Sunday, November 22, 2009


For the etymologically challenged among you, let me start by breaking down the parts. “Ortho” and “episto” are a compound descriptor for those who embrace an epistemological perspective informed by orthodox Christian thought. This group is further refined, defined, and confined to those who prefer their epistemology in the form of propositional statements. In fact, they can often be downright dogmatic about such matters. That leaves only the “logy,” which is what I’m doing now, but also what OEP's love to do ad nauseum.

Finally, since the Facebook comment thread took place so long ago, the vast multitude reading this blog will have forgotten that, in its original context, I used the term derogatorily.

So, orthoepistopropology is definitely something Jesus gives a rat’s ass about . . . but not in a good way.

He taught in parables. He was a radical reinterpreter of tradition. He understood the importance of context in the search for truth. So how is it that some of those who claim his name can so deeply believe and so vehemently assert that the truth about what we can know about God can be reduced to propositional statements? To make matters worse, these same orthoepistopropologists claim that only their statements are the Truth.

That’s right. In OEP World, the one eternal God, creator of all that is—seen and unseen—can be so effectively captured in words that whosoever memorizes those words can, with absolute certainty, stop striving after Truth, having already found all that will ever be needed.

So, am I suggesting that nothing can be known with any certainty? That isn’t my point, but it is probably an implication of my views. What I am suggesting is that certainty is over-rated, and we’d all be healthier and happier if we learned to live with ambiguity. After all, at the end of the day, isn’t how God thinks of us and what God knows about us more important than what we think we know about God?