In an era where “my truth” has become a cultural catchphrase, Christian apologist Tim Barnett recently joined Remnant Radio to dissect the philosophical underpinnings of subjective versus objective truth and their profound implications for Christian faith and evangelism.

The conversation began by establishing fundamental categories of truth. Barnett distinguished between “ice cream truth”—subjective preferences like favorite flavors—and “insulin truth”—objective realities that exist regardless of personal belief. While subjective truth governs personal preferences, objective truth corresponds with reality itself, forming the foundation for meaningful discourse about morality, religion, and ultimate questions of existence.

This distinction becomes crucial when examining biblical perspectives on truth. Scripture consistently presupposes objective truth through its condemnations of calling “evil good and good evil,” Paul’s warnings against suppressing truth in unrighteousness, and Jesus’s declaration that God’s word is truth. The Bible doesn’t merely present “my truth” but proclaims universal truth claims that demand response regardless of personal preference or cultural context.

The discussion traced how Western civilization moved from Enlightenment rationalism through Romantic emotionalism to postmodern relativism. Each philosophical shift contributed to contemporary truth skepticism, culminating in today’s digital age where algorithms create echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs rather than challenging them with objective reality.

Barnett’s research on deconstruction revealed how postmodern processes systematically undermine Christian faith. Rather than seeking truth through careful biblical exegesis, deconstruction operates as a postmodern methodology that rejects Scripture as an authoritative standard. This approach inevitably leads to cherry-picking doctrines based on personal preference rather than biblical fidelity.

The conversation highlighted how this subjective framework manifests in contemporary church life. When pastors ask “What does this passage mean to you?” instead of “What did the biblical author intend?”, they inadvertently promote reader-response interpretation over historical-grammatical hermeneutics. Similarly, worship services that emphasize personal experience over God’s character, or songs saturated with “I” language rather than divine attributes, can unconsciously cultivate self-centered spirituality.

Barnett emphasized that relativism proves self-refuting when examined closely. People claiming “there is no truth” simultaneously assert that statement as universally true. Moreover, individuals don’t actually live as relativists—they react to moral violations as if objective standards exist, whether someone cuts in line or commits more serious offenses.

The implications for evangelism are significant. While some theological disagreements represent secondary issues where Christians can show grace and humility, the gospel itself rests on objective truth claims. Sin represents falling short of God’s perfect standard, not merely violating personal moral preferences. Christ’s resurrection constitutes historical fact, not subjective religious experience. These foundational truths require acknowledgment of objective reality rather than relativistic interpretation.

The discussion concluded by examining how false teachers exploit this confusion between truth and love. By redefining love as mere tolerance rather than biblical love that “rejoices in truth,” they create false dichotomies that undermine both scriptural authority and genuine care for souls. Jesus perfectly embodied both grace and truth, demonstrating that authentic love includes calling people to repentance rather than simply affirming their choices.

For Christians navigating this cultural moment, Barnett recommended living consistently with belief in objective truth, showing empathy for those confused by competing truth claims, and maintaining the inseparable connection between love and truth that Jesus exemplified. Rather than compromising biblical convictions to accommodate cultural relativism, believers must demonstrate how objective truth provides the stable foundation that postmodern skepticism ultimately cannot deliver.

This conversation serves as a crucial reminder that the church’s response to cultural relativism requires both intellectual rigor and pastoral sensitivity, maintaining biblical fidelity while engaging compassionately with those genuinely seeking truth in an increasingly confused world.

‍