THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION AND PROVIDENCE 

One of the main issues in Christian theology is that of the question of "how did it all begin?"  We could easily relate to the questions of "what happened" and "who were the key players in all of this?"

When I served as a professor of Latin American history and religion at Boricua College in Brooklyn, New York, one of the first questions that I would pose to my students when I met with them was the question of  "Como fue que comenzo el bochinche (How did the gossip begin)?"  In fact, that question was presented to me by one of my students from a country in Central America, a country whose history he knew much about.  He explained to me in his own words how we got to the present situation in Latin America.  He was very well-versed in the history of his own country, and that of Latin America as a whole as well.  It was a question that described the seeds of historical narrative.

We find the same thing in the Hebrew/Christian Scriptures regarding the origins of the earth and supposedly the beginning of human history.  I say "supposedly" because the Hindu Scriptures were written thousands of years before the Hebrew/Christian Scriptures, and they contained creation narratives of their own, albeit in a speculative manner.  

Both the author of Genesis and the writer of the Gospel according to John start with the words, "In the beginning."  They point to a certain point in time as to when all things came into being, though that particular point in time is not specifically spelled out.  

Jewish/Christian theology posits the person of God as being present "in the beginning," whenever that was. The Scriptures of both religion point to God as the originator of being, of life, and of history.  The narratives of Scripture correspond in some way to the notion of God as the "ground of being." 

Traditional Christian beliefs about the divine origin, governance, and final disposition of the world were for many centuries foundational components of the dominant world view in Christian culture. Residues of these beliefs can be found today in various places, in arguments advanced by the pro-life camp in the abortion controversy, for instance, and in such quasi-religious sentiments as "Life is a gift" and "Things tend to work out for good in the long run."  But the powerful convictions once expressed in traditional formulations of the doctrines of creation and providence do not now have a vivid and compelling life in the churches.  In secular thought the convictions and the doctrines have been in deep recession for centuries (Julian N. Hart, "Creation and Providence," in Christian Theology: An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks.  Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King, eds. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994, p. 141).

One cause of the inclusive decline is to be found in a tendency of the doctrines to distort or obscure the convictions and passions of the religious life.  But many important elements of doctrine and conviction have been powerfully challenged, if not overthrown, by views inspired by modern science.  The traditional teaching of the doctrine of creation is that the world as a whole had an absolute beginning: before creation nothing but God existed; everything begins when God said "Let there be."  Modern scientific theories concerning the origin of the physical universe have virtually nothing in common with traditional Christian teachings.  The life sciences offer explanations of the origin and development of human beings which are strictly incompatible with historic creation.  So also for the doctrine of providence.  The theological tradition holds the view that events great and small, cosmic and historical, faultlessly operate to serve a divine ordination.  This exaltation of purpose-controlling-indeed defining-every entity and every set of entities in the cosmic spread funds afoul of the decision made very early in the modern world, and powerfully reinforced at critical junctures thereafter, to drop the category of purpose altogether from scientific explanation.  So the conviction that God the Creator has oriented human beings toward a perfectly fulfilled good beyond nature and history, and makes all things conspire to this end, has fallen into a deep and persistent recession-but not simply because the facts, none of which is more appalling to than the Holocaust, ruinously assault the Christian view.  It is also because hardly any large and potent intellectual current in the modern world seems to support Christian teaching about providence (Ibid., pp. 141-142).

An issue which I sincerely and strongly believe is both apropos and relevant to this discourse is that of literary dependency.  So for example, we have those who believe that  the Babylonian account of Creation served as the basis for the Creation narrative in the book of Genesis.  So, the question could be, "Did the author of Genesis 'borrow from' or 'copy' from the Babylonian account of Creation (Enuma Elish) in order to compose the Genesis narrative of Creation?"  Was there literary dependency on the part of the Genesis author?  Because of the similarities in both narratives, the person who examines the Bible exclusively in its literary composition and not as an "inspired, inerrant, or infallible" document would tend to believe that there is indeed, literary dependency on the part of the Genesis author.  

As a theologian who is not a biblical "literalist," I would say that whether the biblical account of Creation is more authentic than the Babylonian account of Creation, or whether the writer of Genesis actually borrowed from the Babylonian account, the important thing is for us in this day and age to decipher both the meaning and of the value of the biblical account of Creation, and also what is the theological significance in the narrative.  Theology, in my humble, but informed view does not have to depend on a literal reading or exposition of the Scriptural narrative in order to convey a message of truth and value to its readers.  The truth of Scripture and theology do not hinge on biblical literalism.

To be continued. 

In the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen! 

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                      ISSUES AND PROPOSALS REGARDING THE DOCTRINE 

                                      OF REVELATION 

In the first half of the twentieth century, the doctrine of revelation became such a prominent feature on the theological landscape that questions began to be raised as to whether modern theology did not suffer from an "inflation of revelation."  Questions were also raised about the intelligibility of the new interpretations of revelation.  If modern theologians emphasized revelation only in order to sidestep the critical questions of the Enlightenment and to affirm an objective basis for faith, then some critics questioned whether revelation could serve as a foundational principle and the basis for further theological reflection (Troup, op. cit., p.134).

Questions have also been raised as to whether the modern concepts of revelation have basis whatsoever in the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament.  Although most contemporary interpretations of revelation are concerned with what can be said about God, they are even more concerned with how it is possible to speak intelligibly of "God."  This may not have been an urgent problem for the writers of Scripture, but it is an urgent problem for theologians who recognize the historicity of human understanding and the cultural relativity of all human assertions. Most of the major proposals in contemporary theology concerning the interpretation of revelation include not only a foundation for knowledge about God, but also and most importantly, a hermeneutical description of how revelation takes place (Ibid.).

Because of the emphasis on hermeneutics in contemporary interpretations of revelation, it seems that future descriptions of revelation will focus on the historicity of human understanding and the role of Scripture and tradition in the Christian community as the locus for revelation.  If revelation were interpreted in this context, special attention would have to be given to the importance of history for an understanding of human identity and the crucial role of memory in the construction of personal identity. The life, language, and texts of the community would be seen as the medium for revelation, with the hermeneutical encounter occurring in the collision between personal identity and the language (or tradition) of the community.  The emerging discussion of narrative theology offers at least one proposal for how revelation might be interpreted in these terms (Ibid.).  

In narrative theology, revelation refers to that process in which the personal identities of individuals are reinterpreted and transformed by the means of the narratives which gave the Christian community its distinctive identity.  What might be called "Christian narrative" is the confessional narrative that results from the collision between an individuals's personal identity narrative and the narrative identity of the Christian community.  A narrative theology developed in this manner properly recognizes  that the identities of persons and communities cannot be separated from an interpretation of their respective histories, and that in most cases, it is the narrative identity of the community (articulated in its Scripture and traditions) which provides the context for the interpretation of personal identity (Ibid., pp. 134-135). 

In essence, what we have been encountering in this discourse is the issue of divine revelation and our response as humans to that revelation.  As pointed out several times, hermeneutics plays a large role in that response.  God reveals, humankind responds in a variety of ways.

Another issue is that of personal identity vs. communal identity.  We might respond to divine revelation individually by saying "I believe," or "I think." The historical creeds such as the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed begin with the words "I believe," and yet they are designed to express and reflect the beliefs of the Church as a communal entity.  

How do we integrate communal and individual identities in responding to divine revelation?  Do we make room for individuals running amok and expressing what they believe to be the right response to divine revelation, or do we assert the communal "take" on divine revelation to be the "binding" one?  If we overemphasize the individual narrative, we run the risk of having a variety of hermeneutical perspectives.  On the other hand, if we overemphasize the communal narrative, we run the risk of the individuals in that community becoming automatons, just parroting and regurgitating the "party line." 

The issue of divine revelation, just like the other doctrines of Christian theology have their challenges.  We continue to meet those challenges with candor and honesty.  We do not bury our heads in the sand, pretending that those challenges are not there.  We face them in the face of history, as we seek to decipher how we apply  and practice in our time "the faith once delivered to the saints."  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

             HOW PEOPLE RESPOND TO NEW TRENDS 

It goes without saying that every time there is a new movement of thought, whether it be in the realm of philosophy or theology, that there are reactions and responses.  Thought trends always elicit responses, whether in the form of public outrage, or in quiescent meditation and reflection.

George Stroup the following:  

In the nineteenth century, several reinterpretations of revelation were offered in response to the impasse created by the Enlightenment.  Two appeared in the first third of the century and overshadowed subsequent discussions of revelation.  The first was the theology of Friedrich Schleirmacher, who argued in the Christian Faith that doctrines are reflections of the piety that emerges from the experience of redemption in the Christian community.  Christian piety articulates the experience of redemption as it is lived in the church and attributed to Jesus Christ, the founder of of the community.  By making the experience of redemption the basis for theological reflection, Schleirmacher  proposed a new foundation and method for the critical explication of the Christian faith.  Neither knowing nor doing but that form of feeling Christians refer to as "redemption" became the basis for theology.  Schleirmacher's turn to the experience of redemption created a new theological paradigm which escaped the the Kantian critique of classical metaphysics and theology, and also suggested a new interpretation of the meaning of revelation (Troup, p. 127).

In essence, what we have here is witnessing how new approaches to theology, and to revelation in particular, began to emerge.  The notion of an "unfiltered" divine revelation was called into question.

In the introduction to his major theological work, Schleirmacher denied that revelation has primarily to do with intellectual assent to revealed truths, since that would imply that revelation can be limited to the cognitive dimension of human existence. He readily acknowledged that revelation leads to the formulation of doctrines; nevertheless, he contended that that revelation refers primarily not to the apprehension of propositions but to the "originality of the fact which lies at the foundation of a religious communion."  This original fact shapes the life of the community and "cannot itself be explained by the historical chain which precedes it (Friedrich Schleirmacher, The Christian Faith, p. 50).

We stop at this point to ask the question as to whether revelation is something which is divinely initiated or humanly generated claiming to be "from God?"  All sectors of the Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant with all its variations) claim in one way or the other that revelation is divinely initiated, i.e. that God initiates the process of self-disclosure.  

Then we deal with the hermeneutical question, i.e. is our hermeneutics (interpretation) also divinely initiated?  Another way of posing this question would be to ask if our interpretation of divine revelation is the interpretation that God intended and wants us to have, or is hermeneutics a humanly generated response to the divinely generated self-disclosure?  

Given the fact that there are a variety of hermeneutical perspectives, we cannot make the claim or pretend that any one particular perspective is the "correct one."  Indeed, there are many who will claim that their particular hermeneutic was "revealed" to them by God as a way of shutting down all other hermeneutical perspectives.  

Insistence on the authority of a particular hermeneutical perspective reflects human arrogance and presumptuousness.  One can claim that the Catholic Church's Magisterium is the depository of the true hermeneutics, or that the Protestant churches, with their emphasis on "Sola Scriptura" have the "correct" hermeneutics, but in the final analysis, the claim to the inerrancy or infallibility of a particular hermeneutic is culturally-conditioned.  Theology is tentative and "in progress."  Revelation is absolute, authoritative, and final, but human response is always tentative.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

THE HOSTILITY BETWEEN THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION 

I think that it is safe to say that in the early years of Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, the notion of divine revelation was somewhat taken for granted.  In other words, we don't find too many, if any at all, references to hostility between the faith community's claim to divine revelation through Scripture, tradition, and experience, on the one hand, and on the other, opposing forces that would fight to negate the claim to revelation.  It was basically assumed, that the claim to divine revelation was more than a claim, i.e. that it was a reality not to be questioned or challenged.

George Stroup points out that in the seventeenth through the nineteenth century, the belief in divine revelation came under attack.  Subsequently, the notion that theology was a "revealed religion," came under attack and scrutiny.  The notion of a "revealed religion" came to be replaced by the belief in the human origins of religion and theology.

The period from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries marks a watershed in the interpretation of revelation.  During this period, several developments occurred to create an intellectual climate in which it became increasingly difficult to defend the classical models of revelation.  Francis Bacon's discovery of the "new science, " Isaac Newton's formulation of a mathematical physics in which nature is conceived of as a rational and unified order, the emergence of reason as the primary authority for the interpretations of experience, the distrust of tradition and superstition-all these created an environment in which classical theology found its way under attack and on the defensive the dominant intellectual movements of the day. Three developments in this period were especially important for subsequent discussions of revelation: the emphasis given to human reason as the chief interpreter of reality and the final arbiter of conflictual claims, the denial for revealed truths about God (or for that matter, any statements about God), and the discovery of the historical character of human reason and understanding (Troup. op.cit., p.123).

In essence, then, human reason and science were deified, i.e. elevated to the status of inerrancy, and infallibility.  There was, for all effects and purposes, a "dethroning" of revealed religion.  The Scriptures, the traditions, and experience now came to be interpreted through the lens of reason and science.  The notions of inerrancy and infallibility were now transferred from the realm of religion and theology to the realms of reason and science.  And, in the same manner that religion and theology spoke about a universe that was dictated by divine decree, reason and science now came to speak about a universe that was subject to the decrees of reason and science, whatever flaws or shortcomings they may have had. Reason and science became, in essence, the new "Gods."

The content of the classic models of revelation was confined to revealed truths about God.  Although these objective truths could not be known by a human intellect marred by sin, they could be known through the work of the Spirit in illumination or in Scripture.  In these classic models the primary criterion for the interpretation of experience and reality was "revealed" truth.  In the Enlightenment, however, the focus shifted dramatically.  No longer were the revealed truths the final arbiter, now human reason became the final court of appeal for the interpretation of reality.  Even though God remained the "primary substance" in the metaphysics of Rene Descartes, his method began with a search for clear and distinct ideas, a search which had led Descartes to the cogito-the human being's existence as a thinking being-as the primary datum for reflection.  Descartes's significance is not tied to the success of his method or his philosophical proposals; rather, his philosophy represents a benchmark in human thought. Human reason rather than tradition or authority is now to be seen as the ultimate measure of truth (Troup, op. cit. p. 123).

The combined effects of these developments -the authority given to reason,  the redefinition of the limits of reason, and the recognition of the historicity of knowledge and understanding-made it difficult, if not impossible, for any theologian sensitive to the climate of the day to continue to advocate a theology grounded on classical models of revelation.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the overarching concern of theologians in the nineteenth century was to establish a new foundation for Christian theology (Ibid., p. 126).

How, then, do we living in the twenty-first century, deal with the notion of reason vs. revelation?  Many in our time would resist the emphasis given during the Enlightenment period for the simple reason that this climate was generated in Western Europe.  And because of the claims of Western Europe's claims and pretenses to define its "truth" in universal terms, the opposite reaction is to negate the claims, i.e. invalidate them or making them "irrelevant" to the world outside of Europe.  The reaction, becomes, then, a visceral one, with a tone of anti-intellectualism.  Experience and revelation tend to be equated with "feel good" emotions and in some cases, the elevation of emotion to the status of ultimate truth. So rather than attempting to prove the existence of God, and subsequent divine revelation through reason and science, the tendency becomes to validate the existence of God based on "I don't see Him, but I feel Him in my soul."  The experience that comes through dreams, frenzies, and visions becomes the ultimate barometer of what is true in Christian theology.  These experiences, rather than interacting with Scripture and tradition, become the "Supreme Court" of Christian theology.  

This essay was not intended to glorify the notion of intellect and  reason vs. emotion and  passion, but rather to pursue a theology which integrates all of these elements into a cohesive whole through which we as believers can live out our spiritual journey.  The dichotomies that have us entrenched in separating them must be replaced by a healthy integration. We must also do away with the binaries of "either/or" in our approach to a responsible theological system.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Reformed Church in America 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION-CONTINUED 

At this point in our discussion, we ask the question of what role do the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit play in God's revelatory acts and self-disclosure?  This is a very important question because historically speaking, in Christian  theology, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures have always been given prominence.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

In Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, the Scripture, together with experience and the traditions of the Church, play a very important role in the formulation of theological systems.  The Scriptures are considered to be the product of the experience (the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church) and the traditions handed down by the Apostles and their immediate successors.  Subsequently, the notion of "Sola Scriptura" (the Scripture alone as the only rule of faith and practice) is absent in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology.  Even the notion of "Prima Scriptura" does not exist in these two communities, because it is believed that experience and tradition, carry equal weight in the theological task of the Church and its ministry in the world

In Protestant theology (both historic and independent churches), Scripture is considered to play the only, or at the very least, the primary rule in the formulation of doctrine and theology, and also as a norm for faith and practice.  The historic (mainline) Protestant churches maintain intact the value of and respect for tradition, but see tradition as subservient to Scripture.  In fact, they believe that tradition derives from Scripture, and subsequently should be evaluated and judged by Scripture.  Independent Protestant churches believe that tradition plays no role in the formulation of doctrine and that theology should be based exclusively on "what the Bible says."  To them, the Bible vitiates the need for tradition.  

George Stroup points out the following regarding the role of Scripture and Spirit in divine revelation:

During the Reformation, subtle but significant shifts took place in the interpretation of revelation.  Both Martin Luther and John Calvin took the position that there is knowledge of God apart from revelation but this knowledge is of little or no consequence.  The general knowledge of God derived from the created order is for all practical purposes useless.  What is decisive is knowledge of God's will for the world, and that cannot be known apart from Jesus Christ (Stroup, op. cit., pp. 119-120).

For Luther the Word of God is Jesus Christ, but we have access to that Word only in the words of proclamation and scripture.  Luther does not simply identify the Word of God with the external of proclamation and scripture, since these words only become God's Word (that is, become revelatory) when the Holy Spirit makes Christ present in them.  The Word of God is both what is revealed to faith and what does the revealing, but the Word can never be separated from the Spirit, since it is the Spirit who enables the external words to become the internal words (Ibid., p. 120).  

The gospel is the living Word of God,  Jesus Christ, and it is this Word which is the sole content, center, and unity of scripture.  This Word is the criterion for determining what is law and what is gospel in scripture, but this external clarity cannot be separated from scripture's internal clarity, which is the illuminating work of the Spirit "required for the understanding of scripture, both as a whole and in any part of it (Martin Luther, "On the Bondage of the Will:, LCC 17:112)

In conclusion, we have seen that Luther, the "architect" of the Protestant Reformation, stresses the role of both Scripture and the Holy Spirit in God's self-disclosure, not only to humankind in general, but to the community of faith as well.  Other theologians such as John Calvin, the architect of Reformed theology, had different models, but that were similar in their emphasis on the role that the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures played in divine revelation.  In essence, we move in Christian theology from general revelation (through nature) to specific revelation through the Holy Spirit and through the Scriptures.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen!

Dr. Juan A. Carmona, 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary