Review of "Loving To Know"

A Must Read for Christian Thinkers

Esther Meek, a philosophy professor at Geneva College, continues the philosophical work of Michael Polyani by positing what she terms as “covenant epistemology.” She deals with the Platonic inspired Menno problem of how does anyone ever come to know? Instead of seeing a dichotomy between knowledge and belief, and isolating knowledge, facts, reason, theory, science, objectivity and the neutral public sphere, Meek offers a way to look at the process of knowing that involves belief, opinion, values, morals, faith, religion, emotion, art, body, practical application, imagination, authority and femaleness as “sizeable, critical portions of who we are.” Rather than the default mode of knowing seeking objective certainty, therefore, Meek sees knowing as “being on the way,” as yet to be discovered. Knowing is covenantal and relational, interpersonal, seeking an avenue of inquiry and conversation that brings transformation. She says that “understanding knowing as a dynamic, transformative integration restores adventure, emotion, the responsible commitment of belief to all knowing. In this it reunites science and art, science and religion. Responsible belief is the epistemic act.” “Polanyian epistemology,” she notes, “in recasting science and religion as fundamentally similar, resuscitates and transforms the practice of both.” She says we need “epistemological therapy” in our understanding of knowing anything.

Her 500+ page study invites the reader, Christian or not, to the process of human knowing as stewardly, covenant response to knowing God. Theologically, Meek seeks to integrate her idea of covenant epistemology with the Reformed and Van Tillian presuppositional tradition through John Frame’s “servant thinking.” I find Meek’s proposal challenging and interesting. Yet, a question that it raised for me as a Christian theologian and pastor is, Is there a difference between the “knowing” of an unbeliever and that of a person saved and converted by Christ? The Bible calls such a person a “new creation” with “being made new in the attitude of your mind.” Does this have an impact on how he or she “knows”? A second question would be, Is God himself absolute truth, and if so, does the biblical revelation frame what is true and what is false?

I recommend this book to the reader looking for an alternative way of knowing that integrates what we so often separate and dichotomize in our daily lives.

Some More on Meek . . .

I have enjoyed Meek’s thoroughness as a Christian philosopher, and her interactions with Frame, Loder, Williams, Newbigin, Palmer and others. She imports into “covenant epistemology” what she can profitably use and gives credit to where credit is due these philosophers. I like her interactions with the world of Christian scholarship, including Dooyeweerdianism and the Kuyper school of thought, Van Til, Plantinga — "Covenant epistemology offers a helpful philosophical awareness to Christian theologians and a helpful theological awareness to philosophers. It therefore offers a rapprochement, and a positive rationale for continuing together along the scholarly way.” I tend to agree with her that covenant epistemology “more profoundly resonates with John Calvin’s own heart, theology and epistemic practice.” (Which, no doubt, other scholars would disagree.)

I think, however, she is too generous with her view of “coming to know” in the unsaved, nonChristian world. True, this is deducted from the theological concept of common grace, but to say that “rebellion” against God in knowledge and philosophy is merely people “on the way” to God is too much. My question remains — Is there a difference between the “knowing” of an unbeliever and that of a person saved or converted by Christ? What Paul and other NT writers say is that a believer is a “new creation” with a “new mind” as well as a new heart. The old “man” is gone along with the mental rebellion. Meek seems to miss this concept of “newness” in Christ in her epistemology.

I believe that part of her journey also presuppositionally moves her to accept Polyani’s thesis about knowing, making knowledge a “dynamic” interpersonal and “coming to know” type of thing. She says — "Also, growing up as a Protestant Christian, I presumed the dichotomies, and thus struggled, as many people considering Christianity do, to figure out whether my faith is rational or not, certain or not, and which of these is in fact preferable. I struggled with the effects of the default that still characterizes Christian churches: is theology, or even Scripture, propositions, over against my personal relationship with God, which is—what?” She resists biblical propositions, linking them to the false dichotomies she talks about, between knowledge and faith. However, a personal relationship with Jesus is not merely an existential dynamism, but an acceptance of the written Word of God and the teaching of the Savior, propositional teaching and revelation.

I like the fact she has done her “homework,” so to speak, in interacting with numerous philosophers and writers. Perhaps she will get an “audience” with them, but I highly doubt so. I learned a long time ago in graduate theological study that unbelieving philosophers and writers and theologians pay little to no attention to conservative, Bible based Christian writings.