TRY AGAIN JONES
Dear Editor,
I am sympathetic with the general nature of Doug Jones's concerns as expressed in "Knowing is Doing" (the sexy issue). I have never been content with the Reformed tradition's emphasis on the intellect, nor have I found appealing the rationalism present in many Reformed systematics. I'm not sure if Plato and Locke were given the fairest shake in Jones's article, but my criticism is meant to be directed to what I believe to be a much more fundamental flaw. To assume that the question of the nature of knowledge is simply the question of what we take knowledge to be in general is to assume that the word "knowledge" must refer to one unified and privileged reality. But this is most definitely a false assumption. We use such a word to refer to various and quite distinct realities in the world. We know that pigs can't jump fences. I know my best friend fairly well. I do not know what it is like to be a bat. And, perhaps, I know how to refute Doug Jones. All these different kinds of knowing are very unique and easily distinguished from one another. For example, can you think of one instance of knowing which can be referred to in both the knowing that, and knowing how manner? Our minds cannot put words together even creatively or poetically to blend the two realities (I dare you). One refers to a belief, and the other refers to the ability to physically do something in the world. If Doug Jones's concern is legitmate, at least generally, it must be stated in a different way. Those guilty of diminishing body, matter, and imagination, are not guilty of defining "knowledge" wrongly, but are guilty of demeaning many different kinds of knowledge. If Locke wishes to talk about knowing that, then let him. As for wise Christians, we know that (!) there are many more important kinds of knowledge that demand our scholarly attention. Michael Metzler
Escondido, CA

Douglas Jones replies: Well, dares are always fun. Michael Metzler assures us that all these knowledges are "unique and very easily distinguished," but he doesn't actually distinguish any for us. We do get a "dare argument," though, to provide just one instance of knowing that is both"that" and "how." But his dare can be answered by any of the examples he himself gives, since even thin "knowing thats" are bodily events. Notice that the very sort of dichotomy he claims to join me in opposing sneaks out in his sharp dualism between the mind and body: `knowing that' "refers to a belief and the other refers to the ability to physically do something in the world." This assumes that holding a belief doesn't involve anything physical in the world. Where, then, are these other-wordly beliefs taking place? Mine happen in my body. They don't occur in some vacuum-sealed mental realm untouched by body. Mind and body intertwine. Beliefs occur in our bodies, and we learn how to "grasp" and "hold" and "support" beliefs having learned to live these metaphors through bodily interaction. Even figuring out what warrants are good or bad requires habits tested through doing. "Knowing that" takes practice; it's an acquired habit, though much thinner, easier, and less important than other knowledge habits.

RUN AWAY!
Dear Editors,
In Vol 13.2, "Judas was a Bishop," your covenantal paradigm of accepting "these liberal gentlemen as fellow Christians, and then fight them to the death" is not an adequate biblical model. Surely, does not our Bible in Romans 16:17, 18 tell us to separate from false teachers? If a believer is in an assembly where teaching is going on against apostolic doctrine, do we not have biblical warrant to separate from these people? Jonathan S. Sceggel
Elgin, IL

Editor's Reply: We should separate ourselves from false teachers through fighting and booting them, not through taking our ball and running home to our mothers.

I'M A BABDIST
Dear Editors,
Thank you for your excellent magazine. Although I do not always agree, I find I almost always agree.