Post Tenebras Lux

The Art of Imperious Ignorance

This article discusses the argument of lack of clarity in the Bible when responding to theological arguments that one does not agree with. Ovey draws parallels to a similar argument made in the pro-Arian Creed. Such an argument has the appearance of humility, but does not only declare ignorance for oneself but also for everyone else: a “Compulsory Ignorance Act.” The argument also as an appearance of value neutrality or being undogmatic, but often stems from an agenda of some sort. It provides the freedom to act as one individually desires without needing a theological argument.

When encountering this argument, it may be helpful to ask how clear the Bible needs to be, or what would make it more clear. It’s also important to distinguish between subjective ignorance and universal ignorance; it can be truly humble to admit that other may understand something that you don’t, which is different from the claim that nobody could possibly understand.

Quotes

  • The argument for imperious (assuming authority without justification) ignorance.

    The Bible is unclear, it is said, and so we must be content not to know. We must be ignorant.
  • Perhaps I should be more ready to adapt another of Hilary’s thoughts, that when faced with God’s revelation in the Bible, I should point less to a defect in the text (lack of clarity) but more to a defect in my understanding (subjective limits). Perhaps we should be less certain that parts of Scripture are ‘uncertain’.