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
No comments:
Post a Comment