Truth

If Corder is right and one’s argument equates to one’s identity, then I feel I must address my beliefs head on (3). C. S. Lewis, renowned author who went from diehard atheist to steadfast Christian, explains, rather well, the foundations of my identity and argument:
All I am doing is asking people to face the facts--to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something quite agreeable. But I must say what I think true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in […] dismay […] and it is no use trying to go on to all that comfort without first going through dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth--only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. (39)
Yes, the quote is lengthy and loaded (especially considering that the quote is presented without Lewis’ intended introduction and explanation); but I use it in order to purposefully nail some topics of interest and doubt.
Firstly, I argue because I care. Certainly I have a lot wrapped up into my argument, my whole identity in fact; but contrary to the underlining notions of Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love, I do not argue in order to prove my identity is right. It does not have to be all about “me, myself and I.” I argue; because if I am right, I long for you to be right as well. I argue; because if I am wrong, I long to become right. I want to “face the facts” and I want others to “face the facts.” In class, we defined fact as “accepted statements.” Yet I find the word fact to be obscured by this definition. Whether or not people accepted the world to be round, the fact is it’s round. Whether or not people accepted the existence of atomic and subatomic particles, the fact is they’re there. In all likeliness, I am wrongly allowing the word truth to interchange with fact. Upon deep consideration, the truth has lead me to believe there is an authority on high and that authority is the God of Christianity. Perhaps another finds that the truth has lead them to believe that there is no almighty authority, or that if there is one, it is the god of some other religion. Yet, as with the roundness of the Earth and the existence of miniscule particles, there is but one truth. How can this be? How can we feel so lead by truth, yet differ so uniquely? The author, J. F. Baldwin explains:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may find yourself in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (29)
I argue for my beliefs because I believe my worldview glasses are quite accurate. I know that I will reach points where my glasses are unacceptably inaccurate. But when I choose to argue, I argue not just to be right, rather to seek clarity. Many find Christianity pompous and authoritarian; for myself, it is but a submission to what truths I have met in life.
Secondly, I find that the argument for Christianity envelopes an expansive range of “I believe this, therefore […]” which allots for a hearty understanding of the view that Christianity can be “an authoritative position […] a prison both to us and to any audience” (Corder 29). As a Christian, I have found the opposite to be true. I find it rather freeing to say “I know what I know what I know what I know, that is until you can tell me otherwise.” Christianity has never placed any cages on my life, rather it has set standards to which I seek, desire and live to reach.* Supposedly with an unchanging standard, you receive the title, “intolerant,” and as Corder points out, you become an ass. The only things that justly earns these titles are the arguments that take on the mentality, however masked it may be, “I am right, so there!” In order to adhere to an unchanging standard and still be open, I try to live by “I am right and here’s why, until you can prove me otherwise.” I believe that the standard never has to change, while people’s views of this standard can change and vary all the time. Some more right than others; some still in need of further growth; some wrong. It is not wrong to assume your identity is right and to fight for it. It is not wrong to assume another’s identity wrong and fight against it. It is wrong to fight when truth is not the objective goal. My goal is not to change the world and others, that is but an occasional result of my goal. My goal is to find truth. Whether my portion of discussions cover the wavering temperament of Modernity, the silence of the unborn, the meaning of culture as religion externalized, the view that “the right thing done in the wrong way will always lead to disaster,” the importance of giving, the failure of the church, the success of the church, the good of geometric and arithmetical sequences, the purposes of academic fervor, the politics of war,
the ethics of war, the vices of war, the virtues of war, et cetera I will forever do my utmost to tie my longings and goals to truth. I must rely and call upon, in the mean time strengthen, my ability to discern, the ability to tell the difference between that which is right and that which is almost right.
Thirdly, the shape of my argument is rather distinctive and often faces the audiences’ lofty list of immediate assumptions. My stance sets me up as the bad guy. My arguments are viewed as pragmatic and unreasonable. But I will make every effort to prove my ethos. Part of my beliefs as a Christian, apart from popular opinion on Christianity, is that truth cannot be found in pragmatism or in pacifism. The operable word needed to reach truth is balance. I should not see argumentation as all or nothing. Still, my foundation or worldview need not waver unless I come upon “that strange kind of argument […] where one offers the other a rightness so demanding, a beauty so stunning, a grace so fearful as to call the hearer to forego one identity for a startling new one” (Corder 24). But the assumptions of my beliefs deserve to be faced head on, judged, proved, tried, believed and denied as the case may be. Faith in anything will, by nature, create the desire to speak out. That can be seen in any culture when faced with any beliefs of any sort. It is the truth alone that defines right and wrong, not how well we argue facts. I hope that from these standing points, my arguments are shaped by thoughtfulness, kindness, wisdom, discernment, research, support, ethos and pathos and logos, clarity, stewardship as it relates to time, love, and most of all the search for truth. “I wish it was possible to say something quite agreeable. But I must say what I think true” (Lewis 39).

*Side note: When people say things like, “but that means you can’t have sex ‘til you’re married, you can’t swear, you have to go to church, you have to do this and be that,” I find that although I fail the standard, forgiveness and peace are assured the repented heart. I desire that Christian standard while forever desiring that worldly standard as well. It is a battle, the battle of mankind, between the heart of man and the spirit of God. My choices in life are carving a sort of character, one that will result in either a hellish being or a heavenly one (Lewis 86). In the end and despite my contradicting desires, what I truly desire most is what the world likes least. (Romans 7:15-25)


Works Cited
Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels:
Fishermen, 1998.
Corder, J. W. “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” Rhetoric Review, Vol. 4. 1985.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. NY: Macmillan, 1952.
The NIV Study Bible. Kenneth Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995