This isn't my real post...
Due to an insane work schedule and a throat infection I've been negligent in getting my "serious" post out this week. However - my goal is to have it finished by thursday. So. In the meantime, here's a question that's been baking my noodle.
I've been hearing all kinds of speculation about God lately. Everyone has their opinions, and I respect that. But almost everywhere - mostly in emergent circles, but also in other circles as well - I've been hearing one thing in particular - that God is "unknowable."This gives me a great deal of confusion.
Sure, I'd agree with the statement if it said, "God is mysterious and we don't understand his ways," or "Certainty about God is impossible, hence the need for faith." But God as unknowable - that just doesn't jive with the Bible.
I actually went to a friend of mine, a theology professor named Tim, and asked him about this phenomenon. He agreed with me that it wasn't a scriptural idea.
"If," he began, "Jesus is 'fully God' - that is, if the Character of God is revealed in him - and he is 'fully man' - if he was actually a human being during his life on earth and wasn't just God 'wearing a human suit' - then not only is he knowable to us, but intimately so. Because we can know each other as humans, be able to build relationships with each other - and, therefore, with Christ. And, through Christ, we come to know God."
That certainly made sense to me. But then where does this idea of God as unknowable come from?
Don't get me wrong; I think that Emergent is doing well to encourage people to accept some things as mystery, to allow that we don't have it all figured out. But I think that when we begin to classify God as distant, unknowable, we do a grave injustice to the Gospel - which, if I'm not mistaken, was about bridging the gap that sin caused betweeen us and God.
Any thoughts?
I've been hearing all kinds of speculation about God lately. Everyone has their opinions, and I respect that. But almost everywhere - mostly in emergent circles, but also in other circles as well - I've been hearing one thing in particular - that God is "unknowable."This gives me a great deal of confusion.
Sure, I'd agree with the statement if it said, "God is mysterious and we don't understand his ways," or "Certainty about God is impossible, hence the need for faith." But God as unknowable - that just doesn't jive with the Bible.
I actually went to a friend of mine, a theology professor named Tim, and asked him about this phenomenon. He agreed with me that it wasn't a scriptural idea.
"If," he began, "Jesus is 'fully God' - that is, if the Character of God is revealed in him - and he is 'fully man' - if he was actually a human being during his life on earth and wasn't just God 'wearing a human suit' - then not only is he knowable to us, but intimately so. Because we can know each other as humans, be able to build relationships with each other - and, therefore, with Christ. And, through Christ, we come to know God."
That certainly made sense to me. But then where does this idea of God as unknowable come from?
Don't get me wrong; I think that Emergent is doing well to encourage people to accept some things as mystery, to allow that we don't have it all figured out. But I think that when we begin to classify God as distant, unknowable, we do a grave injustice to the Gospel - which, if I'm not mistaken, was about bridging the gap that sin caused betweeen us and God.
Any thoughts?
posted by Grey Owl at 11:25 a.m.
8 Comments:
Dan, perhaps the EC means that he is, in all that he is, unknowable. In other words, total knowledge of God rather than whether you can know him at all. Otherwise, I would agree with you, the scriptures are clear that he has made himself known and that I can know him.
I don't think Paul was being wistful about unattainable knowledge when he wrote, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection . . ."
Scott - an important distinction, one that EC-ers and their critics alike would do well to note. Although I have heard some specific EC-ers (as well as other folks) using the "God is Unknowable" statement to refer to any knowledge instead of total knowledge, and using this argument to push for a more relatavistic faith - which I think goes beyond the borders of responsible theology.
Your last comment sums up my feelings on the subject as well, Grey Owl.
The cheering that you're hearing from the peasants in the peanut gallery is me.
I agree, as well. Anyone who says that God is unknowable, referring to ANY knowledge, is pushing some dangerous, confused... stuff. Knowing God is like exploring space.
We know more about space than any time in human history, but we also know how much we have yet to know (and may never FULLY know). This doesn't distance God from us, but rather pushes us deeper. We are not standing outside God, trying to take in the impossible, but realizing that we are within God, surrounded and embraced by His infinite Mystery and Love.
I wonder, though, where you have been seeing this, as I have not come across this as much as you seem to have.
Peace,
Jamie
Rob - I'm tipping my notational hat to the peanut gallery. Cheers!
Jamie - I encountered this mainly back when Emergent-Us was still allowing comments. I'd see people making comments like that, then have people criticize them, then people would come to their defense, and so on. So I haven't seen it as much of late - but then again I mainly frequent the sites of people I already know!
I did hear someone say that the belief of God as unknowable was aligned with gnosicism - anyone able to confirm/refute that?
Grey Owl,
It is true that Gnosticism talks about the Unknowable One, but I think that refers more to the concept of great mystery. In fact, demonstrated by their very name, they are in constant pursuit of knowledge- esoteric, mystical knowledge.
Thus, they would reject propositional or epistomological knowledge as bound to the brain, thus the flesh, thus rejected as evil and corrupt.
While some parallels can be drawn to show similarities between some emergent ideas and gnostic ideas, I think they are few and largely inconsequential. In fact, a clear historical case could be made for the contribution Gnosticism made in the formation of the more criticized aspects of modernity.
All this to say that, while a cursory glance could seem to support that Gnostics share emergents appreciation for Mystery, the degree of extreme and abuse puts them in very different camps. Emergents need to be careful, in this regards, not to reject the significant importance and beauty of modernity.
Peace,
Jamie
I hope you get to feeling better Dan.
Jamie - you're right, there is much in modernity that can still be admired/learned from. And thanks for the explanation re: gsonticism. Makes a bit more sense to me now.
Cindy - thanks!
sunshine - I agree. Actually, I've been spending more time reading the gospels lately, paying close attention to what Jesus does and how he acts. I've learned a great deal about the character of God from those times of meditation. And Job has been and always will be one of my favorite books. Thanks for stopping by!
Post a Comment
<< Home