After the release of the hotly disputed Nunes memo at the end of last week, discussions regarding true reporting, bias and perspective are already storming to the forefront again. There is already an opposition memo that I have a feeling will probably be released in the near future. Let me go out on a limb here. It will probably contradict everything that was in this first memo.
As Christians then, we ought to be people who pursue truth wherever it leads. After all, we follow the one who calls Himself the Truth. The question then becomes how do we operate in this environment of competing truth claims? If there are two diametrically opposed narratives, what is the responsible way for the Christian or really anyone to make any decision on what to support or to believe?
Believe it or not, as Christians, we are in a very advantageous position to do this because we already have the skill set necessary. Making a claim for religious exclusivity provides us with the tools necessary to think about any truth in a more general way. As Christians, we believe Jesus Christ is the one way to God, and He is the only option for our salvation. We are making a truth claim, and by making that one claim, we are implicitly saying that other pathways are false. We’re saying that Hinduism is incorrect when we say that Christianity is correct.
Therefore, let’s think a little bit about why it perhaps we are Christians. Perhaps by looking at what makes us comfortable making one for truth claim, we can generalize to a more general set of ideas about how to think about any type of truth claim.
The first thing to remember about Christianity is that we believe in the evidence. Anytime you’re trying to figure out what is true, obviously it makes sense to go to the evidence. For Christianity, that is not only the Bible but also the entire book of history as well as the majesty of the universe itself. We look at what is in existence, and we think about if it really makes sense in the first place. If a worldview does not account for the way the world is and doesn’t align with the evidence, then it is probably something that can be thrown out.
Thinking about any type of claim then, I have to imagine that the same thing applies. We have to first go to the evidence itself. In the case of the Nunes and opposition memos, actually go look at the primary documents themselves. See what they say aside from any political commentary and evaluate the truth claims that they make. If they say things that are inconsistent with the way that reality is, then we have pretty good grounds to reject them as false.