Coffee Grounds || Apologetic Foundations: Truth

 It was the fall of 2001.  I was a freshman in college (Do they even say that anymore?), and fresh off the devastation of a last minute change to head to community college instead of the private Christian university as planned. Any other local friends had opted to go to the nearby unaccredited Bible college, so driving to a place where my faith would be questioned was an additional blow to my enthusiasm.  Why couldn't I be in the "warm embrace" of Bible classes too? Little did I know, it was because God was laying the groundwork for where I am sitting today. 

A few weeks later, I tried to cheer myself up with a trip to our tiny Christian Bible store--prompted by another friend mocking me for my "6th grade reading level" NIV (Apparently, I needed to upgrade to an NASB).  While picking up a new Bible and cute cover was a great way to justify some retail therapy,  it would also lead me to pick up another book equally as thick: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.  I have to admit, the subheading of "Fully updated in one volume to answer questions challenging Christians in the 21st century" was a draw because of course, I was also a Y2K kid and had been all about the hype.  We were pretty proud of the fact that we had "lived" through the millennium as teens (Even though now the label just makes us feel old, ha ha), and I figured at the time that something as tailored to my generation would help me get through the next two years. I was determined if I was going to have to go to another public school, I was going to be as equipped as possible for those classes that inevitably would challenge my faith, and be a voice of reason to those who didn't know Jesus. 

Later that week at home, I sat down to do additional studying--something I chuckle about because, let's be honest, I probably was trying to avoid my actual homework--and I landed on a page that was about 2/3 the way through the book titled, "The Nature of Truth." 

As I read through the section (heavily influenced by Norman Giesler, who ironically founded the seminary I now attend), my eyes were opened up to a phenomenon that I had been struggling with as a public school teen: subjective truth. Finally, I had a name to the reason why I was unable to hold any meaningful conversations with my peers over issues like religion or politics. Being a 90's kid, it was expected to be "tolerant" to resolve oneself to saying, "This is what is true to ME," and walking away instead of engaging in a meaningful debate.  While this seemed kind and very "Christian," it never sat well with me. Sometimes things were TRUE because they were truth, which meant a perspective had to be wrong. 

Inspired and convinced that this was something that my peers needed to hear, I used the only platform I had at the time: the community college classroom.  Whenever I was given a choice on a topic, I used my research on objective truth. I wrote one essay and a speech that semester, but looking over my very old (and almost incompatible) files from those first college years, I used the concept of objective and subjective truth in almost every literary analysis essay I was assigned. I knew that the battle of using subjective truth in the place of objective was going to be the hallmark of my generation . . . and I was so right. 

Eventually, I transferred to a long-awaited Christian college, but instead of meeting the "warm embrace" I was hoping for,  I encountered many of the same issues. It was now 2004, and this was the height of the Emergent Church era (which was a catalyst for many to eventually deconstruct or turn to Progressive Christianity in the decades to come).  While I never succumbed to the falsehoods that were being taught in many of the theology and ministry classes, it did start me on a journey to try to pinpoint what I now know after a few years of learning from apologists like Alisa Childers: At the very core of all postmodern ideas, progressive thoughts, and deconstructionists' hearts is the false foundation that there is no objective truth. 

What is Truth? 

 According to classical apologist, Norman Geisler, "Truth is 'telling it like it is."1 There are many types of truth (math, ideas, reality), and truth "accurately expresses it."  On the other hand, falsehood, "does not correspond" and misrepresents "they way things are."2 If it doesn't correspond with reality, then it is false. This is referred to as the correspondence theory of truth. 

Truth = reality.  Seems simple enough.  

But somehow, I'm sure you are guessing that I wouldn't be worried about the implications of something so easy. In fact, there isn't even a disagreement about the definition, and skimming through the pages of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, you'd see that it has withstood the test of centuries. And how could it not? Its TRUTH! So how did something so elementary become the subject of so much controversy? 

 Setting the Table 

There are two main categories of truth that we deal with on a regular basis: subjective (or relevant) and objective truth. And it's not that one is more "right" or truthful than the other--both are valuable and necessary to have a firm grip on reality--but the incorrect placement of one over the other is what has been causing many of our current issues in our world today.

To introduce this concept, I'd like to use coffee (Geisler used pencil and paper--which is kind of perfect for a teacher like me--but since he already took that illustration, I'll stick to what I'm most known for):

I've invited you over for some afternoon coffee and conversation, and we are sitting across from each other at my kitchen table. 

In front of me, I see this scene:

  

 

The cream is to the right of the coffee mug

 

But in front of you, this is a different scene:

The cream is to the left of the coffee mug. 

From each of our perspectives, the cream is on a different side. Right according to my perspective, but left according to yours. 

The truth of which side the cream is located is considered SUBJECTIVE truth.  Just like the name, depending on what is subject, or relevant, to the perspective, it is true.  This is the only truth that can change or only be applied to certain circumstances or people. Depending on what side of the table you are sitting on, the creamer will appear on a different side of the coffee mug. 

The truth that there is a coffee cup in the center of a place mat with a creamer beside it is the OBJECTIVE truth. Objective truth focuses on the OBJECT of truth itself, and therefore, cannot change.  It is the very basis of reality and how we are able to perceive the world, and relative truth is dependent on knowing what is objectively true. No matter what side of the table you are on, the creamer is to the side of the coffee mug. 

Nothing can change the fact that the mug has a creamer next to it. No matter what side of the table you are sitting on, the statement is true. What DOES change is what side the creamer is subject to the truth of the mug.  The truth that the creamer is on the right or left of the mug is relevant to the objective truth that there is a mug in the center with a creamer next to it. 

(And don't worry, I'm getting you a fresh mug of hot coffee now because we have been staring at this one, and it's starting to get cold). 

Cream in Your Cup

I always put creme in my coffee. Half-and-half, to be precise. I've been known to encourage people to "love themselves" by adding a little cream to their coffee (there may be a day when I'm forced to drink black coffee, but today is not that day).   

It's not uncommon for people to feel the way I do about the virtues of creamer, but what DOES change from person to person is how much creamer one actually uses:

• Is it a splash?  

• Do you make it look more tan than brown? 

• What about flavors?

 I have known quite a few people who could easily be asked, "Would you like a little coffee with your cup of creamer?"

 And while I ask you if you take some creamer for the cup I've just poured you, it really is a perfect time to explain how subjective truth in the form of preferences fit into the objective truth of reality:

Objective Truth: There is coffee and creamer in each mug

Subjective Truth: There are about 2 tablespoons of half-and-half in my mug, and a splash of caramel creamer in yours. 

All three statements are true, but two can change and do not hold the same weight as the first. The objective truth of there being coffee and a type of creamer in each mug will be true regardless of the subjective truth of how much or what type. There either is or isn't coffee with creamer. The subjective truth of what kind and how much is dependent on that objective truth.  It is important, but isn't what grounds the situation in reality. 

 As you sip your coffee, you may now notice that I'm talking about two different levels of truth--one that grounds us in reality, and one that is made of preferences and things that are only true in circumstances.  

 Philosopher and apologist, Tim Barnett, in The Deconstruction of Christianity, that he authored with apologist Alisa Childers, uses the illustration author Nancy Percy uses in her book, Total Truth, to illustrate this phenomenon (And yes, we all do reference and use each other's great ideas and research).3 As Barnett summarized Percy, truth is "a two-tiered" seen as a two-story building.4 Truth is the ground floor, while subjective truth comprises the second floor. All buildings need ground floors, and are the support for any floors built above it. You cannot "live" on the second floor of a building that does not have a ground floor. 

Now, the second floor is still a real floor, and it's what makes each "building" customizable. The second floor is where our opinions on objective truth "live." Things like your favorite color, your preference in what season is the best, your thoughts on how soon Christmas decorations should be put up, and, yes, whether or not you even LIKE coffee, all "live" on the second floor.  All of these subjective truths are based, though, on the reality that there are colors, seasons, holidays to decorate for, and warm drinks.

To apply this, let's turn back to our coffee (we are now on our second cup): The coffee with cream in a mug is our ground floor (objective truth), while the amount and kind of creamer is our second floor (subjective truth preference). "Living" on the second floor without a ground floor--in coffee terms--would be a mug with creamer in it, but without coffee. If I had set the mug before you and only filled the mug with what type and amount of creamer you wanted, you would be starring at me and wondering if I maybe needed more coffee before I asked anyone over!  It would be silly, and it would mean that I've asked you over to drink creamer, not coffee, which means my statement in inviting you over would have been false. See how it all fits together? 

 

Coffee on the Road

You're heading out now, and I'm caffeinated enough to offer to make you a cup to go. (Maybe its a long trip home?).  As you leave, I want to make sure you understand the implications of our creamer illustration:

While it seems crazy, there are people who are touting the creamer-only lifestyle and calling it "coffee." When people confront them about it, they say, "This is how I drink coffee."  

You might start to object and ask how this can be true, but they will follow up with a quick, "You drink coffee your way, and I drink coffee this way. If you don't like how I drink my coffee, you don't have to drink yours the same way."

 In one last attempt, you try to at least come to some sort of agreement that they may want to drink their "coffee" that way, but that there is again, no actual coffee.  

They retort with, "I identify as a coffee drinker, so it doesn't make a difference if there is coffee in my cup," and point out that they are drinking their "coffee" in a coffee cup, etc, before they walk away.

 If it feels exhausting (and leaving you wanting more coffee), it should. There is no objective truth in any of the "creamer-only coffee" drinker's cup. 

 The problem is that this "coffee drinker" also "lives" in a house of reality where there is no ground floor or objective truth. They literally flip the house (not in the remodeling and resell method, but more like how your toddler dumps the entirety of the toy basket on the floor and seems surprised).  They will name whatever subjective truth they or others have and claim that it is the ground floor. Subjective matters such as opinions, preferences, and circumstances become severed from the ground floor of objective truth and are attempted to be used as the ground floor to build another reality. 

Now, while I'm sure some very talented structural engineer could manage it with equally an equally talented construction team, it completely breaks down when dealing with reality. All second floor subjective truths are built on the foundation of the ground floor objective truths. If you eliminate the ground floor, there is no more foundation to build reality upon. 

You are left with creamer and no coffee. 

 

Postmodern Beverages

The uncomfortable conversation about "identifying" as a coffee drinker doesn't stop with beverages.  We live in a postmodern world. 

Without going too deep into another topic (and therefore, needing another method of caffeination), our western philosophical foundations started in modernity, during the time of the ancient Greeks. Philosophers such as Aristotle rejected the idea that the world is controlled by unseen forces (like sun gods) and relied upon logic and reason to explain the world around them. This was actually a great idea if you remember how horrible the Greek and Roman gods were portrayed. It established vocabulary so that others could partake in discussions and debate with a meaningful foundation.  This discourse allowed for new ideas to spread and be introduced in ways that had never been seen before--including the Gospel. 

Unfortunately, our world eventually moved into postmodernity. While it seemed that having the tools for meaningful debate would be enough to agree in theory, it only further highlighted the divide. So, in an attempt to ease the tensions created in modernity, the postmodernists gave up. Instead of finding common ground, they instead forged a whole new one. And another one. And another one. And instead of establishing a line of reasoning that we all could use, everyone had their own reason that couldn't engage with any other reason. It all became subjective. The floors were floating and not based in the reality of objective truth anymore. 

The postmodern world that we live in rejects objective truth. While objective truth still exists, if someone points out an objective truth the postmodernist doesn't agree with, they are straw-manned by being labeled "intolerant" or "ignorant." In fact, those who embrace the postmodern world and the upside-down prioritizing of subjective truth violate the law of non-contradiction. They will say that truth is subjective, yet tell you that objectively. Creamer "coffee" is coffee without coffee in this broken reality.

 With no foundation in reality, people begin to feel lost. While drink choice has no implications on the quality of one's life, questions about reality do:

• If everyone has a different, valid idea about where we came from, how do we know which one is true? 

• If everyone can do what is right in their own eyes, at what point is something wrong? 

• If the world can be fixed any number of ways, why hasn't anyone been successful? 

• If nobody can pinpoint to what happens to us when we die (because stating one way or another is "wrong" since an objective truth was named), then how can we actually know? 

With no metanarrative--or narrative that connects all of reality objectively--in postmodernity, then there is no way to truly answer any of these questions. So instead of disagreeing and continuing to search for "the truth," postmodernists say that an underlying truth doesn't matter. Sounds great if you are just trying to get a little homework done fast, but not so great if you are earnestly seeking. It's no stretch to see a possible correlation that that the amount of "Don'ts" in the form of marxists, nihilists, secular humanists, and postmodernists, are on the rise,5 and we also have a record number of those who are feeling depressed or lost without direction.6. The world and our actions having meaning is what grounds us as the human race . . . and it is a part of our original design. They know they are missing something, but with a world that refuses to tell them what it is, they are left to seek after things that won't truly fill them. 

Serving Coffee

Now, how are the rest of us objective truth-seeking, reality grounding, and coffee-drinking folk going to stay caffeinated in this postmodern world? Start the conversation.

 As apologist Greg Koukl states, sometimes you just need to "put a rock in their shoe."7 We all know that feeling of the rock that grows larger and larger with every step--until you have to pay attention to it and actually address it by stopping and taking it out. 

You may not be able to convince others that they are building their house of reality upside down on the first try (and that they are drinking pure creamer), but you can help them to start thinking about it. Invite them out to coffee. Use the illustration of the coffee ups in front of you. Listen and slip slowly. The person in front of you hasn't learned to make sense of the reality. They are probably using some mish-mosh of objective and subjective truth and can't really make heads or tails of what they are feeling about big questions, or aren't able to navigate life with as much certainty as you are (and they are convinced its not just because of the coffee).  It also takes a few rocks (or coffee conversations) to get people's attention, so don't feel bad if your rock didn't do the trick. It takes a lot for someone to shift their reality. 

If you are a Christ-follower, you are living in the ground floor of objective truth and enjoying your subjective preferences. Your house has a foundation on the word of God, and you are able to invite people into the metanarrative of God's story. You can make a great cup of coffee because you know each of ingredients needed: from the ratio of creamer to coffee, to knowing you need excellent grounds (in apologetics). With these, it is simple to defend the (objective) truth . . . one cup at a time. 

So who are you inviting to coffee this week?  

________________________

Sources & Further Reading

1 Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 588.

2 McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 588.

3 Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett, The Deconstruction of Christianity: What It Is, Why It’s Destructive, and How to Respond (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2024), 104.

4 Childers and Barnett, The Deconstruction of Christianity, 104.

5 George Barna, American Worldview Inventory 2021, Release #4: The National Religious Realignment: Identifying Dramatic Changes in Long-Term Faith Commitments (Glendale, AZ: Cultural Research Center, Arizona Christian University, June 8, 2021).

6 George Barna, “Research Suggests Consequences of Anti-Biblical Worldview Often Misdiagnosed and Treated as Mental Illness,” George Barna, September 24, 2024.

7 Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, 10th Anniversary ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019), 46.