Epistemology 2 - How have we come this far?

Alriiiight… a month later. Wealp boys, how we doin? How are those omnipresent, ubiquitously determinative epistemologies doing?? Come to any more conclusions? On epistemology or otherwise? Just a thought: In the meantime, we are not waiting to live. Human life does not come with the luxury of a philosophical vacation from time; we live as we believe and study. Do not be paralyzed; do your best at every point and if, in the end, your best was not enough, at least you will know you could not have done better. I hope you are rejoicing in Christ at this moment, and seeking truth because He loves truth and will resurrect us – finally redeeming our labors for truth. Truth would not exist if Christ did not; and if it found a way somehow, it would not be worth striving for.

But our hope, while promising to redeem our lives in the end, does not protect us from making errors – even grave errors. Hope offers strength and motivation, but it does not offer a shortcut past all the world’s difficulties and questions. Our hope is a soldier’s picture of his fiancé.

So returning to epistemology. DJ, are you still pondering? And how are you pondering? What epistemology are you using to ponder epistemology? Ahhh! We’re in an infinite regression in which we slowly and systematically believe fewer and fewer things until one day we find ourselves a sorry bunch of naked, emaciated lunatics writhing about in our own saliva and feces perpetually muttering, “I…don’t…. knowwww…” Alas! Had we only had the wisdom not to pursue wisdom! Had we only had enough answers to know not to look for answers! *end sarcasm* Seeking wisdom and answers is an eternally perilous engagement, but so is unexamined belief. We are responsible for everything – for what we examine and what we do not, for what we believe and what we do not. If we decide not to examine epistemology (or any topic for that matter) by saying, “It is safer here” we should know 1) if we are right, we cannot know why, and 2) we have not avoided the question, but have merely given our right to answer to someone else.

I think I succeeded last time in bringing us to a screeching and depressing halt in under 500 words. I thought this blog was supposed to be helpful? I’ll try to strike a more positive note here.

I notice that we seem to be doing fine until we start examining our epistemologies. We all believe things, and so seem to have had at least a functioning epistemology up to this point. Why does progress in epistemology stop the moment we start to pursue it? Wes, why was theology pleasant and relatively simple to you until you started studying it? Jon, why was the Trinity easier to believe in when you were 5 than it is now? DJ, fill in the blank: why were you content with what you knew about _______ until you read what ________ had to say about it? Does anyone else read this blog? Random guy from CTS, why is it that… ok never mind.

Because we’re running into such difficulty now, maybe we should ask ourselves what changed. Is our old, “easy” epistemology valid? If so, why don’t we just stick with it? Or have we even been using an epistemology in the past? Maybe we’ve gotten along without an epistemology, and that’s the way to go. Now, granted, an anti-epistemological epistemology is just a philosophy that curses itself, but maybe that’s how it should be.

No.

Major proposition #1 – All persons hold belief because of reasons

There was a time when we believed/thought nothing (before birth), now we believe and think many things; therefore, we have used epistemology to come to where we are right now. Ready for some syllogisms? Wow this is getting technical.

A: All belief follows some epistemology
B: We believe things
C: All our beliefs follow some epistemology

Put another way:

A: All events have causes
B: All beliefs are events
C: All beliefs have causes

Another…

A: No event occurs without a reason
B: Belief is an event
C: No belief occurs without a reason

If everything we believe can be traced back to a single or multiple causes, what are they? At this moment, we could really get mired in the breadth of this topic. Is the question what is the cause of EVERYTHING I believe?? Wow. Let’s narrow it a little to the stated purpose of this blog: the Christian faith.

Ok, that’s enough. I can feel your attention slipping. I’ll leave it there. We have a few talking points here already. Do you agree? Lingering question: for what reasons do you believe in Christianity?

Epistemology 1 - Introduction

I want to start a series of articles on epistemology. Everyone should/can write a note, a thought, one line maybe to contribute to this. I really have no plans for this, and no idea what topics will be covered, how those topics will fit or not fit together, or how long the series will be. I do know, however, that epistemology is to me at this moment the most overarchingly important question I face.

First, what is epistemology?

The word "epistemology" has two distinct meanings:

• As an academic study (an inquiry): Epistemology is the study of the method by which we acquire knowledge, the study of the rubric by which we evaluate all of life, the study of the question, “what is true about going about finding what is true?”
• As a pragmatic method (a conclusion): Epistemology is the useful method by which one approaches truth claims. This side of the definition includes ownership of epistemology, and not just study.
  

Definitions other people came up with:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemology

When I took Dr. Cushman’s philosophy class last year at Northland, epistemology was presented by lecture and textbook as one branch of the tree of philosophy. The branches were: God, Man, Metaphysics, Purpose (teleology), Ethics, and Epistemology. Presented thus, we may learn to approach epistemology as one of six (or more) “ultimate questions.” This isn’t quite right. Epistemology is not like the other categories in one main way: whereas the other categories are primarily contentual, epistemology is methodological. The other categories emphasize what content you believe about them specifically, while epistemology emphasizes what method you use universally. Put another way, the other categories present the question, “what do you believe?” while epistemology presents the question, “how do you believe?” If the other categories are destinations, epistemology is a road.
From this I conclude that epistemology is more indicative of, more responsible for, more…pertaining to the composition of a person’s character (beliefs, attitudes, convictions, etc.) than any other topic of study, bar none. It is the philosophy of philosophy; it is the ultimate question - how do you know?

Reasons why epistemology is the ultimate question:

1. One cannot believe something academically without using an epistemology of some form (regardless of latency).
2. One cannot believe something religiously without using an epistemology.
3. One cannot act involuntarily (for example, lose control of emotions) without using an epistemology.
4. One cannot observe something without using an epistemology.
5. One cannot argue any point without using an epistemology.
6. One cannot reach any conclusion at all without using an epistemology.

Does it seem to you right now that I am straining a little on this point? That I very much want to demonstrate the supremacy of epistemology, and am willing to exaggerate a bit to prove my point? You may object, “How, if epistemology is so important to life, do not 7 out of 10 people know what it is?” A very good point that gives us an important observation. If we talk about epistemology in the sterile, scrubbed-up words of academia, yes, it is irrelevant to life. Who even thinks about epistemology? That’s the point – no one. Epistemology defines our lives so thoroughly that we cannot see it; it is so responsible that we do not consider it responsible at all. Philosophers sound the strangest when they describe the most obvious things. Obvious things sound strange when described. The word “epistemology” fails to register with us because it describes something so close to us that we never noticed it before. The question, “why do you believe that?” sounds horrifyingly obvious to us when we hear it because, certainly we must have a reason, but we just don’t know what it is. How did we never ask ourselves that?

Ok, well let’s ask ourselves.

When approaching the topic of epistemology, we meet immediately, immediately, with an impasse. Epistemology asks, “how do we go about believing?” And right now we’re asking, “how do we go about epistemology?” So it seems we need an epistemology for epistemology. Then we need a third epistemology. And so on. If my six propositions above are correct, then we cannot even budge our toes onto the subject until we have figured it out completely.

So, how shall we progress? Thoughts?

Judging and Rebuking

I would have to say that if conservative Christianity is guilty of a major sin besides ignorant idolatry it is the sin of judging others. Matthew 7 says, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.(NIV)” But this cannot be the absent of discernment towards sin because Jesus also said to be gentle as doves but wise as serpents. And while we are told not to judge other people, we are told to rebuke sin (II Tim 2:4). I think the kind of judging that Jesus is referring to in Matthew 7 is the kind of judgment that condemns another individual for sinning. There is no greater pride than to look at another and condemn them for something you have done yourself or if you haven’t done it, it is only by the Grace of God that you haven’t. Paul reminds us in Romans 2 that if we do the same things we will certainly be judged ourselves.

So what is the difference between Biblical rebuke and judging others? Both require judgment in the sense of determining when sin is reigning. As far as I can tell, I think the only difference is in the aim and manner in which it is carried out. Are we trying to build people up in their knowledge of God and their personal walks or are we thinking negatively so as to condemn them? Rebuking must be done in total humility and out of a genuine concern for the sinning individual.

Some will claim that we should not try to play the Holy Spirit but rather just love everyone. I really can’t disagree with that statement. We have problems when everyone is going around placing expectations on other Christians based on their perceptions of sin and spirituality that may or may not be biblical in reality. Granted, if the Holy Spirit isn’t doing this work then nothing will be effective. But on the other hand, we can't let sin reign in the name of love. That isn't love at all. 2 Peter says, for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. When it comes to the things that are clearly sin by Scripture, it would be the most loveless thing you could do to not try to humbly rebuke them and warn them of the danger of loving sin over God. If there are 2 possible dominions, that of sin and death or slavery to/life in Christ (Rom 6) then we ought to warn someone who we know claims to be of God but continues to play around with sin and death. Hebrews 10:26-27 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

I think fundamentalism is guilty of condemning the world based on unbiblical expectations in the way that Jesus is referring in Matthew 7 while evangelicals might tend to ignore biblical commands in the name of love proving that they have no love in reality. If we stick to rebuking on the clearly defined things in Scripture and do it in true humility and love aiming to build one another up in the faith, then we can’t go wrong with judging. But if we go on condemning every one for everything under the sun surely we too will be judged by God.

Hadassah

Stanza 1: Hadassah

Long ago, there lived a girl.
Her beauty, like the finest pearl
Drew every eye throughout the land—
Men oft dreamed to gain her hand.
Her beauty like a tool she used;
Not afraid to subject, abuse, confuse—
So long as she wore the wreath of fame
And that Susa would sing her name.
“This glory is my own,” she thought,
“And could not with rare jewels be bought.”
And so, the city fawned and cowered
At her look of regal power.
She thought her state the strongest tower…
But it was, in fact, a fragile flower.

Hadassah’s gift was not her own—
Not for the vice of her fleshly desire,
Not a treat to be bought for hire.
Yes, her Jewish heritage she’d spurned,
Yes, for all a-godly she’d yearned,
Yet not beyond God’s power to turn
And create out of her an urn
Fit for his throne. [OR: ‘For honorable use’]
So watch, as God works both His good and hers,
Observe how He remakes the one who has erred
Into a trophy who ensures
That His covenant to His people forever endures.

Stanza 2: To the King

Here, in the midst of all her bliss,
Hadassah’s life took an unforeseen twist.
Vashti, in the face of command, shakes a fist.
And as such a decision inevitably brings,
She bore the wrath of an egotistical king.
This vacancy left an opening
That forced Xerxes to decide
Who was now worthy to stand by his side.
To the city he announced this desire:
(though merely a trick to slake Passion’s fire)
“Bring the fairest women! Let no family conspire
To withhold from me
Any with whom I might choose to be.
With each, for one night I’ll lay.
Whoever pleases me most will stay
And become Queen over all my estate.
This is the decree of Xerxes the Great.”
So here she is, with pagan women trodding,
Though not with joyless gate of one plodding
Without other recourse.

No, this was her course—
All for which she dreamed would now come to pass!
The nation’s glory would be hers at long last!
Looking to gain the world she forfeits her soul,
For God won’t be bought with a sacrifice not whole
And complete.
One which falls down at His feet
Enraptured—in unparalleled ecstasy.
Rebelliously, Hadassah tramps to the bed of a false majesty.
With her pleasures the contest she easily wins
And in doing so grossly sins
And breaks God’s decree:
“Worship none but Me.”
She deserves condemnation—
Hell—not salvation.
Yet in love God brings proud queens to their knees
And makes of wretches lovers of authentic Glory.
Here, when all seems good and bright,
When life seems to radiate with light,
In kindness God sends the darkest of nights
By showering fear through a terrible plight.

Stanza 3: Haman

Haman, a political prodigy,
Sits next to the king…and a model of carnality.
No friendship too dear
That he wouldn’t, in a flash, run a spear
Through the side
Of any who assaulted his pride.
Only one passion matched his love for self—
Not his family, his position, or his pelf—
But a deep, insane, suffused
Hatred for the Jews.
Agag, his esteemed ancestor,
Had been declared by God a transgressor
And thus worthy of death.
So, in obedience, Samuel took his breath
With violent hacks from a sword.

Now, Haman despised the Lord
And resolved that he would not fail
To slay His people—all those from Israel.
With his standing before the king secured,
He approached the throne with a demure,
Seemingly noble plea
To annihilate ‘a group’ plotting mutiny.
So, with the angry stroke of a pen
Xerxes decreed that ten thousand men
Be set against this [alleged] insurrection
And against any who proffered the enemies protection.

Stanza 4: Repentance and Salvation

Hadassah’s imaginations now lay in dust shattered;
All her hopes mercilessly scattered
By the winds of adversity.
“Why now…why this calamity?”
In torn robe and ash she falls in misery;
Frightfully alone; she weeps bitterly.
But, then, slowly, she begins to remember—
And then stokes the faint embers
Of a long forgotten truth
Till it blazed within as an eternal proof
Of covenant love and saving grace
That only through God’s power takes place.

The truth was this…

Long ago there came from Gath
A man of Philistia who poured wrath
On all the land of Zion.
His strength was like that of a lion,
And the seething hate he conveyed
Before the eyes of all betrayed
His real master—the Dweller of Hell.
His voice cast on Israel a spell
From which it seemed she might never wake.
His confidence made the Israelites quake
And long for the sort of bravery
It would take to set God’s people free.

“Yahweh?” Again he scoffed, “Where is he?”
“Does he too, like you, fear me?
You are dogs, and He the flea!
For he seems not to hear your pleas
For deliverance and mercy!”
“Silence!” The crowd parts…there, a boy.
“I’m not amused by your ploys!”
Goliath foamed in white-hot craze.
“No tricks.” said David. “This is the stage
On which God will display his utter rage
And disdain for clods of dirt
Who impiously spurt
Their own praise
All of their pointless days.
This day He will lay you low…
To your Master you soon will go.”
In minutes, David had done as he said,
And the giant fell before him dead.
This is the truth:
Victory came not by a young boy’s couth
Or by arm or stone or sling…
But by the One who is everlasting.
What he has decreed always comes to pass.
He never reneges with the ‘alas!’
Of one who might have done better.
Nor is His will fettered
By the pleasures of another being.
He, alone, sits Sovereign over everything.

“Oh God where are you…” Hadassah starts.
“For so long now I’ve lived apart
From your embrace.
But please…don’t now hide from me your face.
I’ve sinned much and so deserve
From you a condemning word.
Don’t pay may what I’ve earned.
Oh Lord, now I’ve learned
That all but you is dust,
And that the height of folly is to trust
In things now seen.
Whether I live or die, hold this scene
Of hopelessness before my eyes,
That I might, like David, learn to prize
Alone Your worth and pleasure
Above all earthly treasures.

Now, could it be that behind this evil is Your hand?
That all these things work according to Your plan?”

[God replied:]

Where am I, you wonder?
I AM in the lighting and thunder
I AM in the drought and the rain,
I AM in the peace and the pain,
I AM on the land and in the seas,
I, Hadassah, do all that I please.
I spin around the sun the earth,
I aid in every creature’s birth,
I AM the God of joy and mirth,
I AM the King of want and dearth.
But where were you when the heavens were made?
Where were you when earth’s foundations were laid?
Where were you when I made the darkness and light?
Where were you when I determined what’s wrong and what’s right?
Where were you when I fashioned the flowers and trees?
Where were you when I created the earth’s gentle breeze?
Would you now give me counsel on how I should rule?
Am I the One who has played the fool?
Who gave to Xerxes his small throne?
And do you consider Haman’s reason his own?
Was it not I who gave him to think?
Was it not I who made the parchment, pen, the ink
Used to sign and now force you to the brink
(With your people) of becoming extinct?
I AM the One whom you forsook!
I AM the One from whom you took
Glory that was not meant for you.
I AM the One who has kindly brooded
Over you like a mother hen…
Yet you, in spite, refused my hand
And your own good sought
As if real ‘good’ could be wrought
Or found apart from Me.
Hadassah, I’ve made you to be
Mine! You are not your own
But owned by the One who sits on the Throne.
I, before your life, wrote your story.
Hadassah, I do all things for my own glory.
These words she had prayed to hear.
It was the kind of word which exploded fear
And turned all of her tears
Into an eternal hope.
No longer left to blindly grope
Alone for truth. God was It.
Yet His power was not a bridle and bit
Of oft feared oppression.
Oh no—He was the bringer of life and salvation.
“Gladly, I vow to submit,
And now give every bit
Of remaining strength to praise
The Sovereign One whose ways
And wonders are a mystery.
God give me now David’s bravery
That I might fight for your people’s liberty.”

Stanza 5: Conclusion

We know well this stories’ end.
Hadassah, without a summons enters in
To the king and wins
The neck of Haman and Jewish security.
But don’t be enamored by the victory.
We would be fools and remiss
If we were to blindly miss
The crucial point of this story,
Which is: ‘to God be the glory.’
The glory is his in death and in life
The glory is his when we are rife
With joy or drowned in strife.
It’s his when Pol Pot for sport kills
With a wide smile that chills
One to the bone.
It’s his when we pick up the phone
And hear that our boy was thrown
From a car and lies dead on the street.
It’s his when cancer pulls the white sheet
Of death over fathers and mothers,
And when fights and wars take our brothers.
Is his name only blessed when we are at rest?
Is it only when smiling that his ways are best?
God now sweetly asks, “will you trust and confess
My worth when enduring in every season?
You ask ‘what behind all things is the reason?’
MY GLORY!”

Jesus Much Greater

The heavens are the work of your hands.
You showed us God's glory when you became man.
Your throne is eternal. You are the king.
By your powerful word you sustain everything.

Jesus much greater than any angel.
Once slain for sinners. High priest forever.
Outside the city there crucified.
We must go to him, bear the reproach, cast off our pride, and give him our lives.

Our deepest longing is for your glory.
Give eyes of faith to see your city.
God let us not turn back in vain.
We want to know you're not ashamed.

Jesus much greater than any angel.
Once slain for sinners. High priest forever.
Outside the city there crucified.
We must go to him, bear the reproach, cast off our pride, and give him our lives.

Our hope in you will last forever.
Christ bled and died gave us a treasure.
To enter in that sacred place.
To see your glory and know your grace.

Jesus much greater than any angel.
Once slain for sinners. High priest forever.
Outside the city there crucified.
We must go to him, bear the reproach, cast off our pride, and give him our lives.

Aaron

Aaron, welcome to the blog. I hope you'll do better than Aaron Browning. You will be expected to write at least one 1,000 word essay by today, and another by tonight :).

The Impassibility of God

The gravity of the endeavor of systematic theology heightens considerably as the interpreter realizes that his or her digestion of the Scriptures “reveals not only who God is but also what we can expect from him and what he expects from us” (Feinberg). Tozer, then, is right to say that the most significant doctrine before the Church is always that of “God Himself” (I did learn something theologically significant from Intro. to Missions!). All that to say, we must ensure by careful study that our notions of God are as sharp, poignant, and direct as humanly possible. That brings me to the question of God’s impassibility.

Let me open with a passage which I stumbled upon while reading through Jeremiah the prophet. God says in response to Israel’s rebellion: “My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain! Oh the walls of my heart! My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent…” (Jeremiah 4:19). There are three ways to interpret this passage: 1) all literal…that is, the picture is meant to describe God’s actual nature and actual ontology; 2) partially literal…that is, the picture hyperbolistically represents God’s nature but metaphorically depicts God’s ontology; 3) all metaphorical…nothing in the description is literally true of God. I think the latter conclusion is, I think, preferable and probable. God, particularly in the Prophets, used graphic, vivid, offensive language to rouse his people from lethargy and move them once again towards covenantal faithfulness. I grant that to begin with this passage in arguing against passibility might, at the outset, appear to be a bit of a cheap shot (it’s not…which I hope to prove later) since Passibilists themselves would probably align with my interpretive conclusion. Now that the stage is set, I’ll move to my twofold plea.

1) The language which Evangelicalism now seems to embrace is at best confusing and at worst damaging—particularly during the reign of Open Theism/Process Theology. Bruce Ware, in an article entitled “An Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of the Immutability of God” (it’s on the ischool website, if you’d like to read it and be angered), went so far as to assert that God is “relationally mutable.” Even Grudem says: “God responds differently to different situations.” I object to propositions like this. In this purely pragmatic criticism, I’m not even calling for Passibilists to jettison the position itself. But surely we can be more linguistically precise than Ware and Grudem have been seen to be.

2) Second, proponents of passibility are inconsistent within their own system. For example, Grudem, Erickson, Carson, and Feinberg all argue against impassibility, yet flee quickly to the very doctrine to escape language of God’s repentance (see Ware’s article for the extensive list). You need a better excuse than saying, like Ware, simply that the Impassibilists are ‘right on this point’. In such a system, determination between metaphorical/literal language is left to theological arbitrarity (‘This doesn’t fit with my philosophy…so I choose option a’ or ‘I choose b’). This double-move smacks of duplicity

I love C. S. Lewis on this point. In making his case for impassibility, he uses the idea of ‘God’s love’ powerfully. “The passion of love is something that happens to us, as ‘getting wet’ happens to a body: and God is exempt from that ‘passion’ in the same way that water is exempt from ‘getting wet’. He cannot be affected with love, because He is love.”

Does God regret decisions which at the outset he deemed ‘good’? Or, is God capable suffering through the enactment of his holy, unstained purpose? Emotional movement is, at its core, ontological variation. Stephen Charnock is right, then, to say: “If God’s essence be changed, he either increaseth or diminisheth.” Knowledge of God is derived analogously; yet an analogy never perfectly correlates with the object for which it stands. If ever this statement was true, then surely it must be so with the One who exceeds or transcends or extends infinitely beyond all cerebral categories. Rather than chafing at the metaphorical language, such a recognition should result in worship to the God who ‘bends backwards’ on behalf of mankind—not only in reducing himself to symbols cast on a page but also in confining himself to common imagery through which readers might come to know him.