Theology as Classical Understanding of God’s Quality
If I believe that all truth is God's truth, all beauty can be attributed to the Creator God, and that God IS the ultimate reality; it naturally follows that "quality" is a term that can also be used to describe the one true God. We know Quality when we see, but have a hell of a time defining it. We have selected samples within different genres and called them "classics" and given them 5 stars or two thumbs up. However...
1. Whether it be music, film, literature, theology, religion, pet grooming, marketing, or architecture, why do people differ so much on what they believe to be "quality" and yet we all have a very specific idea of what "quality" is? Furthermore, even within a group of peers that have similar ideas of what "quality" is, there are still moments (though rare) where our convictions could not be more diametrically opposed as to whether or not something embodies "quality".
2. If God is Quality, do mankind's different interpretations of Quality jeopardize the idea of their being one God or reality?
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig analyzes Quality in a way that has helped me make sense of how God can still embody Quality and yet allow for the reality that people differ on what Quality is.
I originally outlined in this blog exactly what Pirsig does with the hierarchy of metaphysics, but it became too cumbersome for one blog post. I want to summarize it by saying that what Pirsig does is flip this hierarchy on its head. He claims that Quality is Reality! We don't approach a reality and then decide whether or not the reality we perceive has quality. Instead Quality is our Reality and we encounter this both on a romantic AND intellectual level. The romantic quality is what occurs when we encounter reality in the present, and then as we process that quality it is classified and becomes part of our past and future. It takes on both subjective and objective modes as that quality is both matter and a formation of that matter in the mind.
If all of that seems too confusing just think of it as Quality being our indescribable reality. Pirsig argues that "we see it differently because we come to it with different sets of analogues." "People differ about quality, not because quality is different, but because people are different in terms of experience." If we all had the exact same experience, then we would all be identical in our estimations of quality, but we don't so we encounter diversity. And I personally thank God for this! I also thank Pirsig for formulating it this way because it causes me to refrain in some of my condescending attitudes towards those with different taste. They have different experiences they are building on and instead of insulting their taste perhaps as an "expert" in one certain type of experience I should add to theirs by exposing them to new experiences which may shape their understanding of quality.
When applied to religion this could lead one to naturally believe that all religions are grasping at the same reality and therefore all are "true". In fact, I would completely agree, were it not for the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus is the variable in this whole equation that trumps experience as the primary analogue. If you believe Jesus' life, His teachings, and His resurrection, then you have been given a lens through which to view all experience. A lens which colors experience beautifully in my opinion.
But those of us who have been granted this lens should never take pride in ourselves. In fact, we should remain cautious because Pirsig also gives the best simple explanation I have ever heard of the problem with studying Theology.
"To take that (quality) which has caused us to create the world (the subjective reality in our mind), and include it within the world we have created, is clearly impossible." "If we define it we are defining something less than Quality itself."
In our application, even though Jesus in his incarnation has unveiled quality in its most tangible form, it is still shrouded in mystery and remains impossible to define completely. That is why those who truly know Jesus understand that what he reveals takes a lifetime to understand and even more dedication to live out. It is quality to the fullest. Theology can help one understand God's quality, but theology is an intellectual formulation that was built upon romantic experience that is indescribable. To devote all of our time to the intellectual and neglect the initual romantic encounter in the present is to miss quality.
My Twitter
- RT @DemetriMartin: Happy Extremely Pregnant Woman's Day (day before mother's day). about 6 days ago from web
- I don't understand baby corn. #strangefoods May 10, 2012 from web
June 8th, 2009 - 13:09
Nate:
I have a real love for post-moderns and relativists. I’m a bit confused however, as it seems to me that subjective reality breeds an ever-increasing amount of mystery to faith than an incarnate Jesus suggests.
I’m going to suggest that Theology is actually more necessary in understanding life because reality is revealed in an ever-increasing amount as people attempt to define that which cannot be contained in a single lifetime. For instance, many people who meet me see quickly that I love Jesus. But if they dig deeper, they might find that I also love computers and popular music. I don’t think that these other attributes modify my love for Jesus in any way, but perhaps it broadens my conception of how love is defined to me. They will see a passionate love for my savior at first, then they will see a sincere appreciation at the second level. Both are love, but they are love in different routines.
Perhaps, we young evangelical Christians are reacting against a greater heresy. The heresy is that the created order is bad — when in fact, it is our very human nature which is tainted. (I know, I know, total depravity — but in all seriousness) The world, in and of itself, is not bad but our human nature is corrupted, thus tainting our understanding.
My hesitation comes in when we move away from definition and grasp more fully onto mystery. Can’t we say that an attribute like ‘quality’ really has a faulty definition this side of heaven? Can’t we suggest that our definition of ‘quality’ grows as an ever-increasing subjective understanding comes to discussion? Rather than moving away from definition, can’t we apply more definition that stands in complement to the first?
June 8th, 2009 - 16:34
Lou:
I was watching a documentary last night on the Danielson Famile and I ran across an interesting quote:
“People sometimes say they ran from God. I don’t think that’s even possible. All that you can do is ignore God, because He’s all around you.”
I fully agree with your assessment on the created order and the evangelical heresy. I do not believe that the world in and of itself is bad. We have ourselves and our natures to blame for tainting our perception and understanding of the world around us which then naturally follows into misguided and sinful behavior. I do believe, however, that as we experience a moment of “quality” or whatever you want to call it, we encounter the living Creator God, even if we don’t immediately ascribe it to Him. I have to admit that I am not aware of all the Quality that is around me, and this is where there is mystery.
My intention was never to suggest that we do away with Theology or that we stop trying to define what Quality is. On the contrary, as a Christian, if I believe that God is Quality, I’m going to devote my life to trying to understand it, even if I know I’m limited in doing so. In addition, some of the best resources I have to draw upon to help in my understanding are the experiences and formulations of persons from the past who have shared their ideas.
The main point is that our definitions are limited and that subjectivity is not something to war against, but rather a natural outcome of different experiences. The best we can do is share our experiences, and for the Christian, spread the Good News that Quality manifested itself in Jesus and that He invites us to walk with him as He works to chisel away the corruption that shrouds everything in mystery. This process is then classically defined and becomes Theology. Which, in a manner of speaking, IS the ongoing discussion of an ever increasing subjective understanding. Both the definitions and the mystery are to be celebrated because they cannot work without each other. If we put more emphasis on one or the other we are not being true to our experience of the Living God. For now we see through a glass darkly as Paul puts it.