I KNOW (s)he loves me

How do "we know"? How do "we know" anything? Is what we know true because we know it? Can we trust what we know? What's the connection between faith (trusting enough to act) and knowledge?

Let me start by asking you this.



Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

           Faith is only necessary when I do not have enough knowledge.

What about this statement?

           Faith is acting on the knowledge I have.

If you agree with the first statement, you likely see faith as a fallback position when you do not enough knowledge. You may even see people who rely on faith to be weak in dealing with truth because they are not willing or capable of getting more knowledge. If you agree with the second statement, then you may see knowledge without faith as weakness. In this case you may feel that knowledge is not really important unless you trust it enough to act upon it. You may disagree with both statements, seeing faith and knowledge in a different way. However, agreeing with both is a contradiction that may represent that you have not resolved your worldview on the relationship between faith and knowledge.

Maybe the challenge in knowing what is true and trusting what we know enough to act is understanding the meaning of knowledge. By definition "to know" is to bring to an awareness of the mind. However, our mind can be made aware in two ways. One is information we receive through our physical senses. If I say "I know the President of the nation," it likely means that I have information that I have seen or heard about this person, where he/she was born, went to school, what they look like, how they sound, etc. If I know the wind is blowing, while I can't see it, I can feel it and see other evidence, such as leaves moving around or my golf shot gets knocked off line. I can know the mountains are beautiful because I can see them. The Greeks had a word for this meaning of "to know" called eido.

On the other hand, if I say, "I know my wife loves me" or "I know the mountains are peaceful," it is not likely because someone told me or I can touch it, but because this information came to me through relational experience. The Greek word for this kind of knowing is gnosis.

Both forms of knowing are rational, just sourced in two different ways. What we determine to be true becomes our worldview shaped by the roles eido and gnosis play in our understanding. Eido knowledge without gnosis knowledge has little value to life's satisfaction and gnosis knowledge without eido knowledge can be risky if our experience is not aligned with truth.

In plain language, this is what I wishing for you to know. If our knowledge is mainly eido, then our faith or willingness to trust that knowledge is generally weak. If our knowledge is mainly gnosis, then we are likely to act on the knowledge as truth, but we run a considerable risk of being wrong. We must have both the willingness to act (trust what we know) and knowledge that is valid in order to have a worldview that aligns with what is true.

The kicker is that our flaws (biases and filters) influence both kinds of knowledge and the interplay between them. Knowledge becomes truth for each of us from the credibility we give the info received through our senses and our experience.

We must accept eido as true based on the validity of the source, not subject to our biases and filters. We must then understand our gnosis based on the eido we accept as true.  If we allow a flawed understanding of something based on a bad experience to dominate our faith, our gnosis then dominates our eido. This is where we must trust our eido and through faith it then must influence our gnosis.

For example, we read about and see reports of evil and disasters in the world (eido). We are personally attacked by terrorists or are victim of a flood (gnosis). We hear about how good and powerful God is, but how does this eido interact with our gnosis of evil and disaster? The truth we believe about God and then act upon in faith depends on the worldview of God that comes from "knowing Him" with both credible eido further evidenced by gnosis.

So, how do you know s(he) loves you? You first have eido of that person that comes from credible sources and that you trust to be true. S(he) is kind, loyal, dependable, faithful, etc. Then you interpret your experiences with that person through the lenses of eido to gain gnosis of them. Your gnosis strengthens faith in your eido to trust her/him. This produces life's greatest joy, intimacy.

This is what "to know" means and how faith and knowledge work together to make your joy full. 

This is ...

r u ABSOLUTELY sure?

In the previous blog on Faith & Consequences I discussed the consequences of what we believe to be true because of our faith. What we trust to be true guides our actions in most every way. The BIG questions around truth (and thus faith) are these:
is there an absolute truth or ONE truth that trumps all other perspectives of fact? And if there is, then how do i find it?

I began the discussion on absolute truth by framing the question this way:
   
if truth is relative and thereby any person's truth is just as valid as another's, then must we see our enemies as morally equivalent?


Star Wars has made popular an ageless idea of the battles of good and evil. Where does the notion that something is good and something is evil come from? The writer of the story knows, but why is his view right? Maybe war is only the struggle for power and dominance and has no moral imperative. For if everyone's perception of fact is equally valid, no one has a right to defeat another for the sake of bringing them into subjection to truth.

Religious wars would have been purposeless except to subordinate one group to another. While the idea that others should respect my truth as equally valid as theirs feels right, the logical conclusion of this position does not seem to square with the universal desire people have to seek moral superiority. All people know down in their hearts that Nazi Germany, Islamic terrorists, and African genocides are not right, Everyone throughout history has sought to be right and correct the wrongs of their world. If truth were relative and based on what a person perceives it to be, then the quest for "right" is worthless because "being right" is simply what that person believes it to be The virtue of tolerance has been hijacked by many in our culture to mean moral equivalency, but it really means that we each should respect the right for others to hold to separate beliefs, not that we accept their truth as valid.

The fact that anyone would absolutely believe that truth is relative has violated the notion that there is no absolute truth.  

Now, how do we find THE ONE TRUTH about anything? Here are a few ideas I'd like to share with you to ponder.

While anything that is rational is not absolute truth, absolute truth must be rational. "An eye for an eye" is a rational way to respond to being violated or harmed. It has a rationale actually based in justice, getting what you deserve. However, we have found that revenge is not the best way to resolve offense. It is a downward spiral of destruction. reconciliation based on forgiveness is a rational way to deal with offense that results in healing and restoration and betterment for all involved.

One way to see the difference between the rationale of truth vs. truth is rational is the fact that absolute truth deals with what's right in the "big picture" vs. a narrow or limited perspective. The "picture" is big when long periods of time and a broad view of impacts are considered. Stealing money to meet an immediate need is rational, but stealing has negative affects on the person who loses what's stolen. In addition, the person who steals has taken a path to meeting their own needs that does not solve their problem long term and ignores the benefits to them and others that may come from receiving help from others. Thus, the notion that stealing is wrong has a rational based in the "big picture."

Another perspective on the difference between the rationale of truth vs truth is rational deals with the difference between practical and principled decisions. For example, China saw abortion as a rational way to control population. In the US abortion is considered "right" because it gives a woman more control in her circumstances. Both rationales are based on what is a practical solution to an existential problem. The principled approach to abortion would be to see that the unborn child is a life and that society must protect the life of all people, especially those that are vulnerable and cannot protect themselves. Seeing the principle as true has a rationale that the respect for life has a significant positive implication on the overall satisfaction of a society across time.

To discover what is true, you must expose the idols or counterfeits for truth that you have chosen to worship. If Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe God alone is worthy to be worshiped, why are so many of all faiths devoted to the idols of power, hatred, judgmentalism, pleasure, comfort, safety, performance, etc.?   Human nature has a tendency to put affection toward something that can deliver gratification in some area of life, but fails to satisfy or destroys the overall satisfaction of the soul. When you select something to be true that does not work in harmony across all facets of life satisfaction then you have affection for something that is not absolute truth.

One mistake we make in trying to find truth is to think that if we get enough knowledge, then we do not have to have faith. In many ways seeking knowledge can be helpful because we gain more perspective on the 'big picture", but the quest for knowledge can be a pride thing, a desire to trust ourselves and not trusting the author of absolute truth. We should accept that we will not be an expert in everything. A juror does not become an expert to judge what is true in a court case. Rather a juror must depend on testimonies of experts and eye witnesses when discerning what is true about a case. This would be a helpful model for us, seeking knowledge but also respecting its limits while trusting the testimonies of others who have perspective on truth.

These are just some helpful hints to finding absolute truth. If there were a pill you could take to find truth, everyone would come to the same conclusion on truth. The absolute truth about absolute truth is that you will ultimately have to rely on faith, not irrational, blind assumptions, but trust in something or someone whose rationale incorporates the "big picture" and works completely for the satisfaction of the whole soul.

At least it is ....

Faith & Consequences

Western Civilization has seen in the past 15 years what Islamic Jihad looks like up close and personally. At some level you have to at least take notice, if not admire, the commitment to their beliefs, Suicide missions involve giving your all. The question this raises for us westerners is not

"why don't we have the faith in our faith like the Jihadist do?", but rather "isn't the target of our faith really the factor in the consequences of our faith?"


Each serious person of faith starts with a sincere need for their life to have a positive impact on the world around them. However, the myth that sends us down the wrong stream of conscientiousness is that our sincerity is the most important aspect of the impact of our faith. It is true that commitment does increase the intensity of our effort and the direction of our behavior. BUT, in reality the aspect of faith that matters most to the consequences is the validity of our faith.

Historic Jesus tells us that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains. In context of His narrative, He is contrasting quantity with object of faith. If you and a friend came to a river and needed to cross to the other side, your experience would not be determined by how much you believed the river was shallow enough to cross. Rather whether the actual depth was passable would determine your fate.

The next myth concerning faith & consequences is whether truth is relative or absolute. The definition of truth is 'perceived fact of reality'. Absolute truth removes the notion of 'perceived'. If truth were relative, then sincerity would be the only measure by which we could judge truth. The logical extension of that would be that the Islamic Jihad is just as valid as anyone else's morality. We would have to accept their claim of jihad because they sincerely believed it, and along with this, the consequences.

More evidence that truth must be absolute is found in the practice of navigation. Anyone trying to move about the globe in any direction must know where north is and trust the compass to signify north. The virtue of tolerance has "tricked" society into believing that truth is not absolute, yet the civilized world is not willing to accept moral equivalency of Islamic Jihad, nor will they travel without a compass. This is a major contradiction in worldviews that leaves individuals and communities in chaos.

One aspect of absolute truth that forces many people back into relativism is 'who's truth is the one that counts?' In the face of having to 'pick one', culture forces people back into the virtue of tolerance - and round we go, opening ourselves up to legitimizing any faith, regardless of its consequences.

There must be a way to determine absolute truth. We can get a hint about finding truth from jurors. They are not the experts or the eye witnesses, they must listen to experts and eye witnesses with humility and a yearning for the truth. However, their judgment is ultimately on who they trust, not what they know. There is NEVER enough physical evidence to PROVE what is true. There are more tips on faith, but that's another blog. For now it is just

Lessons from an orphan girl

While your social identity helps you form a sense of belonging, your personal identity is how you see yourself and the image you project to others. Here’s a simple story to illustrate personal identity and how it works within people’s perspective of what is true about themselves.

Once there was an orphan girl who lived in the slums of the city. She felt abandoned, was alone and had to find ways to feed and clothe herself from the garbage heaps around the town. One day the rich man who lived in the mansion on top of the hill above the city was moved with compassion for the orphan girl and chose to adopt her. Thus, she came to live with him in the mansion on top of the hill above the city. She had access to all new clothes and could feast at the rich man’s banquet table. However, while the girl knew she was adopted, she still felt like an orphan. She identified more with the street people than as a child of the rich man. She was more comfortable in the slums because she still saw herself as destitute. Instead of receiving the provisions and privileges of her new father, daily she would go back down into the city and look for food and clothes in the garbage. Although she had been given a new identity, she still viewed herself as an orphan.

So, here's a little test question, why do you think the girl could not feel, think and act as an adopted child of the kind rich man?

A.      She felt she did not deserve such favor from the rich man

B.      While she knew her new life was better, she felt more comfortable with her old life

C.      She saw her adoption as an obligation to the rich man rather than a privilege

D.      She desired to hang onto her old life rather than to receive the love of her new father
E.   She felt shame because she believes receiving gifts from the rich man is not fair to other orphans.

If you selected A, then your worldview may align with this perspective. Often we feel we do not deserve the good things that come our way, especially if we do not feel we earned them. Its amazing how humans have the tendency to feel guilty about good things happening in their life because they do not feel worthy of such favor.

If you selected B, then your worldview may align with this perspective.  Even when something new may be better for us, there is a natural tendency to stay with what we are comfortable. The certainty of our past provides us with a sense of security and comfort, even if the reality of our past suggests we really are not. Often what we know to be true does not motivate us as much as what we feel to be true.

If you selected C, then your worldview may align with this perspective. While the rich man wanted her to enjoy the blessings of being his child, she focused more on how her adoption would make her obligated to the rich man. Being indebted can seem to rob us of our freedom but as we see in this story, rejecting her adoption kept her from receiving his extravagant provisions. While it may be obvious to an outside observer that she would benefit greatly from the adoption, her view of the slums was more freeing to her. 
  . 

If you selected D, then your worldview may align with this perspective. We can sometimes receive love and kindness from someone and not be drawn to them by a thankful heart. This can happen when we focus more on what we left behind or stay stuck in the self pity we had grown accustomed to. Often we are not thankful for what someone does for us because we are cynical of their motive and do not want to be obligated to them. Sometimes it is our pride of self sufficiency that keeps us apart from a father who wants to serve us. Any of these could be reasons the girl could not accept the generosity of her adoption.

If you selected E, then your worldview may align with this perspective. You can feel that receiving from a rich man when other orphans do not is wrong. This likely means that you see total resources as limited or fixed and so when you receive something good then someone else will have less. Many people with this worldview can feel shame or guilt when they receive more favor than others. The shame or guilt can make you feel like an outcast rather than to feel blessed by the generosity of someone who wishes to share their wealth with you.

The orphan girl’s identity or perception of herself apparently did not change just because she was adopted. Something stood between her old identity and the reality of her new one. This is a simple story, but has profound wisdom for you. Like the girl, you too have a story and from your story you receive a self image, but is it true or is it shaped by circumstances that create a false sense of identity? Like the girl in this story, one of your challenges is whether you have the view of your identity that is your true self. Exploring your personal identity and how it shapes your worldview and vice versa is a worthwhile exercise.

What you will find is that the obstacles we have from living in the fullness of provisions and privileges of our Heavenly Father is likely revealed in how we answered the question from the story of the orphan girl. For we too are spiritual orphans who have been adopted by the rich man who lives in a mansion on top of the hill.