This is a prayer that a Luthern friend shared with me. I thought it was pretty good...
"A Sacristy Prayer" by Martin Luther
Lord God, you have appointed me as a pastor in your church, but you see how unsuited I am to meet so great and difficult a taks. If I had lacked your help, I would have ruined everything long ago. Therefore I call upon you: I wish to devote my mouth and my heart to you; I shall teach the people. I myself will learn and ponder diligently upon your word. Use me as your instrument - but do not forsake me, for if I should ever be on my own, I would easily wreck it all. Amen
Friday, October 19, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
How do you know?
How do we know what we know? The question of epistemology has been bantered back and forth, back and forth. It is a question that has been left to the philosophers, the Cartesians (we know because we think), the realists (we know what we see) the Kantians (we can conceive of the possibility…. and see glimpses of things), the linguists (we know what the grammar of the community gives us language to know), and on and on. It is a question that theologians seem to stay away from because what can we say – we know because God said so. We know that creation is good because God said it is good, or at least we have decided to take the Bible as a source of knowing the words of God. Philosophically, this sounds weak. Yet William Abraham, in Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation, suggests that theologians should embrace the question of epistemology and discuss how we know what we know.
Abraham is not a novice to the conversation in philosophical circles, nor is he unaware of theological conversations. He footnotes offer a wonderful side-conversation around the meat of his text. Yet he seems to set his bar to high and then offer the platitude that we know about God through the divine revelation of God. We believe because God told us to believe, we saw God, we had an experience, etc. This seems weak.
Abraham claims that we know our faith through “canonical theism” – the knowledge of Christianity is based upon scriptures, early Christians, and tradition. It is almost Catholic (Scripture and Tradition). Yet that one crosses the threshold of that knowledge via divine revelation. We come to believe the substance of canonical theism because of a revelation of the Lord. Terry Tilley, suggests in Inventing Catholic Tradition that we come to know our faith through the grammar and rules of our faith. One does not need an intervention from on high to believe, one only needs to learn the language. Abraham is suggesting that someone could learn the who language, but will not have complete knowledge of God without God’s intervention – which he claims is rational. I find nothing rational about looking to a higher power for knowledge. Just as we mock those who look to aliens for that greater knowledge, I think it is appropriate for others to mock Christians who look to God for greater knowledge. When we are all on the rooftop, with our arms outstretched, asking for guidance, is there a difference? Our faith and knowledge of our faith is foolishness to the world (I think Paul said something about this…).
What I think Abraham is offering that is useful is a way to speak of epistemology from within the community. How do we know what we know? If we approach the issue from simply a philosophical standpoint, or even from a Wesleyian standpoint, all we have are tradition, reason, experience and scripture. Yet there is something that brings us to a point when we can say, “I believe in God, and thus view scripture, tradition, etc… as agents of the divine revelation.” Tilley would not look for that moment of revelation for knowledge, claiming that a part of our grammar is to claim a divine revelation. Abraham is claiming that the divine revelation is necessary for us to be able to speak and understand the grammar. Hence the issue, is the revelation of God necessary for knowledge or a part of the tradition? Chicken or egg?
Abraham is not a novice to the conversation in philosophical circles, nor is he unaware of theological conversations. He footnotes offer a wonderful side-conversation around the meat of his text. Yet he seems to set his bar to high and then offer the platitude that we know about God through the divine revelation of God. We believe because God told us to believe, we saw God, we had an experience, etc. This seems weak.
Abraham claims that we know our faith through “canonical theism” – the knowledge of Christianity is based upon scriptures, early Christians, and tradition. It is almost Catholic (Scripture and Tradition). Yet that one crosses the threshold of that knowledge via divine revelation. We come to believe the substance of canonical theism because of a revelation of the Lord. Terry Tilley, suggests in Inventing Catholic Tradition that we come to know our faith through the grammar and rules of our faith. One does not need an intervention from on high to believe, one only needs to learn the language. Abraham is suggesting that someone could learn the who language, but will not have complete knowledge of God without God’s intervention – which he claims is rational. I find nothing rational about looking to a higher power for knowledge. Just as we mock those who look to aliens for that greater knowledge, I think it is appropriate for others to mock Christians who look to God for greater knowledge. When we are all on the rooftop, with our arms outstretched, asking for guidance, is there a difference? Our faith and knowledge of our faith is foolishness to the world (I think Paul said something about this…).
What I think Abraham is offering that is useful is a way to speak of epistemology from within the community. How do we know what we know? If we approach the issue from simply a philosophical standpoint, or even from a Wesleyian standpoint, all we have are tradition, reason, experience and scripture. Yet there is something that brings us to a point when we can say, “I believe in God, and thus view scripture, tradition, etc… as agents of the divine revelation.” Tilley would not look for that moment of revelation for knowledge, claiming that a part of our grammar is to claim a divine revelation. Abraham is claiming that the divine revelation is necessary for us to be able to speak and understand the grammar. Hence the issue, is the revelation of God necessary for knowledge or a part of the tradition? Chicken or egg?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)