Revelation
Deeply disturbed the other day, I cannot shake what was said by a professor of mine in a systematic theology class. The topic of the week was revelation, and in talking about it, one first had to set clear a definition of 'faith.' And what is faith, you might ask. Faith is not living a certain lifestyle; it is not making the choice to believe a certain way; it arrives out of an intuitive knowledge...
This is about the time when I tuned out in class and began thinking about how I was going to explain to future Christian congregations about the intuitive knowledge they are supposed to be experiencing within their lives. Pragmatically, the liberation theology approach presented in class was completely alien to me...in other words, my personal experience conflicted with the professor's. Perhaps explaining intuitive knowledge works in theory, or in terms of perhaps an artistically ambiguous metaphor, but realistically...the concept can be attributed to anyone's view of the sacred, not something inherently Christian...
Though theological discourse and evaluation is helpful for me as a Christian, and provides the ground upon which I stand, argue, and tread through life...it is not the only kind of discourse worldwide that discusses ontological, epistemological, and teleological questions...
Do I have an intuitive knowledge that I would call faith? Let's talk about it...
John Calvin suggests that naturally, human beings all have an intuitive knowledge of inferiority in that we cannot live without making mistakes and sinning. Schleiermacher suggests that every individual person has an a priori dependency on God. Karl Barth echoes such. However, in reading this dogma in the canon of tradition that is often referred to in theological discourse, I find a theocentric foundation tainting interpretation of the human condition based upon the canon of Scripture that bears witness to the special revelation that is Jesus Christ. Thus, faith, and the intuitive knowledge that feeds one's existential perception of self, arrives partially from a tradition whose interpretation has remained close to various core Christian tenets. In the history of Christianity, the story is not quite so frictionless.
First, Scripture is an issue I still struggle with...Just how much authority should Christians place in it? It is a human document, though I might add it could be divinely inspired, but nevertheless written by human beings...and not all at one time. In fact, we have no original manuscripts of Scripture texts...we have scribal renditions that were perhaps copies in which scribes were only learning to copy the sacred texts. The oldest text scholars have has scratch-outs and comments made in margins scorning other scribes for making a few alterations. But how many alterations have been made since the original. Throughout history, the Scriptural documents have been copied countless times moving farther and farther away from what the original probably said. How then are we reading the word of God, when the word of God has been redacted to fit the socioeconomic paradigms of early Christian communities? How can we get back to the original text, as textual critics, to the actual word of God that witnesses to Jesus Christ. Also, problematic to my interpretation is the degrees of freedom in which canon translators have operated. There are trinitarian references that seem not to belong, there is inclusive language that does not follow, especially in Paul's letters. His use of the greek term, 'adelphos', referring to 'brothers', is now translated as 'brothers and sisters' in various biblical translations. But further, in learning Greek and Hebrew there are countless Greek terms that translators are unsure of and so make redaction decisions to fill in the blank...
There is definitely more to Scripture than receives attention, and for many Christians to ignore such, and rather take the comfort in ignorance of the text merely stating its divine status seems a bit scary to me...Based on my experience in study, in prayer and reflection, in worship, in day-to-day activities, Christianity is a self-reflective, self-critical religion. When experience does not agree with Scripture and tradition, then perhaps Scriptural tenets need to be reinterpreted for the context in which they are being applied. Here I think feminist theologians have been very helpful in noting the significance of personal experience.
I critically reflect upon my faith commitment every day of my life...who knows I might learn something. But that faith commitment is based upon the tradition, family, and other conditioning devices that have influenced my life. If all were to die tomorrow from an asteroid crashing into earth, would future humanity embrace traditional Christian tenets? What would humanity do without the sacred texts referring to Christ? Would Christians still be Christian without it? Sometimes I think Scripture itself becomes an idol, something I don't think God really intented.
Also in class, I have a real problem in talking about the Spirit of God...many suggest that the Spirit moves us to do things, clandestinely whispering in our ears its sustaining manna. And I can follow this for a while...but where then can the line be drawn? I'm sure Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others would suggest to be moved by the Spirit to act as they did. Should one go into the ministry when the community in which they worship believes that person to be unfit? Referring to the Spirit working in my life is something I will always cringe to at times given my unfit condition in which to judge how the Spirit so acts.
Getting back to what I originally was concerned about, the intuitive knowledge that is spoken of in conjunction with faith, can be an interpretion of an a priori human epistemological faculty that particular communities ascribe different dennotative and connotative characteristics in conjunction with the sacred. In other words, the sense of God, natural revelation, universally felt by all (according to John Calvin), is an interpretation of the mysterious human condition, out of which the sacred is born and takes on a life of its own...
This is about the time when I tuned out in class and began thinking about how I was going to explain to future Christian congregations about the intuitive knowledge they are supposed to be experiencing within their lives. Pragmatically, the liberation theology approach presented in class was completely alien to me...in other words, my personal experience conflicted with the professor's. Perhaps explaining intuitive knowledge works in theory, or in terms of perhaps an artistically ambiguous metaphor, but realistically...the concept can be attributed to anyone's view of the sacred, not something inherently Christian...
Though theological discourse and evaluation is helpful for me as a Christian, and provides the ground upon which I stand, argue, and tread through life...it is not the only kind of discourse worldwide that discusses ontological, epistemological, and teleological questions...
Do I have an intuitive knowledge that I would call faith? Let's talk about it...
John Calvin suggests that naturally, human beings all have an intuitive knowledge of inferiority in that we cannot live without making mistakes and sinning. Schleiermacher suggests that every individual person has an a priori dependency on God. Karl Barth echoes such. However, in reading this dogma in the canon of tradition that is often referred to in theological discourse, I find a theocentric foundation tainting interpretation of the human condition based upon the canon of Scripture that bears witness to the special revelation that is Jesus Christ. Thus, faith, and the intuitive knowledge that feeds one's existential perception of self, arrives partially from a tradition whose interpretation has remained close to various core Christian tenets. In the history of Christianity, the story is not quite so frictionless.
First, Scripture is an issue I still struggle with...Just how much authority should Christians place in it? It is a human document, though I might add it could be divinely inspired, but nevertheless written by human beings...and not all at one time. In fact, we have no original manuscripts of Scripture texts...we have scribal renditions that were perhaps copies in which scribes were only learning to copy the sacred texts. The oldest text scholars have has scratch-outs and comments made in margins scorning other scribes for making a few alterations. But how many alterations have been made since the original. Throughout history, the Scriptural documents have been copied countless times moving farther and farther away from what the original probably said. How then are we reading the word of God, when the word of God has been redacted to fit the socioeconomic paradigms of early Christian communities? How can we get back to the original text, as textual critics, to the actual word of God that witnesses to Jesus Christ. Also, problematic to my interpretation is the degrees of freedom in which canon translators have operated. There are trinitarian references that seem not to belong, there is inclusive language that does not follow, especially in Paul's letters. His use of the greek term, 'adelphos', referring to 'brothers', is now translated as 'brothers and sisters' in various biblical translations. But further, in learning Greek and Hebrew there are countless Greek terms that translators are unsure of and so make redaction decisions to fill in the blank...
There is definitely more to Scripture than receives attention, and for many Christians to ignore such, and rather take the comfort in ignorance of the text merely stating its divine status seems a bit scary to me...Based on my experience in study, in prayer and reflection, in worship, in day-to-day activities, Christianity is a self-reflective, self-critical religion. When experience does not agree with Scripture and tradition, then perhaps Scriptural tenets need to be reinterpreted for the context in which they are being applied. Here I think feminist theologians have been very helpful in noting the significance of personal experience.
I critically reflect upon my faith commitment every day of my life...who knows I might learn something. But that faith commitment is based upon the tradition, family, and other conditioning devices that have influenced my life. If all were to die tomorrow from an asteroid crashing into earth, would future humanity embrace traditional Christian tenets? What would humanity do without the sacred texts referring to Christ? Would Christians still be Christian without it? Sometimes I think Scripture itself becomes an idol, something I don't think God really intented.
Also in class, I have a real problem in talking about the Spirit of God...many suggest that the Spirit moves us to do things, clandestinely whispering in our ears its sustaining manna. And I can follow this for a while...but where then can the line be drawn? I'm sure Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh and others would suggest to be moved by the Spirit to act as they did. Should one go into the ministry when the community in which they worship believes that person to be unfit? Referring to the Spirit working in my life is something I will always cringe to at times given my unfit condition in which to judge how the Spirit so acts.
Getting back to what I originally was concerned about, the intuitive knowledge that is spoken of in conjunction with faith, can be an interpretion of an a priori human epistemological faculty that particular communities ascribe different dennotative and connotative characteristics in conjunction with the sacred. In other words, the sense of God, natural revelation, universally felt by all (according to John Calvin), is an interpretation of the mysterious human condition, out of which the sacred is born and takes on a life of its own...
posted by Timcom at 3:08 PM
1 Comments:
faith is the firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence towards us, founded upon the freely given promise of Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit." Calvin did have a way with words....Yeah, our teacher made us memorize this, because most other theologians say the say thing or a part of the same thing in their definition of faith.
I notice that in many blog entry's you refer to feminist theologians. I do agree in your conclusions for the most part, but the absence of other types of theologians should be noted. Eco-theologians have much to say about creation, even to the extent that it is an extension of the incarnation.
Post a Comment
<< Home