OK, some interaction with commenters:

Dan: Questions of truth depend on what you mean by it. Philosophically, I don't think 'truth' means 'a form of words backed up by the facts' - justified propositions. For a start, I don't think that there are such things as 'facts', at least insofar as they appear gloriously naked, 'objectively' isolated from the perceptions generated by our language and our 'form-of-life'.

In the biblical narrative, I think that 'truth' is an idea like 'reliable', 'trustworthy'. And it's got to do, primarily, with God's promises and character. Truth is a deeply personal thing in scripture. YHWH is said to be true, not because his existence can be proved, but because his promises and character are steadfast and faithful. As images of God, our interest should be in becoming rocks of steadfast faithfulness, in terms of the way our words & character bring others to live rich, full and peaceful lives - that is, the shalom of God.

Creeds and confessions, especially when influenced by systematic theology, tend to treat the biblical narrative as a jumble of theological facts which have been carefuly sifted and rearranged into some sort of logical order. This very often occurs in response to some particular philosophical questions, or at the least is done in the context of prevailing philosophical obsessions. The logical order is then considered the 'reality', the Truth, behind the jumbled narrative, and is used to guide any reading of the narrative. Thus, the concerns of the system are read back into the text, which then receives its 'clarification'.

But this Truth is radically depersonalised, and exists without people and beyond people. It is no longer the narrative spoken by attested spokesmen and carried forward by the Spirit as a story embodied in a living community. Insofar as it is held to be "the truth of God's Word" (meaning, 'the correct interpretation of Scripture'), it is no longer an expression of the trustworthiness of God, worked out in living reality. It's merely a series of objectively isolated, gloriously naked theological 'facts'. What results is a perversion of the truth, and of God's word (see below & my response to Ruth for more about truth and word). Consequently, systematic theology and the theological description of Truth that it produces tends to be very de-motivating - dry, abstract, boring. People tell and live within stories, not the maths equations that systematic theology makes of scripture. But systematic Truth is very good for beating people with, very good for arguing over, and very good as a glorious (and pious-sounding) cause - "Truth!" - over which to impale the unity of the church, relationships, and peace. That's why this conception of Truth has produced such ugly, useless churches.

In short, it's very bad for establishing God's truth - his reliability.

Al, as you can see, I'm right with you. I agree completely.

Ruth, as above, two good examples of a shonky reading of the text, driven by systematics, are the motifs of God's word and 'truth' itself. The former is almost always read as meaning 'the 66 books of the Canon', when actually it means 'the expectations generated by God within and through the covenant'. The latter is often read, wrongly, as 'justified propositions about God', such as 'God exists', 'God is Trinity', etc. See Rom 3:18-32 for an excellent instance of an often misread use of 'truth'. Paul's real concern when he uses the phrase 'truth of God' here is the reliability of God, his faithfulness, which he asserts against the testimony made by covenant apostates (Paul is probably thinking primarily of the Jews, here) who imply by their unfaithfulness that God can't be trusted. His argument begins in 1:16, and continues (with development into an explanation of how God's word is fulfilled, and thus how God is proved faithful) until at least chapter 5. But his actual thought and the foundation of his argument in 1-18:32 is invariably buried beneath a 'total depravity' view of the passage, which speaks of the 'truth of God' as metaphysical facts that all people are meant to know, deep down somewhere, but suppress in unrighteousness. This butchers the passage completely. But the total depravity view is a primary building-block of Reformed systematics, and so is imposed on the passage, which then becomes a major 'proof-text'.

Alan, I trust I've now said enough to show that I do know a wee bit more than any short rant will demonstrate. But I agree with you - slogans such as the ones I threw around will not satisfy a sceptic who knows enough to recognise them as slogans. Thanks for your comments.