John Piper writes an apparently compelling essay on the issue of relativism. The piece is entitled: "The Challenge of Relativism."
The essay hinges on a key distinction between two kinds of descriptions.
John Piper makes a distinction between two kinds of descriptions, "daily speech" and Absolute Talk. Daily speech deals with issues like height and weight. These are topics that are measured by "human beings." Absolute Talk, however, deals with issues like "sexual relations between two men." These are topics that are judged according "God's will" as revealed in the Christian Bible.
What warrants these analytical distinctions between daily speech and Absolute Talk and between human standards and God's standards? Is it warranted to divorce the question of sexual relations between two males from the daily speech and deliberation between human beings? Can human beings not decide for themselves about the issue of sexual relations?
Piper does not justify the distinctions he makes between descriptions. He simply asserts them as if they were natural, as if talk of height and weight are naturally topics of daily speech and talk of sexual relations is naturally Absolute Talk. It seems that on some issues Piper is content to flesh out the "context or the standard" people are "using for measuring the truth of the statement," while on other issues he is keen to escape from the finitude of one's time and place.
Perhaps the issue of sexual relations can be decided by human beings, just as the topics of height and weight. Perhaps we should say that all talk is daily speech and no talk is Absolute, even talk of sexual relations between two men. In other words, descriptions are descriptions are descriptions. There is no justification in elevating one description above another. They are all descriptions made by someone in a time and place.
Relativism only makes sense in the context of Piper's essay once the distinction between daily speech and Absolute Talk is made. If no distinction is made, then the problem of relativism ceases to be a problem. Because, as Piper makes amply clear in the opening paragraphs of the essay, daily speech is not relative. The problem of Relativism is dependent on the assertion of Absolute Talk.
"The Challenge of Relativism" is really only a challenge if we insist on positing a divide between our daily talk and some kind of Absolute, non-human description that is Valid in All Times and All Places. If we situate all our descriptions in their contexts and we don't try to elevate some descriptions to the status of Absolute Talk, then the challenge of relativism is avoided all together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jacob,
I'm not at all confident you have caught the distinction between Piper's "daily speech" and what you have called "Absolute Talk." Piper used the term "daily speech" just once here, and then not as a technical term, so I'm not going to use it here myself; and he never said the words, "Absolute Talk."
He does make a distinction between healthy use of relative language and destructive uses. The healthy use, where his one usage of "daily speech" appears, is to speak in terms of comparisons to changing, user-chosen norms. One example he brought out was "John MacArthur" is tall, which was true relative to Piper but not true relative to a redwood true. Piper raised a caution to those who are too eager to find relativism out there; sometimes it's entirely appropriate.
Sexual relations between men was his contrary example. It, too, is evaluated relative to standards, which Piper would not deny. The question is whence come these standards for evaluation. The relativist places the standard in some self-chosen norm. Piper is saying that is wrong because God has spoken about this, he has set the norm, and to set our own norms above God's is to rebel against God's word.
So in answer to your direct question, no, human beings cannot decide some things (including many aspects of sexual morality) for ourselves. Not if there is a God who has spoken his universal standard--and there is.
Now, if you read my blog post you would understand why "Pipe does not justify the distinctions he makes between descriptions. He simply asserts them as if they were natural." As I said, his audience is people who already share that belief. If he were speaking to people who did not share that belief, he would have explained further. It's a talk given to Bible-believers.
"In other words, descriptions are descriptions are descriptions. There is no justification in elevating one description above another. They are all descriptions made by someone in a time and place."
Some descriptions are given by God. He spoke them in a time and a place, but they are rooted in his timeless, eternal character. So there are descriptions and there is God's word. To deny it is, as Piper said, fraught with dangers, starting with rebellion against God.
"'The Challenge of Relativism' is really only a challenge if we insist on positing a divide between our daily talk and some kind of Absolute, non-human description that is Valid in All Times and All Places. If we situate all our descriptions in their contexts and we don't try to elevate some descriptions to the status of Absolute Talk, then the challenge of relativism is avoided all together."
The Christian Science religion says there is no such thing as illness; all apparent illness is the result of thinking the wrong thing about reality. They are wrong.
You have suggested there is no problem of relativism; we can think it away by denying there is any absolute. But you can forget trying to think God away by denying he exists.
Tom,
Thanks for your response.
I didn't at all wish to convey the idea that God does not exist.
All that I'm saying is that the problem of relativism as Piper sees it, is one that implicitly depends on Absolute Descriptions.
I deny Piper's implicit claim that there is such a thing as an Absolute Description that is elevated above daily descriptions. The denial that there are no such things as Absolute Descriptions says nothing necessarily about God. People talk about, sing about, and pray to God everyday.
Post a Comment