begins with raising the self-esteem of the powerless -- the ones who are not in control. This is also the pattern of how God behaved as recorded in the Hebrew Scripture.

I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Exodus 3:7

Paulo Freire in his classic book Pedogogy of the Oppressed speaks of the leader or teacher as the one who enables the powerless to see the real reality of their situation and not simply accept the incomplete reality imposed by the dominant group. In unveiling the reality through conscious articulation of their own experiences, the oppressed can then take action in transforming their situation. This process begins with empowering the powerless to articulate their experienced truth.

Those who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression.
We don't have the whole truth until we listen to stories of the powerless.

"Where does that leave the powerful?" A participant in one of my workshop asked after I talked about how God raised up the powerless first. " I am willing to listen but what comes after that? I am tired of going to anti-racism workshop and being told that I am a racist."

Jesus said, "When you go to a wedding, don't sit at the honor sit." But this does not me you don't get to sit down and eat at all. Jesus, "The first shall be last." But that does not mean after you do not get to do or saying anything. It just means you get to say it after you have listen to the others first.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons [and daughters] of your Father who is in heaven; for [God] makes [the] sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:43-45

The divine truth to which Jesus testified pushed us beyond our own experienced truth whether we are powerful or powerless. He calls us to see the truth in a more global way as God sees us and the world. Yes, God begins the truth-telling with the powerless but God did not stop there. God challenges us to see the truth from all sides including from those whom we considered our enemy. The divine truth is a global truth.

In South Africa, the power shift finally happened in 1994. The people elected Nelson Mandela as their president. The formerly powerless were now speaking loudly and the formerly powerful were at least standing still. What should the next step be? Bishop Tutu in his book documenting the work of the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation wrote:

[South Africa] rejected the two extremes and opted for a "third way," a compromise between the extreme of Nuremberg trails [in which we put the formerly powerful on trial for the purpose of punishing them for their criminal acts] and blanket amnesty or national amnesia. And that third way was granting amnesty to individuals in exchange for a full disclosure relating to the crime for which amnesty was being sought. It was a carrot of possible freedom in exchange for truth . . . p.30 Tutu

The Commission set up meetings in which the experienced truth of both the victims and the victimizers where allowed to be shared and exist in the same room. There were stories of ultricity committed by the people working for the Aparthied government and the African National Congress. As the victims and the victimizers shared their stories, sometimes with inconsistent information and accounts, the bigger picture of what really happened emerged. In trusting the embiquiety of their different experienced truth, they discovered that their real enemy was the system that persisted in valuing human being based on their race and skin color. This kind of global truth-telling can help us restore and recognize our common humanity, moving toward healing, and possible reconciliation and forgiveness. The real reality, the truth, was exposed and now we can work together to transform it.

Bishop Tutu in explaining the reason for this 3rd way of finding out the truth this this way:

. . ., there were in fact different orders of truth which did not necessarily mutually exclude one another. There was what could be termed forensic factual truth -- verifiable and documentable -- and there was "social truth, the truth of experience that is established through interaction, discussion and debate." The personal truth -- Judge Mahomed's "truth of wounded memories" -- was a healing truth and a court of law would have left many of those who came to testify, who were frequently uneducated and unsophisticated, bewildered and even more traumatized than before, where as many bore witness to the fact that coming to talk to the commission had had a marked therapeutic effect on them. Pp. 26-27

The "healing truth" that Bishop Tutu talked about is that divine truth that Jesus was testifying to. Bishop Tutu named the purpose for telling the truth which is to heal and not to continue the oppression. I have observed people telling what they considered the truth to hurt someone. They tell the truth so that someone maybe punished. They to tell the truth so that they may justify my action in taking revenge, or gaining monetary renumeration. The motive for this kind of truth-telling is to win or to hurt the other. In the end, there is still division, us and them, no reconciliation or healing. The process of truth telling that Bishop Tutu put forth is a kind of truth telling that heals, that transform community and have the possibility of reconciliation so that the community, not just the winner for the moment, but as a whole can move forward. The divine truth heals and not hurts.

The brother [of a ANC-supporting activist who was murdered] said to [Archbishop Tutu] after one of his relatives had testified at the TRC's first hearing, and before the policemen responsible had confessed and applied for amnesty: "Archbishop, we have told our story to many on several occasions, to newspapers, and to the TV. This is the first time though that after telling it we feel as if a heavy load has been removed from our shoulders." P 27, Tutu

Truth-telling from both sides in these hearings was an essential part of the process of reconciliation with accountability. It not only helps the victims unburton themselves by finally being heard and acceptance and believed, it also call for accountability from the victimizers in their confession. It forces people from both side to deal with each other as human beings and not as just oppressors and the oppressed, friends and enemies. The divine truth exposes the system of oppression. It challenges the truth-tellers to name the system -- the principalities and powers -- that seeks to divide us. In exposing the true evil, the principality and powers, we make the differentiation between the power and God. We are then faced with the choice, to turn toward God -- repentance -- or continue to follow the control of the principality and power. To name the world, is at the same time knowing what is not God. To know what is not of God, is to begin to see who God really is. God did not intend for humankind to be oppressed. God did not intend for humankind to be oppressors of another. God intends for humankind to know that they are interconnected. They are members of one another. They are part of the body of Christ. In recognizing and revealing what God is not, we ask the question: What does God invite us to do.

The divine truth then becomes a divine judgment that confronts the oppressive system by challenging the people in the system to realign themselves with God's will. The divine truth, however, does not destroy but heal the people participated in that oppressive system moving them toward a shared community of truth and reconciliation. The divine truth is a global truth that leads to healing and not to further the destructive cycle of violence and punishment. The divine truth is a process of telling our experienced truth to build and not to break, for heal and not to hurt, to connect and not to divide.

In the first, the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis commit themselves to its transformation. In the second stage, in which the reality of oppression has already been transformed, this pedagogy ceases to belong to the oppressed and becomes a pedagogy of all people in the process of permanent liberation. In both stages, it is always through action in depth that the culture of domination is culturally confronted. In the first stage this confrontation occurs through the change in the way the oppressed perceived the world of oppression; in the second stage, through the expulsion of the myths created and developed in the old order, which like specters haunt the new structure emerging from the revolutionary transformation. Pp. 36-37

Paul often spoke of the truth in the context of the community using the image of the body of Christ. "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love. . . . Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another." (Ephesians 4:15-16, 25)

Paul made the connection between truth-telling and the restoration of community of Christ. The divine truth insists on the interconnectedness of people even when we disagree with each other or even think that we are enemies to each other. The divine truth forces us to dialogue with each other as brothers and sisters in the same community of God. Remember that the speak the divine truth is to see and action as God sees and act in humanity. God sees all of us as God's children by the sonship of Jesus Christ. And we are all part of and connected in the Body of Christ. Telling the our experienced truth in this context will move us toward reconciliation and stronger community.

Again, Bishop Tutu connected the "third way of amnesty" used by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with African concept call "ubuntu" in the Nguni group of languages, or botho, the Sotho languages. "A person with ubuntu, is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were less than who they are. P. 31. Tutu

Divine truth, the kind of truth that Jesus testified to, anchors itself in the unconditional love of God for all of us. The faithfulness, unchangeable love of God, as examplified by Jesus requires us to trust God and therefore trust each other to allow each other the space and time to tell our experienced truth. It is because God loves me and God loves you even through we disagree that I am able to listen to you with respect. This unconditional love of God, the truth, challenges us to first seek the factual truth, that which is observable and measureable, and then to share with respect our different interpreted and experienced truth. The divine truth wants us to tell the experienced truth not just from the powerful but from the powerless' perspective first. When the different experienced truths are allowed the gracious space to co-exist, the real truth emerges. This divine truth may explain why things happened the way they did, how the different pieces fit together and how God works in our lives. This divine truth may expose the oppressive system of which we are a part. This divine truth may confront how we have not been following the way of Christ in our words and actions. This divine truth may challenge us to work together to transform it, to realign ourselves and our community toward God's will. In this movement toward repentance, we recommit ourselves to speak and act the divine truth by emulating God's nature and will -- a pattern of truth-telling that invites dialogue that move everyone, not just the powerful for the moment, toward reconciliation and new community.