Knowing Christ Today — Why we can trust spiritual knowledge
by Dallas Willard
A must read for anyone (Christian or non-Christian, religious or non-religious) who values personal growth and the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Whether you agree with everything Dallas Willard (DW) has to say in this book is not important. In “Knowing Christ Today,” DW surfaces numerous observations, thoughts and questions that are certain to stimulate significant, meaningful reflection and growth.
So you say, “that’s great Doug, glad you enjoyed the book. Why a blog?”
DW says it best in the introduction of the book — “Knowledge and the will to know, by their very nature, place one in the common arena of human life, in the “public square,” as is now said. That is one of the important things about knowledge and the effort to know. It provides a meeting place for all who love and respect their neighbors. It encourages us to listen as well as speak, to learn as well as teach. Knowledge opens up possibilities and imposes responsibilities in the public arena. It is no longer just a matter of “my stuff” against “your stuff.” When we step into its arena there is suddenly a “we” and an “ours.” Instead of automatic deadlock, there is the possibility of joint inquiry. So, as I write here, I am speaking to every person and responsible to every person.”
So, welcome to the public square! You are cordially invited to share your thoughts and perspectives as I share a weekly post over the next 8 weeks, one for each of the 8 chapters in the book.
The adventure begins … Week #0
Knowing Christ Today by Dallas Willard – Introduction:
1. Lesslie Newbigin remarks, “No faith can command a man’s final and absolute allegiance, that is to say no faith can be a man’s real religion, if he knows that it is only true for certain places and certain people. In a world which knows that there is only one physics and one mathematics, religion cannot do less than claim for its affirmations a like universal validity.” (p2.)
The 59dougster – The current popular thinking that says — well, that may be true for you, but its not true for me — has been troubling to me for some time. DW tackles this subject in a thoughtful and meaningful way throughout the book as he discusses spiritual knowledge.
For me the important distinction is between “truth” and “experience.” People may very well have different experiences, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of a universal truth. Our personal experiences are not always good indicators of universal truth; in fact our experiences can actually betray the truth. A more accurate statement might be — well, that may be your experience, but it hasn’t been my experience.
2. DW – “My hope here is to enable intellectually serious people, Christians or not, to understand the indispensable role of knowledge in faith and life. I also want to make it clear that there is a body of uniquely Christian knowledge, one that is available to all who would appropriately seek it and recieve it — again, whether Christians or not.” (p7.)
The 59dougster – this statement is part of what really drew me into the book. It made me ask the question … what do I really “know” for sure … what knowledge do I possess? I am still spending time in journal taking inventory of the body of knowledge I have … and more importantly why it is important. I also liked the inclusiveness of the statement “there is a body of uniquely Christian knowledge, one that is available to all who would seek it and receive it.”
A quick peak ahead into the first chapter brings in a related excerpt — “When we say all religions are equal, what is implied is that all religions are equally devoid of knowledge. In fact however, no known religions are the same; they teach and practice radically different things. You only have to look at them to see that. To say they are all the same is to disrespect them. It is a way of claiming that none really matter, that their distinctives are of no human significance.”
3. DW – The isolation of faith from knowledge is, accordingly, one major source of the painful difference between what people profess and how they act that is so frequently seen in Christian circles – but, to be accurate, also in humanity at large. (p3.)
The 59dougster – I am reminded that I want my actions (my daily interactions with people, how I spend my time, where I invest myself and my money) to align with my professions as a follower of Christ. I have more to say about the distinction of identifying myself as a follower of Christ vs. calling myself a Christian, but will save my thoughts for another time as the topic comes up in a later chapter.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts; and please, don’t limit your comments to just the excerpts I included above. If there are other excerpts from the introduction of the book that were meaningful to you I strongly encourage you to share them as a comment to this post.
To the 59dougster – now I know how I’m going to spend my Amazon gift certificate–on this book.
Not having the book yet, I’ll comment on a couple of things I see in the exerpts you’ve quoted–and on your comments.
If we do not have a discussion about the spiritual knowledge available in the public square, with love and respect, we will almost certainly not connect with those who have spiritual experiences different than ours. Not only is this kind of polarization distructive, but it virtually guarantees that the river of spiritual knowledge flowing in our own lives will slow to a trickle.
The incorporation of faith and knowledge reminds me of the Chamula – Tzotzil (Maya) definition of faith. They do not have an abstract like “faith” in their language, so they use this verbal phrase to define faith. Faith is “to take seriously or hold in high regard that which God has promised.” If we take knowledge serioiusly, we will live it.
Thanks for starting this discussion, Doug. Now to Amazon.com for the book.
Thanks for your comments, Doug. They ring true to what I know about you.
I have already grown to appreciate the book because it serves as a kind of “teething ring” on which to test what I have come to believe.
When I get a new book, I always try to determine the class of literature to which it belongs. I see this book as belonging to three classes of literature: epistomology, apologetics [this is how Amazon.com classifies it], and evangelism.
First, as “epistomology,” I take the title seriously, Knowing Christ Today. That is epistomolgy par excellence. Willard raises the questions: What is real? Who is blessed? Who is really a good person? How does one become a good person (see pages 45-50)? He defines what he means by knowing in brief on page 15 and gives an expanded treatment on page 60. Since these definitions are found in Chapters 1 and 2 respectively, I’ll refrain from commenting on them here. But his comments on knowledge in the Introduction include the following.
DW: . . . knowlege of a reality with which all humans must come to terms. p. 2
DW: . . .upon a knowledge of how things really are. p. 4
DW: . . . upon assured knowledge of how things are, of the realities in terms of which that life is lived. p. 7
Knowledge of reality is clearly what he is all about in this book. These are all indications to me of where the argument is going. The indications are intriguing.
Second, the book belongs to the class of literature called “apologetics.” This class of literature began in the first century as the church challenged the Roman imperial cult. True to this tradition, Willard does battle with his enemies—atheists, agnostics, deists, etc. This is a theme that is introduced in the Introduction (see page 5) and continues throughout the book. I look forward to discussing this aspect of the work.
Third, the book belongs to the class of literature that we call “evangelism” as he tries to convince unbelieving readers to accept Jesus exactly as the Bible presents him (see page 67). I look forward to looking at this theme.
I find this format constraining but it’s a good way to open discussion. I hope there will be a format that is more liberating coming.
I’m not a blogger this is my first go at it…so be kind. I also feel I will be one of the people invited in this discussion that will be looking at it from a non Christian perspective so again be kind
.
I started to read the book and immediately found it difficult to follow/grasp. I have never been a strong “reader” so that is part of the problem but I also took exception to a couple of his initial comments. Not accepting these comments seems to break the foundation of the opening discussion.
“In a world which knows that there is only one physics and one mathematics, religion cannot do less than claim for its affirmations a like universal validity.”
These sciences are ruled by laws completely uncontrolled by man. Though for centuries we believe the Earth was the center of the universe the belief was shattered as we studied and better understood the laws. The laws of Science are constant it is up to us to continue to discover them and better understand the body of work in front of us.
On the flip side the Christian Bible is the religious “law”. It has been around for centuries, no earth shattering changes have been made to it. Though I don’t study the bible I firmly believe its message is constant and fairly easy to understand. There is no huge stride required to understand the message only the stride is the choice to follow it. So the debate goes on, yet there is no question the earth is not the center of the universe. Comparing religion to science does not work for me.
The point is man must absolutely follow science’s laws’ but we need an active choice to accept religious laws. Even more importantly we need to interpret those religious laws.
The other comment I take exception to is:
“When we say all religions are equal, what is implied is that all religions are equally devoid of knowledge. In fact however, no known religions are the same; they teach and practice radically different things. ”
I do not understand this statement at all. This is certainly not my belief. The most important fundamental message that a majority of organized religions teach in my mind is to respect, protect and care for others. Granted Christians are taught to honor/love Jesus and follow his lead. But are Buddhists not fundamentally taught the same message through different lessons?
It is not clear to me how they teach radically different things. Back to the science example – you can teach math on an abicass or on a calculator but 2+2 always equals 4.
“In a world which knows that there is only one physics and one mathematics, religion cannot do less than claim for its affirmations a like universal validity.”
My claim is that comparing science and religion is a fair thing to do. Here are my thoughts: physics, mathematics, and religion are all man-made systems that attempt to describe universal truths about their respective domains. The domain of religion attempts to describe what is real and true about God, God’s nature, spiritual laws, morality, what is good, what is evil, how should we live, what happens to us when we die and much more. I would argue that just as the laws of Science are constant and it is up to us to continue to discover them and better understand the body of work in front of us, the same is true about God, God’s nature, spiritual laws etc. these things are constant and it is up to us to continue to discover them and better understand the body of work in front of us.
At one point in history most scientists believed the earth was flat, while another made the claim the earth was round. Both claims cannot be held to be true at the same time. While many world religions do share some common virtues, there are core differences between them that equate to the earth being flat vs. round. God’s nature cannot be what Christianity claims it to be, and at the same time be what Islam claims it to be.
The comparison here is not math/physics to the bible, rather it is math/physics to God and his nature. math/physics don’t change, nor does God’s nature and both are complex subjects that can be studied for many lifetimes without exhausting our learning’s.
The point is man must absolutely follow science’s laws’ but we need an active choice to accept religious laws. Even more importantly we need to interpret those religious laws.
I would argue that laws are laws whether scientific or religious. We have to choose to follow in both cases, and there are predictable consequences for not following in both cases. We have the Darwin Awards for those who choose to ignore or misinterpret scientific laws, and we have every sort of dysfunction in the world today resulting from those who choose to ignore or misinterpret spiritual/moral laws. I am not bothered by the fact that religious (spiritual/moral) laws need to be interpreted. I believe God equipped every human with the ability to plug into him and make an accurate/reliable interpretation. Clearly not everyone chooses to, and even some who profess that they do, don’t. Nonetheless, the door is always open.
I’m with you, Rich. I’m a first-time blogger and the selected text is at times dense–or I am
Welcome!
I’m participating because the text asks good questions that force me to think about the foundation for my Christian beliefs. I need those cranial calisthenics.
I think of science as one kind of knowledge and spiritual truth (for me, that is knowledge of God) as another kind of knowledge. Both are necessary for life. Science tells us gravity exists and we must respect it, but it does not tell us whether spending billions on a rotating international space station that can provide a gravity environment to astronauts is better than investing those same billions on eliminating poverty. Science does not tell us what is good and it does not give us purpose. Spiritual knowledge does. If I say I can only know what is scientific and the rest is a guess, then the part of me that wants to do what is right and live a life of purpose is at a horrible disadvantage.
I hope to learn from Knowing Christ Today how to think about spiritual knowledge, how it can be acquired, and used to make wise decisions
Looking forward to our discussion.