Revelation without Holy Writ
The question of revelation is very important today. Many of the traditions are grappling with how to regard scripture. Is it holy writ in the sense of God “dictating” to the prophets? This seems to be the approach taken by conservative traditions where scripture is considered inerrant. If scripture is not a direct transmission from God how can it be revelatory?
With the advent of in-depth examination of scriptures (historical-critical method) it has become apparent that scriptures are very human documents. They contain errors, contradictions, various theologies and many of the books were written by more than one person over long gaps in time. If scriptures are human documents and not something where God dittled with neurons and dendrites, how is revelation possible?
It seems to me that the only alternative is to view scripture as just one more (very special) example of natural theology. By this I mean the revelation of God is not something that falls from the sky, but something that constantly emerges in the natural occurences of life: in personal refection, historical events, the beauty and order of the world, as well as the chaos and destructive forces that are at play. If God is the ground of reality, then revelation of God can be found in everything that occurs.
Now critics of religion are quick to claim that natural theology would be such a blunt instrument that it is worthless. How could a thoroughgoing theology be built on such? Theologians have answered this charge in various ways. Perhaps the most compelling is that within humans there is an inherent “sense” about God. Plato claimed that there is a unity of being and knowing. If that is so and creatures are part of God then they also can have the ability to sense something about their deep core. Calvin called this sense “sensus divinitatus”, a sense of the divine. Tillich called this the “mystical a priori”, the mystical ability to participate in God that precedes everything else. Karl Rahner follows Aquinas in asserting a self-presence or luminosity.
The nature of being is to know and to be known in an original unity, in other words, self-presence, luminosity. First when we inquire about the being of all beings, we admit that we have already a provisional knowing about being in general. … Mysterious though it may be, the being we inquire about is also always already a being we know about.
Another criticism of this type of revelation is that it is too subjective. After all the pluralism of scripture offers many different takes on reality in its depth. Apparently this innate sense of the divine is fallible. Doesn’t this destroy the any credibility for a particular claim to be revelatory. It only does if one looks for an absolute revelation. If, however, one accepts that all forms of scripture that speak to the divine have some element of truth to them, then the task is not to find the “right” one but to embrace them all and seek out that which is transparent of God. Of course this may seem fragmentary and fallible but that is really the situation with any search for the truth. However, the fact that the Spiritual Presence does speak through scripture and all other forms of human experience can create a warranted faithing fallibilism. A faith that although accepting its fallibility can act.
What this approach does is put the responsibility for religious insight and belief squarely on the individual and the religious community. If there is no ecclesiastic authority for revelation, it is up to each person to decide what to believe and act on it. This is, in my opinion, how it should be.
“…it is up to each person to decide what to believe and act on it.”
This comment arises from a modern perversion of the Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which is wrongly taken to mean that each person is their own personal authority in interpreting Scripture. The scope of this doctrine for the Reformers was the simple affirmation that each person could access a direct relationship with God through Christ in the Holy Spirit by means of the act of prayer.
Also, I wanted to note that conservatives do NOT officially believe in any form of dictation, although they can sometimes tend to lean in that direction. Though I am not one of these conservatives, I did grow up among them and am intimately acquainted with them.
Finally, I would like to recommend a very fine theological treatment of Scripture by John Webster entitled, “Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch.” I highly recommend this short book, developed from a series of lectures, to any who is interested in pursuing the question of how to understand Scripture. I have nowhere found a more theologically satisfying account of Scripture.
WTM
Comment by WTM —
For me, the way of dealing with the subjectivity problem is to view the scriptures as providing a useful record of other people’s attempts at understanding divine revelation (or the mystical a priori). Everyone doesn’t have to re-invent religion out of whole cloth because we can see where others have gone before us, and we can build on that process. That doesn’t mean that those scriptures are all correct, and their human flaws are certainly evident within them, but they do provide a useful starting point to work from. We can see what is right and wrong about the scriptures and then develop from that knowledge. Similarly, being in a community of faith helps to create a dialogue with other people who are also seeking divine revelation. From the dialogue both with the past (via scriptures) and with each other in the present, people can evolve a better understanding of God.
Comment by Mystical Seeker —
Hi WTM
Welcome.
I wasn’t thinking of the priesthood of all believers in my post. However, if its not up to the person, the who is it up to? Obviously a person may choose to relegate interpretational decisions to some authority, like the Pope and that is their right. Others may feel that while the Pope’s or a pastor’s or scholar’s interpretations carry considerable weight, they should not be accepted out of hand. What are they to do to deal with that sense?
Also we live in a pluralist world today. Just on my street there are Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews. When children from these various traditions become friends and attend school with them they see very intelligent, devote adherents utilizing different scriptures. In the religiously isolated past it was much easier to accept the unquestioned authority of a tradition. Today that is not so easy. The result can be either the complete relativization of religion or some means must be found to reconcile these disparities while maintaining a core belief in God.
Thanks for the reference. If you would, I would be interested in a summary of its essential arguments.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Mystical Seeker,
Very well put. Thanks. I agree that one “doesn’t have to re-invent religion out of whole cloth.” That would mean the rejection of God’s divine revelation throughout history. The challenge today is deciding what changes are needed and how they should be made. As you seem to suggest, the best way to assess this would be within a religious community. What I have found, however, is that it is difficult these days to find such a community. Most are either hamstrung by a tradition, so secularized that the sacred is missing, or so open that no real commonality can be found. Perhaps this is just a feature of seminal periods in religious history. I think we are in one right now.
Comment by Steve Petermann —