Enlightened ignorance


Ignorance is okay, provided it is well warranted.
In reviewing what I think I understand about the end times and the fulfilment of prophecy, I find I cannot understand when the Davidic restoration fits into the whole timeline: David's throne reestablished and all the nations coming to Jerusalem year by year to worship the King.

I'm not the first to ask. The apostles asked; Jesus told them it was not for them to know the times or dates the Father has set. (Acts 1:7)  Such was the answer in the first century.

We still don't know in the twenty-first. At least I don't know. I put this forward as an example of the principle that we don't have to know everything, and if we know we don't know everything, we know more than if we pretend that we do. I call this "enlightened ignorance."

Ignorance is okay, provided it is well warranted. Enlightened ignorance is useful when it quells disputes. Sometimes we have less knowledge than we need, if what we want to do is to take a hard and fast stance on a matter and to judge others' opinions as wrongheaded where they conflict with our own. For example, I am not inclined to argue very strongly about the end times, seeing that I have questions of my own.

Humility suggests the approach of trusting God where there is a deficit in our knowledge. Having unanswered questions is at least more honorable than working from supposition. God told us everything that we know for certain; he did not tell us everything he knows.

The long playing dispute of Calvinists and Arminians is an example of what results when we argue, too insistently, one step ahead of our knowledge. Their argument hinges on a category mistake, that of confusing what God sees and knows with what we mortals down here see and know. Christ presents himself to us as a choice to make. God knew which way you would choose before he asked you. But you did not know. To you it was presented as a yes-or-no proposition.

There are other examples that could be raised. There are many areas where we argue because a matter is very nearly clear enough to make us feel certain of our conclusions. This difficulty with such cases is that our information is not quite sufficient to preclude another interpretation. The desire to try, through force of intellect, to peek behind heaven's curtain and see the workings behind the scenes is strong, but if what it accomplishes is wrangling and division, wouldn't our time be better spent in less speculative pursuits? We might concentrate on such matters as spreading the clear gospel, doing the simple good works that plain gospel calls for, and leaving each other at peace over debate-club type questions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science versus religion is a phony issue

By Charles Marsh The problem is that science, well suited to look at repeatable events, is at a loss about singular ones.  Some people suppose that science trumps religion, that a modern understanding of the world through science renders religious understandings obsolete. Some others suppose that religious understanding can be used to refute science. Both views are wrong. Science is rooted in philosophical naturalism. That is the stance that says we will explain what we see without reference to supernatural agencies. Science describes what happens without recourse to explanations involving angels, demons, gods, fairy godmothers, humors, vapors or ghosts. Acting on this basis, science has done a great deal of good. It has gotten rid of superstitions about what causes disease, where insects come from and a good many other misunderstandings. Notice that science is morally neutral. The same disciplines that give us vaccines and disease prevention can as...
Read more

Reality, fantasy and ecumenism

By Charles Marsh Recent conversations online and off have shown me something very curious. Some of what I believe to be Christian verity some other Christians take to be mere fantasy. They are cessationists and I am not . According to them, the things that I believe about tongues and prophecy and words of wisdom and of knowledge are sheer moonshine. So while in some churches I am thought orthodox enough, in others I am regarded as delusional or something rather like it. There are other matters in which, in like manner, some Christians view certain beliefs of other Christians as no better than free imagination, runaway fantasy or perhaps something worse: damaging falsehoods not harmless nuttiness. I admit to being somewhat dismayed by other Christians' newspaper novenas and Facebook prayer schemes. I do not think that is how prayer works. Their idea seems to be that if you repeat such and such a prayer x times, or republish it or "like" it or retweet it, then you w...
Read more

What is a "Francisism"?

The first time I used the word I used it in attempting to explain some of Pope Francis's headline-grabbing remarks. This is what I said: This strikes me as another one of those Francisisms that generates lots of good press for Francis and then is walked back via more careful statements by others in the Church. I have remarked before on his tendency to do things like this. But it was not the first time I had encountered the concept. My remarks on this habit of Francis's go back a couple of years, to the early days of his pontificate. Francis tends to make sweeping-sounding statements that sound nearly un-Catholic in their generosity, toward gays, socialists, atheists, Lutherans and others. But when the statements are unpacked in light of Catholic faith and practice, they do not mean all that they seem to suggest. The statements are narrowly and logically true in some sense but really say less than they seem at first to say. Before I coined the word I wrote Pope Franc...
Read more