The Problem of Relativism, or, The Flip Side of Absolutism: Getting back to Communities of Faith and Getting Over Metaphysics

Relativism is a real problem for some Christians. They see it as a specter waiting to undermine everything good, descent, just, Biblical and Godly about this world. Usually they take “relativism” to mean “anything goes.” “Its all just relative,” they lament.

Few take the time to peek more closely at the specter of “relativism.” They take these charges at face value. But let’s look more closely.

The word “relativism” has a history, as the Online Etymological Dictionary (OED) attests. As a philosophical term, “relativism” was first recorded in 1865 and the label “relativist” was established in 1863. Clearly, these are not words that are used in the Bible and, more importantly, it would have been impossible for St. Paul or anyone else to use these phrases. They are distinctly modern terms.

Relativism does not stand alone, however. Relativism presupposes some sort of Archimedean point. In other words, one can only be relative to an Absolute and fixed point.

Sure enough, the word “absolute” and “absolutism” have histories too. The OED says that “absolutism,” deriving from the Latin root of “despotic,” was established in 1753 in theology and in 1830 in politics. Absolutism, like its ugly cousin relativism, are both thoroughly modern words. Neither are Biblical.

Ironically, many conservative evangelicals that pride themselves in “literal” readings of the Bible use the specter of “relativism” to condemn what they dislike and “absolutism” to praise what they like. They say things like the “homosexual agenda is a result of relativism.” And they frame the Bible as an “absolute standard for all people” that fixes the problem of relativism.

Relativism and absolutism are modern ghosts. They depend on each other for support. Relativism and absolutism create a structure that limits how we think about the world. I mean, most people can’t imagine a world that isn’t somehow caught between relativity and absolutism, between “anything goes” and “The Objective Way.” In a lot of people’s minds, it’s either relative or absolute. There is nothing in between. Either/or.

Are we trapped here between constant flux and total fixity? Are we trapped by our conventional readings of Scripture that import extra-Biblical storylines to bolster our interpretations? If we are, it is only because of our impoverished modern imaginations and our strident refusal to think otherwise.

Perhaps we should remove ourselves from the entrenched philosophies of the Enlightenment era that take us up into the metaphysical clouds. We should re-situate ourselves on the ground, in our communities and in the words of the Bible itself, were neither relativity nor absolutism hold sway. The fact is that people in the same community read the same Bible and they come to different conclusions about what a verse, passage or chapter means. The key is that nowhere does “anything go” and nowhere is there “One Right Reading.” There are limits to what a community will accept as a legitimate interpretation of the Bible and, at the same time, those limits are not set in stone. It is a give and take; an ongoing dialog between members.

Relativism is only a problem if you assert the Bible to be Absolute—recall, the Bible doesn’t refer to itself as Absolute or Objective. We refer to the Bible in those terms. The Scriptures, as Paul clearly notes in 2 Timothy, is a means of instructing us in “salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Scriptures are not objective or absolute, but they are “inspired by God” and they are “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

To put this in different terms, the Bible is rooted in our everyday lives and in our communities. It is a resource for living fully in the way and name of Jesus. Once you bring the Bible back down from the clouds and situate it in our communities, in human hands that are inspired by God, then “anything goes” is just as absurd as “The One Right Interpretation.”

The label “relativism” says less about what is so labeled and far more about the person using the label. Usually, to name some idea as “relativist” is just another way of saying that “I am right and you are wrong and the conversation ends here unless you believe as I believe.” These labels are like weapons.

I think that insofar as we are trying to re-think what it means to be a follower of Jesus or a Christian, then we would all benefit by not worrying about the problem of “relativism” and its ugly cousin “absolutism.” We live in real communities where there are limits, but those limits are not set in stone. We have to read what the Bible says and integrate it into our lives as best we can. Relativism and absolutism add layers of modern, metaphysical and philosophical baggage, and so they are superfluous to this process.