The growth in knowledge of any object depends upon the encounter between someone who wants to know about that object and the object itself. This the only way to develop an understanding of any thing, of any animal, or of any person. The experience of a personal encounter is rudimentary. This claim may appear obvious when it comes to the knowledge of something like a rock, for instance, but understanding how we develop a battery of information about a rock can help us understand the way that God is understandable.
The character of a rock is effusive, that is it is self-showing. What I encounter when I pick up a rock and assess its characteristics is an actual manifestation or performance of the nature of what it means to be a rock. The rock’s “rockness” is shown through the encounter. In some ways, it’s like a dramatic performance. If you want to know the meaning of a play like Hamlet, you must look at the performance of the play itself. You will never understand Hamlet if you only read the cliff-notes version or if you read reviews of the play. We begin to know a rock when we pick it up and allow the rock’s self-showing to impact us. The identity of a rock is demonstrated to my senses as its characteristics are performed.
Any knowledge I have of a rock is compiled through personal engagement where I perceived what the rock shows itself to be. The encounter of the self-showing rock is the data from which I know what a rock is.
Any theory of what it means to be a rock or a set of ideas about the definition of rockness depends upon this encounter. I might come to a particular rock with a preconceived notion of what it means to be a rock, but if I hold onto those preconceived ideas I’m not developing a knowledge of the rock. I only have a knowledge about ideas about a rock. Any knowledge of the rock itself will depend upon my opening myself up to the influence of the rock I am holding. In other words, I cannot know a rock by reading a book about it.
Now there is a long tradition that claims that the rock as it shows itself to me is not real. It is only a shadow of an idea of a rock. The performance of a particular rock fails to give us any true knowledge about the nature of a rock. For that, we must develop a set of ideas about the perfect rock. This is a very simplified version of Plato’s ancient concept of ideals, and he teaching has influenced the way that we think far more than we want to admit. For those who hold this position about knowledge of an object, I would ask: how would you know that an ideal rock actually exists? This is an important question because no one has ever actually seen such a ideal rock. Why should we trust the claim of Plato that there is such an ideal being called Rock which provides the true nature of what what it means to be a rock? How did Plato every contrive such a claim when in fact it only existed in his imagination? And why it this ideal more important than the encounter with the rock itself?
I would argue that if you believe in such a thing as an ideal rock, then the only way to conceive of it is to gather as much information as possible from picking up various rocks. It all comes back to personal knowledge through personal encounters with rocks themselves. But that’s not what Plato said.
The same is true of our knowledge of God. The nature of God is self-showing. What God is at the core is performed and the only way to know who God is is to interact with what God shows himself to be. One must actually interact with the self-showing of God. Simply put, God’s actions reveal God’s nature. Therefore, the knowledge of God is a knowledge of God’s performance. If you want to get to know another person, you will need to spend time with them. Their actions in life will show you what they are really like. Their core identity, their real beliefs, their character, will come to life in their performance. In other words, who a person is is revealed in their actions.
A lot of people come to God with ideas about what God is like. They project that information upon God and thereby misinterpret what it means for God to be divine. They focus on religious ideas rather than looking at the divine performance. In other words, they develop a knowledge of God like Plato did. They comprise a list of characteristics about, God and then they assess whether or not that God is worthy of time an attention. For instance, there is a standard teaching that God is in complete control of the universe, but if that is the case, then how is God good since there is so much evil in the world? Or they might read the Bible and see how there are passages in the Old Testament that depict God as violent and angry. When I was much younger, I took these two teachings about God and conceived of God as an angry, control freak. However, I was projecting ideas upon God. My knowledge was not based on God’s self-showing. I just had a lot ideas about God floating around in my head.
With God, we must focus our knowledge on the ultimate revelation of divine self-showing. This, the Bible claims, is manifestation of the performance of Jesus. If you want to know God, then come to know Jesus. We are not left guessing what God is like. We do not need to comprise a list of ideas and definitions about God. God comes in real life as a real person and shows us what it means to be God.
This is the doorway to knowledge of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment