Here is the bottom line of what I have been saying. In almost all scholarly fields, when questions of knowledge come up that are hard to solve, they are referred to a group that represents the community. The larger the “truth” that is being debated, the larger and more representative is the group to which the argument is referred. This is true whether the field is law, with its panels of appellate and supreme court judges, or the field is science with its process of peer review and repeatability. It is also true in the Church with its synod and Ecumenical Councils. Conversely, the smaller the “truth” that is being debated, the less likely it is to go to a broader and more representative panel.
Post-modernism helped to explain why such panels are necessary. The inherent bias and worldview present in all of us means that the individual by himself/herself has little reliability in the search for truth. Please note that this does not mean that individuals do not come up with great scientific discoveries all the time. Of course they do! But, those discoveries are not accepted into scientific orthodoxy until they have passed through the peer review process. In passing, this is where quacks and conspiracy theorists have their fun. Because there is a tendency towards conservatism in science, meaning that theories are not changed until the requirements of repeatability and peer review are met, and because there have been a couple of theories that were unnecessarily delayed, quacks and conspiracy theorists are always claiming that science does not want to accept their results because they fear them.
In the same way, though there are great theologians in the history of the Church, their findings are not accepted until they are sifted through the Church, her synods and councils. The process of sifting is guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is a process. Because of the great corruption in the Church in the Middle Ages, that process was destroyed in the Reformation. But, an even worse thing happened, Protestants came up with the idea that a man/woman and his/her Bible were sufficient for truth. The answer is, “No, they are not!” No field of knowledge accepts that an individual is sufficient for truth. More than that, no one group is sufficient for the large truths. No, only an Ecumenical Council, representative of all the peoples, tribes, nations, and languages has a sufficient scope of representation to speak about Truth, just like international peer review of large scientific concepts is necessary for science.
And, to wrap it back to the Supreme Court, this is why it is so important that the judges on that court represent a variety of backgrounds, judicial philosophies, and political philosophies. Five to four decisions are not bad if the subject is a difficult one. Nine to nothing decisions are very bad if it means that all aspects of a subject were not considered. Remember, a five to four decision is much more carefully and narrowly worded than a nine to nothing decision. Narrowly worded decisions are a good thing, because they often represent a carefully considered more moderate solution. A nine to nothing decision immediately sets a permanent precedent or a stare decisis on steroids. We need to insist less on judges that represent only our belief and more on judges that cover the whole field of opinions.
In Christianity, the multiplicity of groups has hurt truth severely for two reasons. One is that who can tell what truth is when there is no panel of reference possible? But, the second is even worse, the multiplicity of groups has kept most people from encountering and engaging the vast variety of possible doctrines that there are. Frankly, there would be vastly fewer doctrines if our panels of references (Ecumenical Councils) were still working. But, even if they were, most people would be surprised at the variety of beliefs allowed by Ecumenical Councils because we have insufficient information on which to base our doctrinal decisions. And, they would be surprised because the groups into which we are split are so monochromatic that we seldom encounter a different opinion.
If you get nothing else out of this series, get this point. Truth is communal not individual.
Leave a Reply