to feel

A professor and philosopher named John Vervaeke has developed a framework called the “4P Metatheory of Cognition.” He uses four terms to explain four different ways we measure what we know and how we know it: Propositional knowledge, procedural knowledge, perspectival knowledge, and participatory knowledge. I have been thinking about these four terms a lot and how they relate to our faith; this will serve as the framework for a four-part series leading up to The Bible180 Challenge 2025. (Nearly 600 people have already joined the wait list to read with us! I can’t wait!)

Read the first post in this series here, and the second post here.


The third term in Vervaeke’s theory is where—for me, at least—things get interesting: perspectival knowledge.

Most of Christianity is very comfortable with knowing and doing. Reciting a creed is, in many traditions, a weekly portion of the liturgy; and what is the Christian faith if not doing something, by following Jesus and obeying God’s commands?

But we often put a hard stop on the next step of knowledge, which I’ll summarize as feeling.

In fact, I would venture to say that for most of my life, I’ve measured the rightness of my knowledge by how well-stripped it is of feeling. Knowledge, I thought, ought to be purely objective, pure logic. We assent to what is true because it’s true. We do what is right because it’s right. To hell with feelings, those deceptive devils!

But as I meditate on the different ways we can know, I begin to see perspectival knowledge not necessarily as a baser, more carnal kind of knowing but as a deeper, more real kind of knowing. If we began with knowing in theory (propositional knowledge) and then stepped into knowing in action (procedural knowledge), the next natural movement in the progression is toward knowing in perspective; knowing from having felt something related, or walked in similar shoes. If we’ve learned the “what” and the “how,” this is the “what it’s like.”

To return to the example of previous posts: How does my perspective as both a child and a parent inform my knowledge of God as my Heavenly Father? How does knowing what it’s like to have children of my own change the way I approach this doctrine?

I can hear my inner 30 years of history with the proposition-heavy, Sola Scriptura church protesting already: “What does it matter what it’s like for me—a fallen person—to be a parent? How can that possibly have any bearing on what it means for God to be a Father? How can using my own flawed and limited experience to understand the truth be anything but corrupt?”

To which I gently respond:

God did not have to portray Himself primarily as a father (or mother, as He also sometimes does in Scripture). He could have chosen Ruler, Dictator, Sovereign, Bully, Friend, or literally anything else He wanted. The terminology is for our benefit, not His. He knows who He is; His choice of characterizations is designed to help us, in our much-smaller human worldviews, understand some measure of Himself.

And He chose to portray Himself as a parent of children—not just of His only begotten Son, but also of the human race He created in His own image.

I don’t know what it’s like to be God—omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, or omni-anything. But I know what it’s like to be the mother of two young children, whose care is my greatest responsibility and whose discipleship is my highest calling.

In motherhood, I’ve found that I know what it’s like to love someone else so completely and viscerally that you would suffer or die to rescue and protect them, as God has done for us. His sacrifice seems perfectly fitting for a father on behalf of His children; the delightfully surprising part is that I’m His child, not that He would do such a thing.

In motherhood, I’ve found that I cannot assent to certain doctrines. Knowing God as my Father through the lens of knowing what it’s like to be a mother has, for example, taken the theology of hyper-Calvinism off the table. It would be morally abhorrent, not to mention beyond unnatural, for me to choose only one of my children as my own while completely and permanently rejecting the other. And I don’t think I am more moral or more in tune with nature than God, the Creator of both humanity and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from which my ancestors ate.

In motherhood, I’ve found that I learn more about how to be a child with childlike faith daily. My daughters show me tremendous trust and dependence day in and day out. They find peace, love, and joy just by being with me and learning from me. This is what it looks like to live as a citizen of the kingdom of heaven!

In feeling—in knowing what something is like—we not only know deeper, we step closer to childlikeness. Though a toddler may be cognitively incapable of assenting to abstract doctrines and a baby may be physically incapable of acting out their faith, both can feel and make connections to their own experiences. That’s why storytelling and role-playing are such effective teaching tools across peoples and generations. They are the exact same tools God uses to teach us His immense truths in Scripture.

The Bible is sacred, ancient, complex, and profound. But it’s also a story in which God has often assumed the role of Heavenly Father, making space for us to step into the role of His children. This is intentional. It allows us to come to the Scriptures safely from our human perspective and learn more than a creed and more than a set of commandments.

It allows us to learn who He is, on His own terms.

truth and beauty

I wish I had music in my soul. It seems easier to put voice to it all that way, to put the hard unbeautiful words into some beautiful form that goes down easier. You can say more while saying less and the critics are too busy nitpicking the sound to go hard against the lyrics.

Plain words in a plain paragraph form, like this, leave nowhere to hide. I tell you what I think and wait to be torn to shreds for it. I write prose for the same reason people write poetry, but without the poetic form to excuse my emotion as “art.” Mine will be dismissed as the emotions of a weak vessel, but if this were a song the emotions would be considered its life force.

The feelings are allowed in art.

No wonder art has lost its place in church.

There’s at least some small exodus from Evangelicalism, Inc., with its warehouse buildings and windowless sanctuaries, back into traditions that lean into rhyme, rhythm, color, and beauty along with the truth. To my surprise, I have joined it.

If you follow my life in a timeline of the churches I’ve been part of, you’ll find that I followed the light: from four different windowless warehouses with bare walls to migrating into the well-lit foyer to, finally, sitting down every week in a cozy former synagogue with tall windows down each side, sunlight pouring generously in. There are small reproduced paintings in between the window frames depicting various Biblical scenes, and colorful banners hang on the walls. The altar is draped in rich fabric according to the liturgical season. Candles flicker. It’s humble, and it’s beautiful.

The feelings are allowed in beauty.

Truth and beauty are two of my highest values, but they’ve always felt at odds with each other. In this culture, we use phrases like “the awful truth” or “the ugly truth”—the thing nobody wants to hear, but somebody has to be brave enough to say. Those who offend with the truth get recognition. For several years, I tried this tactic on for size in my own writing, and it worked; it got a lot of comments and shares and traffic. It felt like I was doing something that mattered.

But it was ugly. Marked by pride, flattery, ego, and conflict. Even if everything I wrote was true, very little of it was honest.

Honesty is where truth and beauty find overlap.

The feelings are allowed in honesty.

In the realm of Christianity I’ve spent the most time in, there is this unspoken idea that the only really-true truth is the one that has been stripped of every element of life. “Real” truth, Truth with a capital T, should sound like a mathematical fact or a scientific law: black and white and unarguable and entirely dismissive of complicating factors like God or relationship or humanity.

Any emotion or soul or spirit—even the Holy Spirit Himself—renders a truth-claim suspect.

It’s idiotic, really. We were made human, in the image of God, only to attempt to become robots in how we discern what is true. We’ve made a sort of idol out of certainty—out of being able to believe a “fact” simply because “God said so,” without regard for the creative evidence both within us and without us that screams our facts are at best incomplete. Our truth is not honest.

If we are honest, humans were created for beauty. Humans are wired for emotions. Humans thrive in relationship. If we’re honest, relationships and emotions are some of the messiest and grayest areas of life. You can’t slap a mathematical fact or a scientific law on any of it. It’s just too unpredictable.

To me, that’s why it’s beautiful.

It’s a glimpse of God at work—glorious, fierce, incomprehensible. It’s a reminder that I am not in control and I don’t get to tell Him who He is. It’s walking under the trees in a whipping wind while the sky roils with thunderheads, or lying in the grass with the sun on your face and the thin buzz of honeybees all around. It’s the familiar rhythm of spring rolling into summer or the phases of the moon, punctuated by the chaos of invisible solar storms or devastating natural disasters.

There is order and there is chaos. There is truth and there is beauty. There is body and there is emotion. There is what we know and a whole universe of what we don’t know at all.

Honesty—the space where truth and beauty overlap—is what I see at the heart of the exodus from warehouse to window-light. I, for one, am worn out by robotic certainty and “the ugly truth,” because I know that the honest truth, the truth that holds space for the divine as well as the human, is beautiful.

God is beautiful and the maker of beauty. God is true and the standard of truth. My job, as His image-bearer and witness, is honesty.