I wanted to sketch out the rest of my thoughts on "sources of truth" for later filling in.
1. First, the three major sources of revelation for a Christian are 1) Scripture, 2) Christian tradition or the Church, and 3) direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.
2. Surely Christians would also agree that reason and our senses (or experience) are sources of truth as well. We might call these sources of discovered truth rather than sources of revealed truth. So we can reason our way to truths of math. If a right triangle has smaller sides a and b, we can reasonably conclude that the longest side measures the square root of a + b.
Similarly, I have personally learned that it hurts to break a finger. Western culture is primarily oriented around the use of the senses to discover truth. It is a culture of science and experimentation.
Throughout history there have been extreme examples of rationalists (Plato) and empiricists (Hume), but both extremes are inappropriate. On the one hand, our culture pushes us to recognize how strange it would be to say that reason apart from the experiences of our senses is the sole source of truth. Where we need convincing is to see that it is absurd also to say that our senses apart from reason are the sole source of truth.
I cannot experience the future. It is always something I am about to experience. In that sense, my senses alone cannot tell me what will happen if I jump off a cliff. It is my reason that connects that as yet unexperienced action to my past experience.
These things were well captured by Kant--the content of my knowledge may come through my senses, but the structure I give to that content is a function of my mind. This situation eventually leads to the postmodern question, for since I do not understand the world apart from my mind's organization of its input, how do I know that the organization of my mind is in fact true?
3. As we contemplate revelatory sources of truth like Scripture, Christian tradition, and the Holy Spirit, how does our reason and sense experience relate to them? Can I appropriate revealed truth without the operation of reason and experience?
The best candidate for revelation that does not involve any reasoning or sense experience would be a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. Of course, as soon as I put that revelation in language, I have used human reason. Perhaps there was some pre-verbal "umph" to Noah that involved only the tiniest bit of reason to put into the form: "God wants me to build an ark." The danger of course of such revelation is to make sure that it is, in fact, revelation from God and not from breakfast.
The use of the Bible--apart from individual "umphs" from the Holy Spirit that alight from the words of the text directly to me--involves vast and overwhelming amounts of reason. First I must define the words and contruct meaning from sentence structure. Then I must compile the meanings of sentences into the broader meanings of discourses.
Then I must map the meanings of one part of the Bible to the other parts. And I must also consider the difference between the many different ancient contexts of the Bible and my context today. All these operations require overwhelming amounts of reasoning, and of course it is no wonder that we have tens of thousands of different Christian groups with differing interpretations. The appropriation of the Bible is probably the most unstable and reason-laden operations of knowledge mentioned in this chapter.
By the same token, the common beliefs of Christianity are extremely stable. It approximately amounts to polling all the Christians who have lived for the last 2000 years. What do they say about the Trinity? It is an overwhelmingly clear affirmation. What do they say about our existence between death and resurrection? Again, they answer in the affirmative. It is the control of the Church that keeps a Scripture only group from becoming a cult.
4. So what is the appropriate relationship between revealed truth and discovered truth? We can mention three principal options:
a. "I understand in order to believe."
Josh McDowell, C. S. Lewis, the apologists, Abelard, Aquinas
The evidence demands the verdict of what we believe. Revelation is extremely reasonable.
b. "I believe in order to understand."
Anselm, Pascal, Barth
Faith seeks understanding, but if you don't start with faith in your reasoning, you are just as likely to go astray.
c. Faith is blind faith, irrational
Kierkegaard
Perhaps we might be able to place various Christian beliefs in each one of these categories?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In Craig Dykstra's "Vision and Character", he asserts that moral transformation happens, indeed, from two steps.
The first being 'discovery"...in which it involves the senses, emotions, and "an almost somatic engagement in the struggle to know clearly and rightly" (pg.81). The period is known as "struggle", but then leads to an interlude where "letting go" and waiting "happens"...then the emergence of new insight...it is a "new pattern" of imagination...where one's "worldview" (if you want to call it that) is transformed...
The second stage is "verification" where things are explored, explained and connected to other info...
I am beginning to think that this is a "life process", as long as we are open to it...where we are changed from the inside out...This is where our understanding of who we are in our religious communities is important. Religious communities must affirm what the "imagination" has imagined, otherwise, I wonder if the verification process is short-circuited...
Dykstra also talks about responsible action. He refers to Neibuhr , whose ethic of responsiblity is a form of visional ethics...We respond to an already interpreted reality. "What shall I do?" is answered by resolving the question about "What is going on?". Responsible action is a part of a drama or story.
Responsible stories foster social solidarity. Therefore, a responsible self responds to the sense of "community"... a sense of belonging...There is no scapegoat in this scenario (unless the community wants a scapegoat for their sins)!
I just came back from a talk on China and Identity....interesting...cultural identity cannot be negated when it comes to "who we are"...and religious traditions are a part of the culture of birth...
How then does Christian faith understand other faith traditions? And if our faith tradition is not based on a "Christ of culture" (religious tradition), but a "Christ above culture" (revelation)...then, how does that "look"? (I don't think we can "define" stringently)...The ethnic idenitity issues "Christ against culture" was what Paul addressed as the Gospel to the Gentile...the early church understood the "Christ in culture" as "God"...so, as Christians, it is really humanitarian aid, or public policy that represents bringing "good news"...public policy becomes a quadmire of issues when it concerns international relations...and grappling with globalization and national identity...
Angie, you must have a lot of time on your hands :)
Ken, I'd like to challenge you on the simple understanding of Kierkegaard's "faith." I realize that the popular sentiment is the "blind" leap of faith, but I have really rethought that this quarter in my Kierkegaard class. I realize this is a textbook that has to cover a wide range so it wouldn't be beneficial to delve into a huge discussion on Kierkegaard's "faith," but let me just say this...
It's not so much that faith is completely irrational, but that it will appear "absurd" to a world driven by pure rationalism and philosophical pursuits (i.e. the Danish State Church and Hegelianism of the day). Only God can bring about the leap from resignation to true faith, and when this happens, it is so utterly personal that the masses cannot interpret it. The "knight of faith" cannot describe it, and even if he could, the "world" (again, a symbol of Kierkegaard's time) would scarecely comprehend it.
It's not so much that's it's irrational, but that what is it to be "rational" is subsumed by God's command on us. In my opinion, I think this is quite Barthian at times.
Does any of this make sense?
Granted, when I go back and read the three options you have set up at the end of the post, I understand why you put Kierkegaard where you do.
It is true that "faith" has nothing to do with sound evidence, whether physical or rational--then it wouldn't be faith. I got you now.
I think Bounds has also warned me not to oversimplify Kierkegaard. He just serves so well to give a name to an extreme position :-)
I promise you, however, that before this thing goes to press I will make sure I haven't skewed him too much :-)
Well, it's easy to do. I've read through 3 of his books this quarter, and at times I just scratch my head. Stories of Greek Mermen and Agamemnon mixed with slaps at Hegel. Then you have to sort through his psuedonyms and figure out what is of Soren and what is of Johannes de Silentio
But at other times, I'm drawn into this "strange world of the text" (what that Barth?) where God can grab a hold of me again and wake me from my academic poking and prodding of Himself. It's been quite a good quarter!
Post a Comment