In conjunction with my previous 2 posts, I was reminded of this post which I titled, but never wrote. It is something I have been thinking about for a while and maybe now see a bit better, or feel a bit stronger, what I meant when I thought it up.
There is something in each of us, in my opinion - part of what it means to be made in the image of God, that wants to be known. This is almost certainly bound up with (if not the same as) the desire to be loved. This is perhaps the great common denominator of humanity - the search and desire to have others truly know us.
Social networking, in fact, all forms of communication, are tools which, to greater or lesser extents, assist this process. We talk, chat, text, share, link, and otherwise connect to know and be known. We long for connection - for those times when, in pregnant expectation, we reach out in communication to another and find common ground, affirmation, validation, appreciation, value, and mutuality. It is a powerful and empowering thing to feel and now that you are not alone.
But for all the tools at our disposal, I don’t think many are experiencing what they long for - what they were created for. Many more, I am afraid, end up convincing themselves that their superficial avenues of connectedness are in fact, the best anyone can hope for in this day and age. Or perhaps worse yet, people are so scared of actually being known that this is where they end up living - in a shallow state of community and connectedness that allows they to remain finally hidden.
There is no substitute for authentic, face-to-face, life-on-life, warts-and-all, community and connectedness. And it’s a huge risk to go there. It takes patience, sacrifice, discipline, courage and vulnerability - all of which are rare virtues in a culture stripped of its need of those traits (one can get by today without them with relative ease).
I am increasingly convinced that one of the greatest opportunities presented to the church in Western culture today is that of cultivating communities and disciples whose character reflects these virtues. How often do we talk about creating a patient community or vulnerable disciples? If these sort of virtues really are the sort that make it possible for us to know others and be known by others - and if doing so is analogous to knowing and being known by God, then surely these ought to be among our chief concerns.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Jason // May 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm
<p>Good thoughts JR. I’ve been thinking about these issues a great deal over the past year. It’s fun to play at the extremes…</p><p>For example, by logical extension, body language alone wouldn’t provide “full communication.” For that one would need physical touch. And perhaps casual physical touch isn’t actually full communication, since Gen 2 tells us that it’s the sexual act that facilitates the unity of two becoming one. So does that mean friends and partners of all kids must engage in eroticism to consummate genuine relationships? I have friends in Utah that would say yes. (Seriously).<br></p><p>Conversely, what about those who because of their limitations can’t experience these things? Is the blind person unable to experience full human interaction because they’re deprived of visual body language cues, or the deaf person because of lack of intonation? What of those even more severely handicapped?<br></p><p>All of this really does cut to the heart of the question, “what is man/woman? (or existence, I suppose),” the answer to which would enable us to in turn answer the question, “at what point do we make contact?” </p><p>Interestingly, Buber agreed that all genuine human existence resided between persons in authentic engagement, but he pointed out that signs or language - that is, “warts and all” - are hindrances as often as they were helps in such an interaction. In fact, he went so far as to claim that signs/language weren’t necessary for such “dialogue,” referring instead to the, “silence which is communication.”</p><p>Anyway…fun stuff. Thanks for stirring me up about this again. </p>
2 JR Rozko // May 10, 2008 at 9:37 am
Some great further thoughts Jason, thanks. Sadly, I would say that the disabled (the blind, deaf, etc.) are indeed deprived of full human communication, but this doesn’t make them less human in anyway. To be human runs far deeper than the ability to participate in full commuication. And I might even go so far as to agree with your friend in Utah - that the fullest expression of connection and deeplyintitmate communication happens in physical union, but this doesn’t for a mement mean that this is the appropriate level of conection for each and every person (though wasn’t it Augustine who talked about the way in which this is would be the sort of conection we would have with all on the other side of this life?). And yeah, much can be communicated in and through silence. I really ned to read more Buber!
3 JR Rozko // May 10, 2008 at 9:37 am
and what’s with all the html code in your comment - is that just how you communicate fully
4 Jason // May 10, 2008 at 10:10 am
Sorry, I think it’s a Safari bug. I have the same problem with my Wordpress back end. Buber is fun to read in light of the whole east/west monism/dualism debate, which, I think, is still highly relevant - especially in a world so influenced by Oprah : ) I wonder lately if Buber’s concept of dialogue offers a promising way to understand Christian unity afresh, and even use it as means of bridging the divide in that debate (though no self-respecting Buddhist would ever accept “I-Thou” language). But now I’ve strayed pretty far from the social networking topic! Anyway, I just find it to be an interesting and important topic. Again, thanks for brining it up.
5 Kyle // May 13, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Dude, I reckon a bit of Shults’ thought might supplement your reasoning here. Namely, his espousal of biological and anthropological research and his employment of it in his notion of the imago Dei.
Shults articulates that the imago Dei is the desire in every human being to know and be known by someone or something (Reforming Theological Anthropology, ch. 8). Christians have intuited (or been shown by God) that this desire is reserved for the infinite God who is the only being who can infinitely satiate it through communion i.e., the Trinity and the those who participate in God - the Church. Shults doesn’t spend much ink on it but intimates that those who do not locate their desire in God and God’s communion will not “fulfill” their image, if you will, and will inevitably either deplete the resources of the other being they are seeking to know and be known by or they will deplete their own resources because the other cannot satiate their desire (His other work, Faces of Forgiveness proffers how this could be practiced as an ecclesiology.)
I don’t know if this assists your reasoning but know this: LeRon is on your side.
Hope all is well. Miss you brother.
6 JR Rozko // May 13, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Love it - dude is a smart guy. And soon, very soon, the student shall be thy master.
7 Sarah Christoph // Jun 2, 2008 at 9:50 am
I’m late in responding- but somehow I overlooked this particular blog. I just wanted to add to the thoughts being expressed by pointing out a personal experience. My sons, Aidan and Ethan have autism and therefore are limited to babbling or one sylable words at most. As they have gotten older I notice that they grow more and more affectionate, more and more wanting to be held and kissed. It seems other children there age with full communication ability for their age are growing less affectionate (past the “baby” stage) and I believe it is because they are more dependant on there ability to talk. My kids use affection not only when they feel affectionate, but when they feel anything or want to communicate something to me. As a result I am more affectionate as well because this is their “language” I find that going without affection myself is harder to do now than when I was a kid. And I don’t fully understand this. Anyway… no real point to make- just an observation.
8 JR Rozko // Jun 2, 2008 at 9:56 am
And a beautiful observation it is. Lots of cool insights to be gleaned from what you are saying here Sarah, thanks.
Leave a Comment