The Truth Is Out There!
In 1923, J Gresham Machen penned Christianity and Liberalism. The inclusion of the conjunction “and” was both intentional and indicative of the thesis of his still-celebrated volume: There is a fundamental difference and distinction between Christianity and Liberalism. The two are at odds, and utterly incompatible with each other.
Of course, Machen was referring to theological liberalism, with its alternative (and counterfeit) notion of “Christianity,” and not specifically political liberalism.
Still, given that most theological liberals are also – and I would add consequently – political liberals while consistent theological conservatives are also – and again, I would add consequently – political conservatives, I take it for granted that there is a connection to be made.
In this post I want to refer to epistemology, or what is knowledge and how it is that we know.
For our dear Christian readers, you’re undoubtedly already aware of what I’m about to write. And that is: Leftists of all stripes have a different understanding of what constitutes reality and knowledge and truth compared to the understanding of these things that comes from a consistent application of the cognitive processes employed by us. And unfortunately, since the agents of Leftist thought for all practical purposes control the various forums and venues that influence the culture, it is possible that as lamentable as it may be, that at least some of you have inadvertently adopted an epistemological framework that is in its logical consequences friendly toward liberal thought, which is, as I noted earlier, inconsistent with the Christian faith.
To what do I refer?
Specifically here I want to address the distinction between conservative and liberal understanding of the source of meaning. This is important because in subsequent posts I will unpack a few reasons why liberal thought is inconsistent with Scripture, and is therefore something that should be rejected and resisted by Christians.
When it comes to art, literature, history, reality – you name it, a conservative epistemology understands that truth and meaning lie outside myself, or my “community.” Who determines what something means? The person – or group – who wrote it, painted it, sculpted it, built it, engineered it, etc. And what is our job? To understand what it is that is out there, outside myself, in its objective reality.
To illustrate, consider that conservatives approach Scripture asking, “What does this mean?” And to answer that question we engage in exegesis and in the process of doing so we attempt to understand what the passage is saying. We may end up coming to a different opinion as to what it means, but our goal and intent is identical: We are trying to understand the message conveyed by the author because we understand that it is that message that is authoritative for us. When we apply the same principle to things like the Constitution, we seek to understand “authorial intent” because we understand that the way to discover what the Constitution means is to understand what it is that the Framers meant.
Contrast this with the epistemology of liberalism. Leftists desperately need to convince you that meaning is not “out there,” standing like a pillar that doesn’t change regardless of the fads or trends of the culture. No, Leftists need and want you to believe that there is no inherent and authoritative meaning so that they can sweep into that vacuum and “provide” a “truth” that they can then repeat over and over until people think of it as a shared value.
To reuse the illustration of how Scripture is understood, Liberals don’t ask, “What does this mean?” Instead, they ask, “What does this mean… to me?” They don’t have much use for the meaning intended by the author, what’s important is what we think. And of course, what we think is influenced by the culture around us. And who shapes the culture? The leftists. But then when it comes to the Constitution, leftists like to call it a “living document” as opposed to a “dead document.” Now, this is where they trick you – they borrow the terminology of “living” and “dead” from language, and they say that to be “living” is to have present applicability, whereas a “dead” language is no longer used. But that’s not quite accurate…. A “dead” language is one that is no longer changing. The rules of that language are “set.” A “living” language is one whose rules still change and there is an ongoing “evolution” to it. What does this have to do with the Constitution? Leftists call it a “living document” and they confuse (as they do most things) the difference between interpretation and application. Leftists say that the Constitution can be reinterpreted – which means that it can be made to mean things that prior generations didn’t think it meant. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the Framers meant by, oh, the 1st Amendment. What matters is what we think it means.
There are vast differences between how liberals and conservatives process and understand and attribute meaning. Liberals believe that there is no inherent meaning, or at least that the determiner of that meaning is NOT the author. Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that meaning is determined by the author.
To see the lie of the leftist position, one simply needs to stop and reflect on the basic truths of human communication. When someone opens their mouth to speak, or puts their thoughts to paper, we intend to send a message. When a Leftist pontificates about the plight of the working man, he (or she) wants to be understood. But a consistent application of leftist epistemology would result in me interpreting their words however I want. Maybe I’m in a hungry mood, so while she’s going on and on, I decide that she’s talking about lunch. Of course, that’s ridiculous. The communicator is attempting to send a message, and it is our job to try to understand. Human communication hinges upon the fact that when someone speaks they send a message. Now, this truth we take for granted. But leftists would have you believe that in every other aspect of life we suddenly slip into some sort of surreal twilight zone in which those basic rules are no longer applicable.
So. All this to say: Leftists need people to forget that there is objective meaning in the world so that they can be the ones to come and fill that void for you. Be careful!


Hi ben!
I think your article is very nicely worded, It’s nice to see conservatives throw principal to the wind for vocabulary (among other things). Unfortunately Ben, I’m afraid you’ve confused what a “conservative” is and what a “Liberal” is. See as you have it in your piece here, you say in reference to how scripture or government is understood you believe conservatives ask “What does this mean?” Yet you believe liberals ask “What does this mean to me?” I know the truth is out there, I’m just not sure you got aboard the truth train. See lets take our leaders of today, and lets use your freedom of speech argument. The 1st Amendment is your right to free speech, free to practice whatever religion you please, to assemble in peace and have your grievances heard, and for the press to have the freedom to report. Liberals see this as what it means, they may not agree with what your saying, but they respect your right to say it thus why Fox News and a lot of other “Conservative” sights and shows have not been canceled. Conservatives on the other hand are aware you have the right and by any means will do whatever to limit your right case and point Bush 43 and you conservative folks said “Questioning a president in war time is boarder line Treason!!!” Yet still in war time, not only do you question our commander in chief, you classify him as a socialist, as a racist of all things!!! All of this hypocrisy and yet the Liberals still allow you to express yourself!!! Not because of what the 1st amendment means “to them” but because of what it means, not spreading lies and falsehoods and skewing the meaning of the 1st amendment because what it means “To conservatives!”
Get real Ben! You need to do some research based in Fact not Propaganda.