Loneliness and the Postmodern View of Language
May 12, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall
I mentioned in my last post that the beliefs described in the McLaren interview led to Hansen’s (the interviewer’s) loneliness for God, and I’d like to explain why I think this is the case.
For those who fully embrace the idea that “the God who really exists must be better than the concepts of God that I have, and so I have to continually call on the God who is greater than my best concept of God,” and that “only wonder understands; concepts create idols,” God becomes more of an abstract idea than a person. Why? Because personal knowledge of Him and His character (who He is and who He is not) is always beyond our grasp. It’s difficult to love, trust, and experience a being you don’t know.
Toward the end of the interview, Hansen expresses the despair he’s been struggling with. How can anyone come close to God if words can’t help us truly know Him?
Hansen: What, okay, well, if you need to go beyond words then, what kind of experiences have you had, Brian, that have given you the hope to continue on? I mean it’s got to be experiences or practices or living social justice out. What is it that has helped you and can help us to go beyond the words and to have that?
This question is heartbreaking to me. Hansen thought the only way he could satisfy his intellectual questions about Christianity was to take on the postmodern views of truth and language that allowed him to “go beyond” the words of the Bible to find God (as I described here and here). But by doing so, he lost any hope of relating in a meaningful way to a true, personal God who exists in reality. His only connection with God (he thinks) must therefore consist of an indefinable experience he must achieve through some other means (mystical practices, good deeds, etc.).
Since Hansen hasn’t achieved this kind of experience, he says, “On an emotional level though, I am just really struggling trusting even God exists at all, and I can’t mental talk myself into that.”
If you have intellectual questions about Christianity, I implore you to not cover them up by changing your view of knowledge, language, truth, and spiritual reality, or by postulating secret meanings “greater than” the actual text of the Bible. If you don’t believe the Christianity of the Bible is really, actually true, deal with your questions. It is possible to be intellectually satisfied by a Christianity with a God who can be known and a Bible that can be trusted. This will take some time on your part to research, but the result is worth it.
God never intended for us to be lost in a fog of ideas about Him; He wants us to have the joy of knowing Him. (This is not to say we’ll know Him perfectly in this life, nor that there isn’t an indefinable, experiential aspect to our knowledge of God. I claim only that we can know what He has revealed to us through His words and that this knowledge is crucial for true relationship.) As John 17:3 says, “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
And how can we know Him? Not from contentless, conceptless experiences. In John 4:22-23, Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.”
The Jews who worshiped God knew Him because they had His words about Himself. The Samaritans who did the same did not know God because they didn’t accept His words. Without true words about God, there is no true worship. And without true worship and communion with God, we remain in our loneliness.
Related posts:
- The Root of Experience is Knowledge
- Emergents and Language
- Truth in The Da Vinci Code: The Villain’s View
- Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World
- Truth in The Da Vinci Code: The Heroes’ View
- Connecting Emergent Ideas (2 of 2)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Religion (General)
content rss
May 12th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Amy,
At one level, I'm with you. Far be it from us to think the words of scripture are insufficient to start the process of faith development.
But I am surprised you would somehow disagree with this statement: “the God who really exists must be better than the concepts of God that I have, and so I have to continually call on the God who is greater than my best concept of God My concepts are small, tainted and misguided. Surely God is greater than they. Maybe you are mourning the direction some take as a result of this acknowledgement, but surely God is greater than the concepts I have of him.
I don't subscribe to McLaren's direction, but may I ask you: What does it mean to have knowledge of God? Is my knowledge of God merely my cognitive understandings? You seem to acknowledge there's more to my knowledge than what I cognitively know when you say I claim only that we can know what He has revealed to us through His words and that this knowledge is crucial for true relationship. I absolutely agree, we can have knowledge of God because of his written revelation, but I want to go beyond that a little and maybe fill in some gaps, which you would agree with I suspect.
Firstly, cognitive understanding is merely a part of what it means to know God from a biblical perspective. “To know” someone transcends cognitive understanding and moves to relational understanding as well. When a man has sexual relations with a woman, scripture says, “and he knew her”. Also, knowledge is connected with wisdom in the scriptures. One may have cognitive understanding but if they do not act accordingly, a person is referred to as lacking “wisdom” or “knowledge”.
Secondly, concerning experiential understanding for example, let me speak of my “knowledge” of my wife. I didn't read any books about my wife. And if you were to ask me, “Tell me absolutely everything about your wife,” I could write for you a 1000 page book about her, but you wouldn't know her like I know her. You wouldn't know that look in her eye when she hears what I did. You wouldn't know that moment right before she explodes into laughter. This knowledge can only be gained through relating. Now, I suspect you understand these things and affirm them, but this is also analogous with our knowledge of Jesus Christ. If he is indeed a person, granting us access to his Father through our relating, surely there is knowledge of him that I can't gain unless I'm connected to him by faith. Now that faith is produced through hearing his words and believing; in fact, my entire relationship is dependent on continually hearing his words and believing them, but dare I say, there is an aspect of our relationship that isn't communicable, where I can't use words. So instead of words, I explode in joyful worship by song, dance, or acts of service. So at this point, words are insufficient.
Again, I'm sure you affirm these things, but I don't think they should be absent from our discussions concerning knowledge of God.
This seems to be a very important subject for you. May I ask: do you have experiences that lead you to strongly advocate for your position? Or, are you convicted at an intellectual level believing that if we pursue this slippery slope, we may hit a point of no return?
May 12th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I agree with the distinction Brian is making between having knowledge about somebody and knowing somebody personally. But on the other hand, the Bible does contain information about God. How can a person who thinks that words and concepts are unable to approach the reality of God also believe in the infallibility of the Bible? The Bible is nothing but words. If those words do not accurately convey true information about God, then the Bible is not infallible.
Granted, we can't know everything that is true about God, does it follow that we can't know anything at all that is true about God?
Where do people get the idea that God is greater than their concepts anyway? If it's impossible to conceive of a God as great as the true God really is, how do we know that? Does the Bible anywhere state that God is greater than all of our concepts? What about the concept of holiness? What about the concept of immateriality?
There's this word I've been trying to think of all day, and it's driving me nuts that I can't think of it. Basically, the word means “undefinable” or “not able to capture in words” or something like that. My point is that even if we agree that God cannot be described in words or conceived accurately, we still have a word that refers to that. If we use that word to refer to God, doesn't that prove that words CAN accurately describe true things about God? That's why I find this whole position against words and concepts to describe God to be self-refuting.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Ineffable! That's the word I was trying to think of. Couldn't you at least say that God is ineffable? If so, wouldn't that be articulating something that was true and accurate about God?
May 12th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
But Sam, saying “God is good”, “God is merciful”, “God is just” is also articulating something true and accurate about God. I guess I'm not sure who's arguing against that. What some are saying is, “but my view of justice is confined to what I know and experience on this earth. The justice of God transcends this. Thusly, while I can understand that God is just, my concept of justice doesn't do…justice(?) to God's.”
Does the Bible ever speak of God in this way, as beyond conceptualization? Romans 11:33 comes to mind, “Oh the depth of the riches and the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” What I love about this passage is it's as if Paul erupts into worship as he is confronted with the loftiness of God recognizing how inadequate his words truly are. But that's just my take on it.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Brian, sorry for the length of this! Just trying to be thorough.
“I am surprised you would somehow disagree with this statement: 'the God who really exists must be better than the concepts of God that I have, and so I have to continually call on the God who is greater than my best concept of God.'”
The degree to which I disagree with that statement depends on the full context of the ideas around it. By itself, the first part of that statement wouldn't concern me. As I said, God is greater than I can imagine, yes. But I honestly don't think that's what McLaren is trying to communicate here. Look at it in light of the whole interview (e.g., God is beyond our words) and in light of the statements that “concepts create idols” and our ideas about God are just “the way we use words.” I don't think he's saying that God is what we believe about Him (good, holy, just, etc.), only greater and more perfect than we can imagine. I think he's saying that the real God is beyond our concepts altogether. He's something better that we can't conceive of. I could be wrong about this being his view, but this view is out there, and it's the one I'm objecting to.
Think about the statement “concepts create idols.” He's saying that if we have an idea with content about who God is, and we think that idea is really true of God, and we think of God that way, we've created an idol–i.e., if we think God is a particular way rather than that He's beyond all our thoughts, then we're not worshiping the true God. Rather, we must set aside our concepts (by not putting too much stock in their actual truthfulness in describing the real God, understanding that they're just words) and have a sense of “wonder” without concepts (content), and we should worship the God that we can't describe with concepts–not by meditating on his qualities, but by having a sense of wonder that we can't understand His qualities.
“I don't subscribe to McLaren's direction, but may I ask you: What does it mean to have knowledge of God? Is my knowledge of God merely my cognitive understandings?”
No, not merely that–as I said, there's an “indefinable, experiential aspect to our knowledge of God.”
“Secondly, concerning experiential understanding for example, let me speak of my 'knowledge' of my wife. I didn't read any books about my wife.”
I think this brings up a good point. You came to know your wife by living with her day by day, watching her actions, discerning her character, and learning to trust her based on your interactions with her and her interactions with others. I think we gain knowledge about God in exactly the same way. Except in His case, we can't exist in all points of history to observe Him, so we have to do so through the words of others–perfectly true words from God through others–about who He is and what He's done. There were certain things God wanted us to learn about Him by observing Him through the witness of others. This is why the Bible is so important. God is not going to take me out of Egypt. I was not there at the cross. But some people were, and they've communicated that to us through language. Does that make sense? In that sense, the Bible is an experience of God and not just words about Him.
“If he is indeed a person, granting us access to his Father through our relating, surely there is knowledge of him that I can't gain unless I'm connected to him by faith.”
No argument here!
“Again, I'm sure you affirm these things, but I don't think they should be absent from our discussions concerning knowledge of God.”
Thanks for bringing them up, Brian. I only threw the one sentence out there because a blog can only be so long, but expanding on it is good, and I don't mean by my post to downplay the importance of what you're saying. It's just that right now, the issue of our day is not that people don't think it's important to experience God, it's that they don't think it's important to know God in the sense I'm describing here, so I have to focus on the point that's being disputed.
“This seems to be a very important subject for you. May I ask: do you have experiences that lead you to strongly advocate for your position? Or, are you convicted at an intellectual level believing that if we pursue this slippery slope, we may hit a point of no return?”
Trying to find an emotional reason for my position, eh? Heh, heh–just teasing! I don't mind you asking.
Beyond the simple reason that I think what I'm saying is true and I care about truth, I can give you three reasons that motivate me to care about convincing others. First, I love and honor God. God is a personal being whom I love. He is particular things, and He's not particular things, and I care about His name and how He is portrayed, just as you care about your wife's name and how people portray her to others.
Second, I love my brothers and sisters in Christ, and it breaks my heart to hear comments like Hansen's comment above. Without solid knowledge about God, he's drifted away from Him, and he's feeling the results of that. I also personally have friends who have followed this same path–those who didn't address their intellectual questions, who tried to find God through an experience, and who ultimately walked away, disappointed. That's tragic, and it doesn't have to be that way. If by speaking the truth I can help others remain in a strong, glorious, life-giving relationship with the true God, I'll do whatever I can. How can I stay silent as I watch people drop off in pain one by one?
Third, I care about those who don't yet know God–I care because of their life in this world as well as the next. I want them to have the joy of knowing God. What better for the enemy to do than strip Christians of their knowledge of God so that not only all of the above happens to them, but also so that there are then that many fewer people to share a solid God with others?
And yes, I think this is a slippery slope in this sense: I think a lot of these ideas are based on non-biblical worldviews (naturalism, Marxism, paganism, etc.) that are currently part of our culture, and these ideas are just now gaining acceptance in the Christian world. People haven't had a chance to think through what other ideas are logically part of the same system they're accepting. But eventually they will put the picture together “piece by piece”–if not in this generation, then in the next. But if you start with something false, you're not going to end up in a great place. I'm trying to look ahead at the whole picture now before we accept it bit by bit. People need to know what they're getting into now so they can think through and evaluate it before they just get used to it.
May 13th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Amy, thanks for the post. Your sincerity is clearly seen. And, I suspect, we have some of the same convictions.
In light of this comment, “I think he's saying that the real God is beyond our concepts altogether. He's something better than we can't conceive of” is it fair to say that you disagree with St. Anslem when he says God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived?” Anslem seems to be saying the same thing. Conceive of God, he's always greater than that.
If God is beyond our concepts altogether, do you think that means we can't have any idea of God? I don't think this means that. God is obviously beyond my conceptions, but that doesn't mean I can't conceive rightly about the aspects of God that he has revealed to us and that we can understand. McLaren may be saying that, but I would say he's mistaken.
May 13th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Brian, are you saying that while we can truthfully say things like “God is good,” or “God is merciful,” that we just don't know what “good” and “merciful” mean when applied to God? That seems to be what you're saying in regard to God's justice. We can truthfully say that “God is just,” but we don't truly know what “just” means when we say it. Is that your position?
I take Romans 11:33 to merely imply that there is much we don't know (and can't know) about God. His knowledge, wisdom, and judgement is beyond our comprehension. But as I said before, just because we don't know God exhaustively, that doesn't mean we don't know anything true and definite about him at all. In your response to Amy, I get the impression you agree with me on that.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Brian, thanks for making me refine my words! It helps me be a better thinker and writer.
My comment should be “something better that we can't conceive of.” Just to clarify, by saying “we can't conceive of,” I'm referring to the idea that He is something for which we have no categories at all. This is opposed to the idea that we have a beginner's understanding of something that, in its fullness, is beyond our comprehension, but is still the same kind of thing we do understand.
I think I can explain myself better (let me know if this works)…
Here's an illustration: Imagine an 8-year-old girl who's really good at math. She understands how numbers work, she understands logic, she understands the rules, and she can do all the basic math functions. The way she talks about math isn't just “the way she uses words.” She knows true things about math. She can't conceive of calculus but she still understands what all math is. The logic that's at the core of math–that defines math–is the same if you're dealing with subtraction or calculus. In her limited way, she knows math. She can't do calculus, but it's still the same kind of thing she does understand.
But imagine if calculus were like the religious view I'm objecting to: the girl hears about calculus and wants to understand it. She sees numbers in the calculus book and thinks, “Oh! This is math–I know what 'five' means, and I know what 'four' means, and I know what an equals sign means. I don't know how to figure out this problem–it's too complex for me, but I know it's math.” But in this illustration, she's wrong. Calculus is “beyond her concepts of math.” That is, in calculus, 1+1=5 and there's a completely different basis for how things work. But it's so amazingly complex and wonderful! She shouldn't have trusted in her limited concept–in how she “chose to talk about” calculus, but instead she should have gone beyond words and concepts and just stood in wonder in front of the calculus book, and then she would have been closer to the true calculus.
Here's another example: I think we know what justice is. I just don't think we understand how perfectly just God is because we can't comprehend perfection. On the other hand, the view I'm objecting to would say that we have created these categories (like justice) through our language, but justice isn't a real concept we know. His character is not the same kind of thing as our concept of justice.
I'd have to read the context of Anselm's comment, but the statement that God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” seems to mean that nothing can be conceived that's greater than God–He's the greatest, and we can't think of anything greater because nothing greater exists or even possibly could exist. I agree with that since I believe there's nothing greater than God! I think that's a little different from what we're talking about here.
I don't have a problem with the statement “He's greater than how we view Him”–as long as it's coupled with the assertion that the things we do know about God are actually true things about Him. But I think the statement “beyond our concepts” implies something different (and I think that same meaning of “beyond” is meant by McLaren's use of “greater” in the context of the whole interview). Here's a similar example of what I'm talking about from a different source–The Da Vinci Code:
“Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration…metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible. The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors.”
I think this is similar to what was said in the interview (it's also a very popular idea of religion right now)–God is beyond our concepts (unprocessible), our words are the way we talk about God (the metaphors and allegories for our finite minds), and we shouldn't put so much stock in our words (metaphors, allegories) that we argue over them as if they represent something actually true (believe literally in our own metaphors).
I think this is what McLaren is hinting at (I'm glad you think he's mistaken!), but he hasn't reached the point where he'll be this blunt about it. As he said, he can't rush putting this puzzle together. I think this is partly because he wants a chance to make his case slowly without freaking people out.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I'm with you, Amy, for the most part. I think you're analogies are helpful. But I must say, I don't know who would disagree with them.
You do dance around the edges of an area that makes me nervous. For example, you said, “…I'm referring to the idea that He is something for which we have no categories at all.” But do we? Is there a category that God “fits” into? I don't think so.
Consider Anslem's words again, He says God's “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Why did Anslem use the phrase “that than which?” Why didn't Anslem say, “God's the person that nothing greater can be conceived” or ” God's the being that nothing greater can be conceived” or some other “category? Precisely to avoid conceiving of God as a certain kind of person/being/thing. As soon as you put God in a category, the category itself limits God.
So when you get nervous that someone says, “we have no categories for God”, I get nervous when I hear someone say they have a category to fit him into. To me, we must live in difficult tension where God has certainly revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ, so that we can use words and speak about him, yet also where there isn't any category that God fits in.
So don't think I'm saying we can't say anything about God. No, we obviously can. God has used words to reveal himself, along with nature, his son and we can speak intelligently and accurately about him. But yet, we don't have a category for God. He transcends even our ability categorize.
Did we take two steps back on our journey together?
May 14th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Brian,
I don't understand how it's possible for us to be able to say true things about God while at the same time God doesn't fit in any categories. Wouldn't God fit in any category for which those things we said about him were true?
The notion that there can be anything at all that fits no categories seems incoherent to me. If God doesn't fit any categories, then he would at least fit the category of things (or “that's” if you prefer) that don't fit categories. It seems logically impossible for there to be anything that doesn't fit categories.
And I don't understand why categories must place limits on something. I think you said on one of Amy's earlier threads that if we put God into a “strong” category or some other category, that limits him to that category. But not even finite things are limited by categories in that way. For example, I have a painted chair. That chair fits in the category, “Things that are painted.” But fitting in that category certainly doesn't limit it. It also fits into the category, “Things that you sit on.” Also, “Things that are made of wood,” “Things with four legs,” “Things that were built in the 20th century,” etc.
Likewise, if there is anything at all that is true about God, then God fits in some category.
If you insist that God can't fit in any categories, then aren't you limiting God in some ways? Instead of God being limited within categories, he's limited without. If he doesn't fit in the category of “Things that were created,” for example, then he's limited to being something that is not created. If there's anything that is not true of God, wouldn't that limit him just as much as if there were anthing that was true of God?
If God isn't limited at all in any way, then how could you exclude God from any category?
There seem to be different senses in which something can be limited. If a chair fits in one category, it's not for that reason limited to that category. However, it may be limited by logic. If the chair fits in “things that are painted,” then you could say it's limited since it does not fit in the category, “Things that are not painted.” In what sense do you think God would be limited if we found a category for him?
May 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Sam,
You are making my point. Take your example about a chair. You say there are all kinds of categories that a chair fits into like “things that are painted” “things that have four legs” “things that you sit on” and so on. Guess what you have at the end? A definition of a chair! You've marked it off from every other finite thing. This is exactly what predication is. You can't do this with God if he is indeed infinite. If he is limited by categorization, he is by definition finite.
Now, you have a correct intuition: 'how do we speak intelligently about God?' I would say that it's not that God fits a category, but the category is derived from God. God doesn't “fit” the categories of “love” “gracious” “just” “holy” and so on, the categories find their origin, condition and goal in God. The reason why we can say “God is strong” isn't because God fits the category “things that are strong”, but that the category of “things that are strong” finds it's origin, condition and goal in God. God is the source of categorization. But he must trascend it to be infinite.
This is why we can say “God is strong” without thinking he is limited to the category. This is also why we can say “God transcends categories” without speaking incoherently, as you seem to suggest.
You say, “But wouldn't God fit in the category of 'things that don't fit categories'”? Can you tell me something else that would fit this category? No, even squared-circles or 4-sided triangles fit a category, “things that are incoherent”. Only that which is infinite doesn't fit a category. And there is only one that is infinte, God.
May 14th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
If he is limited by categorization, he is by definition finite.
So there's no category of “things that are infinite”? Why doesn't limiting God by excluding him from categories also render him finite? I don't think I have ever heard “finite” be defined as “limited to categorization.” I don't see categorization as limiting either, except perhaps by logic.
You say, “But wouldn't God fit in the category of 'things that don't fit categories'”? Can you tell me something else that would fit this category?
No. It's an incoherent category. Nothing can be beyond categories, because it leads to a contradiction–the idea there there can be “things that don't fit in categories.” That's why your position seems incoherent to me.
May 14th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
I guess we may be at an impasse. I've explained why my position is not incoherent in my previous post. Is God in the category of 'things that are infinite'? I suppose, but this 'category' by definition has no limits and isn't subject to predication so I have no problem with that.
To me, your position leads us to conclude that the categories of love, joy, peace and the like are either independent of God which he ascribes to or greater than God, which contradicts the meta-distinction that St. Anslem articulated so well. Only if God is the source of the categories and transcends them will he remain infinite. This also enables us to understand them in light of God's revelation and understand aspects about God.
I'm very comfortable with where I'm at on my journey understanding the infinite nature of God. I certainly need to grow and I'm certain that my position will morph. But when I had learned that by my language and understanding of God, I actually conceived God in finite terms like other objects that I encounter in this world, I was liberated to view God as he has revealed himself to us. And understanding the meta-distinction has allowed me to understand God's sovereignty and human freedom, the incarnation, are participation with God as 2 Peter 1 promises in ways that don't lead me to saying, “Well, I don't know how this makes sense, but I'll believe it anyway.” Rather than pushing the mystery button at the end of the argument when I've run into an apparent contradiction (e.g. God is absolutely sovereign over all the earth, yet my agency is free), I've been able to see the mystery within the infinite trinitarian nature of God in the beginning of the argument where I'm free from trying to “solve” anything.
I mention these things because when I was confronted with what I call my faulty views of God, I felt liberated to conceive of God differently, in fact, more connected to the biblical witness because I wasn't confined to the arguments and presumptions that have plagued evangelical theology for quite some time.
I feel like I'm preaching. Sorry, I've done that once already today, I don't need to do it again.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
I would like to join this conversation, if it is not too late. (I needed to register first, and it took a while for the confirmation email to arrive.)
I'm not sure, but it seems like in at least a portion of the discussion above Brian was saying that God cannot be placed in any (single) category, while Brian was saying that God can be placed in (several) of our categories. We can't “categorize” God in the sense of giving an exhaustive definition of Him, but we can make true statements, and that necessarily involves the use of categories.
It seems like everyone agrees that we can understand truth about God, but that our understanding is and always will be incomplete. So perhaps this is like the chair example. We can make true statements about God (e.g. “God is just”), but those statements are limited in two ways: (1) God's justice goes beyond what we can understand about justice, and (2) any number of such statements are incomplete as a total description of God.
As Paul wrote, “we see in a mirror dimly.” We can know true truth about God, but our knowledge is always incomplete. The problem that I have with the post-modern view of truth is that they deny that we can have any true knowledge of God or anything else, but that we can only create meaning for ourselves through our language.
May 15th, 2006 at 1:00 am
“We can know true truth about God, but our knowledge is always incomplete.”
Well said! I wonder if this issue can be clarified by making the distinction between propositional knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance. To know God by way of propositional knowledge would be to know, for example, that God is faithful. In this sense, we can know fully that God is faithful. Knowing God by way of acquaintence, for example, experiencing the faithfulness of God, by definition would be a partial knowledge, for we have not experienced the extent of God's faithfulness, even though we know, propositionally (and fully), that God is faithful. Could this be a way to make sense of our knowledge with respect to God? On the one hand, we fully propositionally know that God is faithful but we only partially know about God's faithfulness by way of our direct experience of God's faithfulness.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I think that the distinction between personal and propositional knowledge is helpful here. We know certain things aboutGod (propositional), but we also know God (personal).
When the Bible speaks of “knowing God,” both the Hebrew word (yada) and the Greek word (ginosko) mean something more than propositional knowledge (the Greek word oida is used for something more like propositional knowledge). They refer to an experienced knowledge, which in the case of personal relationships can be called “personal knowledge.” That's why the same word can be used to say that Adam “knew” his wife and she became pregnant.
However it is important to note that personal and propositional knowledge are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is impossible to have personal knowledge without some propositional knowledge as well. How could you “know” someone without knowing a single fact about that person? It would be a sort of pure existential experience, about which you could not say anything more than “I had an experience.” Anything more that you say implies some propositional content.
Brian has a good point above when he says “I could write for you a 1000 page book about her, but you wouldn't know her like I know her.” Knowing lots of facts about a person isn't the same as “knowing” him or her in a personal sense. But if someone said “I know my wife, but I can't make a single factual statement about her” then I think we would be justified in questioning whether he really knew her at all or that such a person even existed.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Tim, I think that's a GREAT clarification.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Possibly…because you say you agree, but when I object to the idea that we don't have categories that can be used to describe God, you say:
“But do we? Is there a category that God “fits” into? I don't think so.”
So I think we disagree, but I'm not exactly sure. I think we do have categories (justice, goodness, faithfulness, etc.) that accurately describe God's character, but you think that if we describe God with these categories (and really believe they're true and more than just words) that we're “putting God in a box,” so to speak. I'm unclear how you square this with your statement that we can speak intelligently and accurately about him because these two things seem contradictory to me. How do you talk accurately about God without using categories we can understand? But then how do you use categories we can understand without “calling God finite”?
I'm going to have to move on to my next post (though I'm still very interested in hearing your clarification), but I'm sure this will all come up again and maybe we can more precisely define our differences from a different angle.
Thanks for the discussion!
May 15th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Wow, isn't language important? I'm grateful for people who care enough to dialogue about this.
You said, “I think we do have categories (justice, goodness, faithfulness, etc.) that accurately describe God's character, but you think that if we describe God with these categories (and really believe they're true and more than just words) that we're “putting God in a box,” so to speak” (my emphasis). There is a huge difference between “describe” and “define”. I certainly DO think the categories of justice, goodness, faithfulness, and the like describe God, but they don't define God. My my point is “why?” And my answer is “God is the origin, condition and goal of these categories.” God is the source of Justice, including our use, understanding and execution of it. But if God is the source of Justice, or Goodness (again, notice the capitals), then he must also transcend the category as well just as he is the source of the universe, while transcending it.
Again, my fear is thinking we can take the finite symbol system of predication (language) and somehow make God subservient to it. I know others don't want to do that either, but I fear it happens more than we think.
May 15th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Brian, I think I finally understand what you're saying. (Yay!) We're not judging God by a standard of justice, goodness, etc., He is the standard. He defines Justice, Goodness, etc. because His character is the definition. (I absolutely agree 100%!) And by using the word “define” you're afraid people will get the idea that we're saying Justice exists apart from God and is some sort of standard God has to meet. I agree with you that we need to be careful not to imply that with our language. I'm not arguing against that at all. I don't think that's what they were referring to in the interview, but I'll go back and look at it again in light of what you've said here. I see now that you're not arguing for the second position I described in the illustrations.
“But if God is the source of Justice, or Goodness (again, notice the capitals), then he must also transcend the category as well just as he is the source of the universe, while transcending it.”
I don't think that analogy works. I don't think Justice is created–it's part of His character, and as such, it has always existed. So my question is, how is it you think He transcends His own character? (In other words, it seems non-sensical to me to say God transcends Justice because that's like saying God transcends who He is.)
Brian, thanks for sticking it out here. I can't tell you how happy it makes me that we were finally able to get this straight!
May 15th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Hurray for language!
If we give the impression that we can “define” God, I'm afraid of using language in such a way that “captures” God.
I certainly don't mean to suggest that justice is a “creation” of God; but creation is an expression, a revelation of who God is like justice, etc. That's how I was using the analogy.
And God doesn't trascend who he is; he transcends the finite categories we use to speak of him.
Thanks for the discussion.
April 2nd, 2010 at 9:28 pm
[...] is looked on with suspicion. Many postmodern Christians prefer a fuzzy image of a God who is beyond our understandable categories, and they resist definitions that might “limit” [...]