Is the Claim to Knowledge a Product of the Fall?

Earlier in 2007, I wrote four blogs on the concept of epistemological certainty (see May and June). The conclusion I came to was that it isn't really possible to have "knowledge" of the existence of God in a modern sense. That kind of knowledge requires an empirical certainty which is not really available to any metaphysical concept. Of course, many of the discussions I had with people who disagreed, or didn't understand exactly what I was saying (due chiefly to my inability to articulate it properly), indicated that the problem this would produce was an inability to believe. They said that if you cannot say "I know God exists" you might as well say "There is no reason to believe." In fact, it has produced the opposite. I no longer feel the need to PROVE God, I am free to believe. The Bible itself has been opened up to me as a self-authenticating system.

Recently, some reading I've done and thoughts I've had in other areas (specifically ethics, the fall, and anthropology) have shed a new light on the discussion which, I think, supports my conclusion on the issue. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how much of this will stem from my reading and discussions with friends and how much is really from my own mind. And, I'm not really certain how relevant these thoughts are to those topics.


I've begun rethinking this issue by breaking down the sentence "I know God exists." In the sentence, the subject is "I" and the object is, really, "God's existence," or "God." This means that, when someone claims to have knowledge of God's existence they are not really saying anything about God or the certainty of his existence but are chiefly speaking of themselves. In other words, the sentence "I know God exists" speaks chiefly of the knower, not the thing known. It's claim is that "I have God figured out and am beyond the capacity to be wrong about him. I own that knowledge by virture of my own ability to understand, perceive, and prove this." The claim to knowledge of God's existence is a claim to have within oneself the answers.

Recently, much of my preaching has dealt with the concept of the fall and its nature. I've concluded that the real temptation of the fall of man was not about eating a piece of fruit from a tree in the garden but it was a seeking of "knowledge of good and evil" within oneself and not in God. In fact, all sin is really concerned with seeking within oneself what can only be found in God, whether that be life, joy, peace, happiness, fulfillment, whatever.

Prior to the fall, God was the subject and man was the object. The Bible begins with the sentence, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Pronouncements about God and his existence begin, scripturally, with his existence and draw conclusions from there. In fact, the central theme of scripture is that God is always the subject.

It seems to me that the central theme of Christianity has always been to orient Christians away from themselves and toward God. Epistemologically speaking, this means that the goal of Christians is to arrange the sentence so that "I" am not the subject, but "God" is. In other words, it really is a fallen idea to claim that "I know God exists." I was never really created to own the knowledge of God or to have that kind of understanding. I am to begin with God and move from there. As soon as I put myself at the beginning, I am guilty of committing the same sin that Adam did at the beginning of time.

Furthermore, the notions of apologetics or the classical arguments as starting points of theology are also fallen. The attempt to begin with the cosmological argument (the universe exists and has a beginning, therefore we know God exists) is to base belief in God on the existence of the universe and (really) my own existence. It is as if we are changing Genesis 1:1 to say, "Right now our existence necessitates God's existence." It is exactly the opposite statement because the foundation has moved. The foundation for God is the universe, whereas, in scripture, the foundation for the universe is God.

Hence, it really is appropriate to abandon that knowledge or the pursuit of that knowledge and adopt as the starting point for theology God himself. This means that the burden of "proving God" is no longer upon me. Instead, I can start talking about God by looking to revelation.

I guess that this blog isn't really about certainty at all. Of course, it isn't possible to say with certainty, "Yes, I know God exists." That question, from an enlightenment standpoint, is still resolved in my mind. What this blog does say is that the concept of knowledge from an enlightenment viewpoint is not the goal of Christianity at all. Faith in God is exactly that--belief in what we cannot prove. So, my goal is not to prove it but to believe it. That I can do.

Scattered Thoughts: Pacifism, Bonhoeffer, the Move

Greetings to those who occasionally visit my Abyss. Amidst the frenzy of our move and all of the emotions we experienced in picking up our lives and going to Georgia, and as I have attempted to develop a routine for writing sermons (which, now that I have time to do it right, I am actually enjoying again), I have had some random thoughts to share.

First, thanks to all of my friends who interacted with me on the topic of pacifism. Between the posts (which are immortalized in print) and the discussions we had in person, I feel I have a much better grasp on the topic than before--and I've come to understand more fully the view that many of my closest friends hold. Believe it or not, you all influenced me much more than I may have let on. I think I've been forced to re-evaluate my dilemma and approach it from a strictly Christian viewpoint. In asking, "How did Christ approach the dilemma that I have posed?" I found myself thinking of the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus dealt with that. Here we have a woman who was being unfairly persecuted (where was her lover?) and was going to be killed by a merciless gang of lynchers. Granted, their actions, by some interpretations, were protected by Jewish law. Yet, Jesus understood the real ins and outs of the situation. How did he approach it?

My pacifist friends will be proud of me, I hope! Jesus did not fight. He knelt in the sand and wrote something (I have my theories). Then he stood up and told whoever had not broken the law to cast the first stone. Jesus approached the situation non-violently. Ironically, he risked a great deal of violence to himself in doing so. And I think that may be the key. As Christians, on a personal level, where we can, perhaps we are called to suffer for others more so than fight for them. That was, actually, Jesus' entire philosophy of dealing with violence, was it not? It was to receive violence in lieu of someone else. There. I've said it. You've moved me.

I still cannot get past the separation I find inherent in NT teaching about the role of government and its use of violence in situations. It seems to me that, if God has ordained this, then there is some justification for war. I still hold that there is a paradox on war in Christian teaching. Yet, I am moved closer in my own walk to the position of many of my friends.

Interestingly, Bonhoeffer moved from being a pacifist to an attempt to assassinate Hitler. The explanation provided to me was that Bonhoeffer recognized that Hitler's regime was a product of the non-action of the church when it could have done something. Therefore, he moved to violence as a secondary position--not as good as the primary, but necessary according to situation. I think I agree with Bonhoeffer. There is a point at which it is too late to say, "This is what we should have done."

I'm reading Ethics by Bonhoeffer right now (amidst other things--see Theo's Picks for the link). My new schedule affords more time for reading and personal study. (Perhaps I should have made this move a long time ago.) Bonhoeffer is fascinating me with the idea that the whole study of ethics is really a product of the fall--in that people believe they can be the source of knowledge of good and evil. In fact, my first sermon at Castle really ended up being about that (I borrowed heavily from Paul Axton's genius chapel sermon). Once we have updated Castle's podcast, I will add the link to the Abyss. Because of the profundity of some of his comments, I was thinking of just adding a few quotes for discussion, if anyone is interested.

"To know good and evil is to know oneself as the origin of good and evil, as the origin of an eternal choice and election. How this is possible remains the secret of Him in whom there is no disunion because He is Himself the one and eternal origin and the overcoming of all disunion. This secret has been stolen from God by man in his desire to be an origin on his own account. Instead of knowing only the God who is good to him and instead of knowing all things in Him, he now knows himself as the origin of good and evil. Instead of accepting the choice and election of God, man himself desires to choose, to be the origin of election. And so, in a certain sense, he bears within himself the secret of predestination. Instead of knowing himself solely in the reality of being chosen and loved by God, he must now know himself in the possibility of choosing and of being the origin of good and evil. He has become like God, but against God. Herein lies the serpent's deceit. Man knows good and evil, but because he is not the origin, because he acquires this knowledge only at the price of estrangement from the origin, the good and evil he knows are not the good and evil of God but good and evil against God. They are good and evil of man's own choosing, in opposition to the eternal election of God. In becoming like God man has become a god against God." (Ethics, 23)

"Man's life is now disunion with God, with men, with things, and with himself." (24)

"Knowing of good and evil in disunion with the origin, man begins to reflect upon himself. His life is now his understanding of himself, whereas at the origin it was his knowledge of God. Self-knowledge is now the measure and the goal of life. This holds true even when man presses out beyond the bonds of his own self. Self-knowledge is man's interminable striving to overcome his disunion with himself by thought; by unceasingly distinguishing himself from himself he endeavours to achieve unity with himself." (29)

"No longer knowing good and evil, but knowing Christ as origin and reconciliation, man will know all. For in knowing Christ man knows and acknowledges God's choice which has fallen upon this man himself; he no longer stands as the chooser between good and evil, that is to say, in disunion; he is the chosen one, who can no longer choose, but has already made his choice in his being chosen in the freedom and unity of the deed and will of God. He thus has a new knowledge, in which the knowledge of God, yet no longer as the man who has become like God, but as the man who bears the image of God. All he knows now is "Jesus Christ, adn him crucified (I Cor. 2.2), and in HIm he knows all. As one who is without knowledge he has become the one who knows only God and all things in Him." (37)

One of my favorites:

"The voice of the heart is not to be confused with the will of God, nor is any kind of inspiriation or any general principle..." (41) He goes on to discuss that the will of God, at its base, is the metamorphasis of the human.

In some of my earlier wrestlings with the "will of God," Bonhoeffer sums up beautifully and solves the problem:

"But when all this has been said it is still necessary really to examine what is the will of God, what is rightful in a given situation, what course is truly pleasing to God; for, after all, there have to be concrete life and action. Intelligence, discernment, attentive observation of the given facts, all these now come into lively operation, all will be embraced and pervaded by prayer. Particular experiences will afford correction and warning. Direct inspirations must in no case be heeded or expected, for this could all to easily lead to a man's abandoning himself to self-deception. In view of what is at stake there must be a lofty spirit of sober self-control. Possibilities and consequences must be carefully assessed. In other words, the whole apparatus of human powers must be set in motion when it is a matter of proving what is the will of God. But in all this there will be no room for the torment of being confronted with insoluble conflicts, or for the arrogant notion that one can master every conflict, or even for the enthusiastic expectation and assertion of direct inspiration. There will be belief that if a man asks God humbly God will give him certain knowledge of His will; and then, after all this earnest proving, there will also be the freedom to make a real decision, and with it the confidence that it is not man but God Himself who, through this proving, gives effect to His will." (43-44) Beautiful!

Anyhow, I'm liking Bonhoeffer! Thoughts?