I’ve been considering a conversation I was in the middle of a little while ago. It was a difficult, long, convoluted conversation that gave me a headache. It’s one particular part of that conversation that has stuck with me.

In the conversation I made a veiled confession and it was pounced on because it was a moment of weakness.

This particular part of the conversation (the topic isn’t important) revolved around how we understand Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Once again I love how The Message renders it “And now I’m going to tell you who you are, really are. You are Peter, a rock. This is the rock on which I will put together my Church, a Church so expansive with energy that not even the gates of hell will be able to keep it out.” The disagreement we were having was around how the words “and on this rock I will build my Church” are to be understood. I see the possibility of the rock in those particular words being a reference to Peter, to Jesus, or both at once.

What’s great about the passage is that however you understand it, it was being declared at Caesarea Philippi. It was a place that was central for much worship of pagan gods. There were temples there, sacrifices were made regularly and the center of attention was a cave with a large opening and a spring within. This cave was considered to be the grotto of Pan and the ‘gates of Hades’. Standing in that place, possibly right in front of that cave, with pagan temples surrounding them and sacrifices to other gods taking place, Jesus was declared to be the promised Saviour and He openly declared that Hades would be weak in the face of his Church. Brilliant!

That’s beside the point though, the point was that I openly said I didn’t know which way those words of Jesus were to be understood. Was it specifically a reference to Peter, himself or both when he mentioned building the Church on a rock? It can be understood any of those ways and I can’t say for certain which way – and I’m ok with the ambiguity. Each possibility works and has its strength.

In the conversation that moment of unknowing was pounced on as less than acceptable. I’m ok with that person not accepting my lack of ‘knowing’ but I’m also ok with my ambiguity on the passage.

I confess, I used to be a real know-all and still am in many respects. It fueled my ego and my talk-back show on radio back in the day. I lived with a high degree of certainty about many things. Early last year much of that certainty of knowledge was ripped away and in its place there is something more ambiguous, fluid and uncertain. My faith, while still having dogmatic elements, is much less dogmatic than it used to be but a whole lot more dynamic.

In the uncertainty a lot of my self-assured way of being and the arrogance that would go with it has been torn away. In having torn it away I’ve become less reliant on my own driving force and feel like I’ve drawn nearer to God… because I’ve had to. I still think I’ve got an over inflated ego, but hopefully it is being diminished and shaped into something more reflective of Jesus as time goes by. Through that journey I’ve discovered my own cloud of unknowing and realized there is so much I can’t fathom. In the words of Job I’ve discovered that “I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”

The further I go, the less I know and the bigger God gets. The more I discover how small I am, the more I wonder and marvel at Him. The more the know-all part of me gets out of the way and I get comfortable with saying “I don’t know”, the better.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.