Coffee Knows
Posted by Dan on 25 Aug 2004 at 10:22 am | Tagged as: Uncategorized
So, I’m here at Van Java. Suzanne is working. Chey is in some sort of business meeting. Nicole is on her computer. Jaden is sleeping. I kind of miss the days of working at Java House in Springfield. The early morning customers who get the same drink every time, Van Morrison in the background. It was coffee bean aromatherepy for all who enter: the artists, the business folks, the homeless, the college students. I remember the sun slowly rising and me, being all alone in the shop. It was my discipline of silence. I enjoyed the simplicity of the work. It was my job to make coffee, tidy up a bit and chat with the patrons. Simple.
So onto something a bit more complex. The word know.
let’s start out with the definitions….
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won’t fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
To have experience of: “a black stubble that had known no razor†(William Faulkner).
To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
To be acquainted with: He doesn’t know his neighbors.
To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.
I’m not the first to talk about this. I’m not claiming to have any philisophical/linguistic intelligence. But I am writing this because I think that there is a cultural rift that this word causes in regards to our epistemology. The rift is mostly between boomerish evangelicals and the youngers who have grown up in postmodern culture.
Mr. Modern Evangelical is defensive about his apoligetics. These “proofs” give him good reasons for his faith. They show that his faith is not illogical, his “Christian Worldview” is somewhat consistent, somewhat coherent. He “knows” that God exists. He believes that if you can just get a willing person into a conversation about “proofs” for God etc…that that should then logically move one to faith.
On the other hand Miss Younger Evangelical “knows” that you can’t truely “know” anything. How can you “prove” that God exists to someone? Doesn’t that kind of certainty eliminate the need for faith? Was Kirkegaard heard at all when he talked about the existential “leap of faith” that Christians must take in light of the fact that we can’t prove anything? She doesn’t understand why it’s not ok to question things. Why do we have to act like we have all the answers to everything. Why do we think we know?
Well, I am not about to think that there is any real solution to this outside of more honest dialogue between the two groups. I’m not even sure I’m representing them well. I do however know people like Mr. ME and Miss YE. And I think that one of the basic misunderstandings is our meaning of the word know. If we go back to our definition at the top of this page. We find one definition: “To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.” Some people use the word know in this way. If this is the case I really have a hard time with it. Certainty means 100% evidence in many peoples minds. Whereas I think or knowledge of God is more acuately defined as: “to have experience of.”
Now to the Modern thinkers out there I am not sugesting that you cannot have a Justified True Belief. But you just can’t really prove it. You just don’t have 100% evidence. You must admit that you have to have faith that brings you to that belief.
And to the cynical Post-Moderns out there. Shame on you (us?) for just assuming that the Moderns use the first definition of know. We should be more aware of the deconstructionist understanding that we assign meaning to words. And instead of looking for meaning we have our definition of “know” (100%) and expect that that is the way that everyone else is using it (and therefore shouldn’t be using it). Instead let’s dialogue. I think if we can explain what we mean to the olders, then we might get somewhere in this conversations. But instead, so much of the time we have just been talking past each other.
I think I “know” where you are going with this, pun intended. How does Romans 1:18-21 fit in?
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.
19 For the truth about God is KNOWN to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts.
20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not KNOWING God.
21 Yes, they KNEW God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.
I added the caps
Troy
If someone tried to tell me that that kind of “knowing” would mean having 100% evidence or proof, then we’d be wrong. Only God has that kind of knowledge. I believe that God has put “knowledge” of himself in us already. But this “knowledge” isn’t something you can apologetically teach to someone. This knowledge is wrapped up in who we are and what’s around us. We are “little creators” made in the image of God. We have a sense of morality, right and wrong and we see creation as designed by God. All these things of course are apologetic in nature but have been used as “proof” of God’s existence. In fact at the church that I was working at there was a guy teaching a sunday school class and he announced that he was going to “prove 100% that God exists.” So I went to the class (full of Christians by the way) and he just gave the ontelogical, teleologica proofs and so on that God exists. now of course they were good reasons, but he couldn’t answer the question of “what if there is an evil scientist controling everything?”
I have to be honest that I don’t live any of my life as knowing 100% that anything is true. Do I believe things are true? Yes. But I have doubts sometimes. And those doubts and questions about faith have been vital to me in my learning and understanding of who God is. I find it interesting that throughout the New Testament we are not called to have Exact, 100%, imperialistic faith. But we are blessed when we are those who do not See but who believe anyway.
Does this answer your question?
Dan,
That is pretty deep man. To be perfectly honest, you have summed up some of the uneasy currents moving through my blood this summer. The “ok I cannot go knock on a door and introduce you to a supernatural person who’s hand you can physically shake…” Which is what most cynics will attack with. But my concious falls back to Psalm 23, that my God leads me by quiet waters and greener pastures. I don’t know him because he is someone I bumped into on the street, I know of him because he has given me forgiveness, and offered me peace and comfort to get back onto my feet.
Thanks again, and good topic Dan. Do you think you’ll preach on this?
Dan said,
>>I believe that God has put “knowledge” of himself in us already. But this “knowledge” isn’t something you can apologetically teach to someone.
the bible is clear in it’s teachings about how we are all created with knowledge of God’s existence. We can deny and bury within ourselves that knowledge but we are still without excuse. people are predispositioned by God to know that God exists. If we look at survey results most all people beileive there is a God. Now we know that beleiving there is a God and having a relationship with God are 2 very different things. Being able to prove %100 there is a God (apologetics) is not, in parameters you have set up (physical evidence), possible. And I agree with you in this definition of know. Like you said where would faith fit in? I personally do not beleive apologetics are the way to reach the “lost”. I think the role apologetics play would not be to prove the existence of God but to prove the possibility of the existence of God. An atheist makes the absolute statment “there is no God”. How much knowledge does any atheist (or any person for that matter) have of the whole universe. How much do they know of what is possible to know? 5%? 10%? 50%? For sure we know that no one knows 100%. Is it possible in this persons “unknown” knowledge that God may exist? The same argument of knowing exists for the doubter. And btw that’s what they are Agnostic not an Atheist. I guess this is a long way of saying that proving 100% to someone that God exists is probably not possible but is also not required. I think we agree on this.
No, I don’t intend to preach on this topic. There have been many others who have approached this more concisely than I ever could. But at the same time I think it’s pretty important. I think that’s an interesting angle of the proper use of apologetics, maybe another use would be to encourage believers who came to their faith via another route besides logic. I wouldn’t mind hearing more from you guys about this. Also, would like to hear from from Shane on why or why not our “inate knowledge of God” should leave us without excuse to believe in Him.
I was also talking with Travis who thought that maybe we should fight more for words (like “know”) to mean certain things. Travis if you read this let me know more of your thought process.
Ok, the dialogue on the definition of the word “know” is good and helps us to work through conflict to unity. I understand what you are saying and I think that it is important for us to reach past stereotypes and arrogant prejudices to real conversation. However, I was also thinking that sometimes it might be important for individuals and communities to fight for the usage and meaning of words and symbols.
Here’s a quote from Hauerwas that describes an example:
For we must remember that “abortion” is not a description of a particular kind of behavior, rather it is a word that teaches us to see a singular kind of behavior from a particular community’s moral perspective. The removal of the fetus from the mother’s uterus before term can be called an “interruption of pregnancy,” the child can be called “fetal matter,” and the mother can be called a “patient.” But from the Christian perspective, to see the situation in that way changes the self and the community in a decisive way. The Christian insistence on the term “abortion” is a way to remind them that what happens in the removal of the fetus from the mother in order to destroy it strikes at the heart of their community. From this perspective the attempt of Christians to be a community where the term “abortion” remains morally intelligible is a political act.
In this respect the pro-abortionists have always been at a disadvantage. For they have had to carry out the argument in a language created by the moral presuppositions of the Jewish and Christian communitites. “Abortion” still carries the connotation that this is not a good thing. Thus to be “pro-abortion” seems to put one in an embarrassing position of recommending a less than good thing. It is not without reason, therefore, that pro-abortion advocates seek to redescribe both the object and the act of abortion. We must remind them, however, that by doing so they not only change the descripton of the act, they also change themselves.So after the dialogue what does the word “know” now mean to each party? Has the meaning of the word and therefore the trajectory of the community changed? I’ll continue Hauerwas’s quote to better explain:
“Christians insist on the significance of such a change by refusting to live in a world devoid of abortion as a moral description–a world which admittedly may, as a result, involve deep tragedy. There can be no doubt that the insistence that unjust termination of pregnancy be called “abortion” has to do with our respect for life, but that is surely too simple. Jews and Christians are taught to respect life, not as an end in itself, but as a gift created by God.” The Christian prohibition against taking life rests on the conviction that it is not ours to take and on the understanding that as God’s creatures we have no basis to claim sovereignty over life that lies under the lordship of Jesus Christ.(note: last sentence of quote paraphrased)
We fight for what the symbols in our culture or cultures around us mean because the everyday usage of them can have a strong — if masked — effect on our thought processes and decisions.
Here’s but a handful of other everyday examples that may be interesting to think about:
spoil - when it comes to having a child - “You’ll spoil that kid if you do that!” Really… like spoiled fruit that you have to throw away? Now is that really possible? What are you saying about the child when you use that term? Which is exactly why people who follow Dr. Sears Attachment Parenting concepts recoil at such a usage.
anarchy - does it mean insane lawless chaos and a license to use and abuse the world around us or does it mean a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals that is intentionally established and maintained? In this case, some adherents think it necessary to fight for the term while others choose to believe the same exact ideas but instead call themselves social-libertarians to escape the prejudice society holds against an anarchist before they even know him or her.
re-appropriated slurs like queer or nigger - What are used by the mainstream culture as gross condemnations have been taken by the put-down groups to mean something entirely different. Why have they chosen to continue to use such originally and continuing offensive words? Similar to Hauerwas’s statement above - it’s a political choice intended to mold their own community ties as well as remind the other communities around them of the past harms they must recognize.
Basically, I’m saying in agreement with you that fighting for the sake of conflict and arrogance is not beneficial. And that dialogue is very good but the motive of such dialogue that reaches past prejudice isn’t simply one of understanding; it’s also an attempt to mold the surrounding individuals, community, and world. And… that it’s good for us to see how and why that is.
And comment number two…
Shane asked above: “how can I encounter those who avoid Christianity and belief in Jehovah because of previously conceived notions of bigoted old white men strategizing ways by which to send heathens to hell or for a myriad of other reasons?”I would answer by saying that Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Instead of always using words, I would say that we should use our lives as a witness. As a taste or present reflection of the Kingdom of God, our community should be one that’s able to ‘convince’ others. Unfortunately, it hasn’t always done that in the past, ie: Catholic Priest abuse scandal, Christians selling out — prostituting, to use the bibilical term — themselves to other commitments like colonization of the new world or securing their economic safety through wars in the Middle East, etc.
I can see where you are kind of heading with the pre-dispostion thing, and I don’t have a major problem with that, because I do think there will always be people who won’t follow Christ. But when you ask “Why else would someone choose a leap of faith in Christianity?” I have to say that if words don’t work, the only other reason I can think of is because they see the kind of people that it produces.
Now, if our lives can’t do it either, it may be time to ask ourselves what exactly are we trying to get them to leap into anyway?
Travis said,
>>I would say that we should use our lives as a witness.>Now, if our lives can’t do it either, it may be time to ask ourselves what exactly are we trying to get them to leap into anyway?
Travis said,
>>I would say that we should use our lives as a witness.>Now, if our lives can’t do it either, it may be time to ask ourselves what exactly are we trying to get them to leap into anyway?
this leads perfectly into the next post that I was going to write about on sacrifice. Crazy, i didn’t think that they would connect this well, but leave to to you thinkers to figure out great transitions for me!
Hey Dan the post right after shane’s 1st post were from me (Troy B-I-L)not Shane. I’m screwed up enough myself without needing to drag anyone else down to my level. Sorry about the screw up.
The man with out excuse is straight from Romans. It seems sometimes we are smart by half. You see a painting you know there was a painter, you see a scuplture, you know there was a sculter, we see creation yet deny there is a creator. A child would understand this argument but intellectuals strugle with it. But then again Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:19-25
19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Troy, Exactly! We too often reduce the Gospel to propositions in some herminutic of scientific method. When really that “modern” rational is what trips people up many times. It can be an excuse to not believe.
Recent thoughts from McLaren on a question from Mr. Modern Evangelical might also help explain Dan’s post, I think.
(For those who may not know, when the question says “A New King of Christian”, it should be “A New Kind of Christian”.)