Dictionary.com defines “ideology” as “the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.” In How Not to Speak of God, Peter Rollins, helps us to understand how our ideologies can become idolatrous. He argues that “our understanding is always an interpretation of the information before us…and thus is always affected by what we bring to the table.” (9) If we are honest about the subjective limits of our understanding, we will admit that we can never be truly objective about anything. Rollins is not advocating relativism, which he says is “inherently self-contradictory and devours itself.” (11) He is not suggesting that we are unable to speak meaningfully about the world around us. He is simply pointing out that “we can never see [the real world] in an unadulterated manner.” (11)
Rollins connects this postmodern critique of objectivity with what the Bible says about idolatry. Idolatry is “any attempt that would render the essence of God accessible, bringing God into either aesthetic visibility (in the form of a physical structure, such as a statue) or conceptual visibility (in the form of a concept, such as a theological system).” (12) Our human ideologies become idolatrous when we try to claim an objective understanding of God based on reason.
Rollins submits that the Bible speaks against this form of “conceptual idolatry” with its “vast array of competing stories concerning the character of God that are closely connected to the concrete circumstances of those who inhabit the narrative.” (12) I like this way of viewing scripture because it doesn’t try to force our view of God into a man-made framework (systematic theology). I don’t think we should try to put God “in a box” in this manner. Rather than trying to systematize God, the Bible “contains so many ideological voices, held together in creative tension” that it ensures “the impossibility of any final resolution.” (13)
Again, we should not assume that this line of thinking leads to relativism. Rollins is not saying that we can’t learn anything about the nature of God. Rather, the “text shows the extent to which no one ideology or group of ideologies can lay hold of the divine.” (13)
In scripture we see that God actively reveals himself, and yet there is a sense in which he will always continue to be unknowable. I often hear people talking about how we’ll understand everything when we “get to heaven.” I think this is true in one sense, but possibly misguided in another. I think that in the resurrection we will understand things in a more comprehensive way, but this still does not mean we will be able to objectify God. We will not suddenly become un-subjective creatures. If we were to do that it would mean we had become gods ourselves.
In what sense do you think we can “know” God? How and why is this ability limited?
*********************************
Links to the rest if this series: Heretical Orthodoxy, Conceptual Idolatry, Defining God, 21st Century Pharisees?, Powerless Discourse, Answers & Questions, The Search for God, Doxorthy
Comments