Absolute Truth claims, in its innocence, that there is an underlying moral standard that universally defines the difference between what is good and what is not. But in its arrogance, Absolute Truth and its adherents attempt to enforce this standard through codes of conduct, both legal and religious.
Relative Truth, in its humility, counters that even if such a standard does exist, we humans are limited in our ability to perceive it. Too often, we hear only what we want to hear and see only what we’re looking for. But in its ignorance, Relative Truth says that we make our own truth, a claim that works when measured against our actions but falls far short of encompassing the universe within which we live.
The problem with these differing points of view is that both make truth a concept, a kind of object that can be studied, understood, grasped and even possessed. One claims that the object exists apart from me. The other disagrees, saying the object is my creation.
Both are wrong.
Truth is not an object. Truth is a Person. Truth does exist outside of me. But my understanding of and obedience to Truth is dependent on the depth of my relationship. And this is a relationship that only grows in correlation to perceived need.
The key, then, to wisdom is and always has been humility. Until and unless I admit my need, there is no opening for Truth. But out of humility comes opportunity for growth in knowledge and understanding, a foundation for wisdom. And wisdom has always been the mark of a deep reverence and love of Truth.
The problem with these differing points of view is that both make truth a concept