LESSON SEVEN

R E L I G I O N

&

R E V E L A T I O N

KEY CONCEPTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

2

* General Epistemology

reason

experience

intuition

authority

* General Revelation versus

object of address

specific content

expected response

transactional basis

instrumental means

function

* Models of Revelation

Word Model

Event Model

Experience Model

Preaching Model

Social Action Model

OVERVIEW

In this lesson we move from arguments concerning the fact of 's existence (Lesson Five) and from considerations concerning the manner of God's existence (Lesson Six) to questions about the mode of God's communication with/to us. In other 3 words, this is a lesson on religious epistemology. The term "epistemology," is comprised of two Greek words, "epi," meaning upon, and "histemi," meaning to stand. Hence, epistemology is the study of what "one stands upon," or to translate, "what one bases their knowledge upon." Epistemology is that branch of that deals with the basis for human knowledge. This lesson provides a contrast between non-religious ways of knowing, or scientific ways of knowing, and religious ways of knowing. The lesson focuses upon the variety of religious models for how God communicates with us.

GENERAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Generally speaking, there are five basic epistemologies. These are: reason, experience, intuition, authority, and revelation. Revelation is that category which is pre- eminent in religious knowledge. These "ways of knowing" are discussed here briefly for two reasons: (1) to distinguish clearly between religious and non-religious ways of knowing: and (2) in order to set a context for understanding the variety of emphases within the category of revelation itself.

Reason

Reason as a way of knowing depends upon the ability of the mind to arrive at truth(s) independent of sense experience. The technical name for this way of knowing is rationalism. Reason appeals to self-evident truths, first principles, logic, imagination, creativity, and consistency of thought as elements in its epistemological system. One easily admits that we would be "lost" without employing one or several of these elements in combination for guidance in our daily lives. Yet, even though "great minds think alike" they also often disagree. The elements of the epistemological system of rationalism, by themselves, do not guarantee truth. Truth is arrived at by a proper employment of the aforementioned elements, requiring knowledge, experience, skill, humility, and wisdom. In other words, there is an art to rationalism, and since abilities vary mistakes of judgment can and do occur.

Experience

Experience as a way of knowing relies upon our five senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch). The technical name for this way of knowing is empiricism. The strength of empiricism is in its appeal to the tangible, observeable, repeatable, and thus verifiable. This is the scientific way of knowing. Yet, the results of an empirical approach to truth often contradict, at least what on the surface, our senses seem to be telling us. For example, a straight stick protruding from a lake or stream "appears" to bend. Closer examination, usually by "feeling" the stick beneath the surface of the water, reveals that our sense of sight had been fooled. A more substantial example would be 4 that of the common perception that the earth we live on is stationary, whereas it is the sun that is busy making its way around the sky all day. As you know, scientific empiricism reversed this misperception for us centuries ago. Rationalism and empiricism are the two epistemological pillars of a modern academic knowledge. Some debate on the pre-eminence of the one over the other exists, but few quarrel about the need we have for both of these ways of knowing. Yet, the common person often relies on two other ways of knowing which may be viewed as supplementing, or even supplanting, rationalism and empiricism. These are intuition and authority.

Intuition

Intuition as a way of knowing relies on an elusive "sixth sense." When experienced intuition is often immediate, certain, and sometimes overwhelming in the conviction that it communicates the truth. When reason or experience fails to provide satisfactory answers, or directions, or when reason and experience are simply not cultivated, people rely upon their intuitions, or simply put, gut feelings. Thus intuition as a way of knowing presents an option to rationalism or empiricism, and, in some contexts, helpfully supplants those first two ways of knowing. Intuition works well for some, usually self-assured and independent types. For others, intuition as a way of knowing is a gamble, a hunch, a guess, a questionable risk. This leads to a discussion of authority.

Authority

Authority as a way of knowing relies on qualified expertise. In a society as complex as ours where would we be without authorities? We depend on parents, teachers, lawyers, doctors, administrators, and technicians of a thousand kinds. In a shared world, where interdependency reigns, we inevitably exercise faith in the knowledge of others. Hopefully, these others have been properly trained, executing their trade as skilled rationalists, experienced empiricists, or "lucky" intuitionists. The most evident problem of authority as a way of knowing occurs when two or more authorities conflict on a given issue. Who is right? And, on what basis (rationalism, empiricism, or intuition), are we, who are not the authorities, to decide? This leads to a consideration of the fifth way of knowing, namely, revelation. This epistemology will, at the outset, be discussed briefly, providing a contrast with the previous four ways of knowing, before being developed with some detail.

Revelation

5

Revelation as a way of knowing relies upon the initiative of God. (The discussion here largely presumes the theistic model of God discussed in Lesson Six). Simply defined, revelation is the self-communication of God, an unveiling of God's person, power, plan(s), purpose(s), and principles for living the religious life. The means by which this "information" is communicated varies. Some examples would be: angelic visitations; dreams; ecstatic states; trance states; auditions; visions; prophetic oracles, oral and/or written; appointed and/or anointed leaders. These various means reflect the divine initiative and require a human response. This response at its simplest level is called faith. Thus revelation and faith are correlative ideas. Before proceeding further with a more systematic development of the matters of revelation and faith, it will be helpful to "slow down the discussion," somewhat, and relate this fifth way of knowing more closely to and in distinction from the first four ways of knowing previously discussed. The aim of the discussion here will be to clarify the traditional terminology employed in academia when discussing revelation as a way of knowing, especially as it relates to and is contrasted with the other ways of knowing.

GENERAL & SPECIAL REVELATION

A convenient starting point for a discussion of revelation is the classical distinction between what is called general revelation and special revelation. General revelation refers to all information which may be obtained by our natural faculties. This would include reason, experience, intuition, and authority. Hence, from a theistic perspective, one that presupposes the existence of a divine being who takes the initiative to communicate with us, all the ways of knowing may be classified as "revelation." However, the distinction between general revelation and special revelation is to be preserved. Special revelation refers to information obtained by extra-ordinary, or means. Examples were mentioned above. We are now at a point where further clarification is necessary with regard to the traditional terminology associated with the topic of religious epistemology. Reason as a way of knowing has been distinguished from experience, intuition, authority, and revelation. But the term "reason," when utilized in discussions of religious epistemology, often has an additional nuance. Sometimes the term "reason" is used as an umbrella, or summary, term for reason, experience, intuition, and authority, our first four ways of knowing. This is the case when the first four ways of knowing are to be contrasted with revelation (here, special revelation). Obviously, the concise term "reason" provides a simpler and more convenient contrast. It avoids the monotonous repitition of reason, experience, intuition, and authority. Further terminological clarification is still needed. As explained above there are two major categories of revelation, general and special. General revelation includes all natural modes of knowledge and comprehends our first four ways of knowing. General revelation, therefore, is a term synonymous with the term "reason," at least as explained in the previous paragraph. General revelation, and its synonym reason, are also sometimes referred to as Natural . When this occurs, special revelation is 6 referred to as Sacred theology. Admittedly, this terminological variety may be confusing. But we are done for now. A chart is provided to help visualize the distinctions that were just presented (see Figure 7A). We are now in a position to sketch more fully the distinctions between general and special revelation, or natural and sacred theology, or simply put reason and revelation. This sketch is a concise summary based on the classic treatment of this topic provided by Warfield (1948).

Scope

The scope of general revelation is an address, or message, to the human race by God which takes place always and everywhere to everyone. General revelation concerns God as Creator in relationship to God's creatures. One biblical text which captures this notion is Romans 1: 19, 20: "For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse" (The New American , 1987). This passage is simply declaring that a general revelation concerning the has been made to all people, everywhere, and throughout all times, based on self- evident inferences that may be gathered from the observation of the things God "has made." The scope of special revelation, on the other hand, is local and occassional. God is understood to have given special messages to certain people at certain times. The classic biblical text for this view is Hebrews 1: 1, 2: "In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son . . . " (New American Bible, 1987). This passage is simply underlining the belief that God's revelation had come at different times, and "in partial and various ways," to the Jewish people prior to the revelation that Christians believe was communicated through Jesus, the son.

Specific Content

The content of general revelation is God as creator, the fact and impressiveness of God's existence itself. Special revelation goes beyond general revelation as to content, communicating the plans, purposes, or principles of living that God requires of God's people.

Expected Response 7

The expected response of general revelation is simply appreciative awareness, or thanksgiving. Special revelation often requires repentance from wickedness and the observance of stated ethical commands or ritual practices.

Transactional Basis

The basis upon which general revelation occurs is that of natural human endowments. God has given all of us the ability to reason, experience, intuit, or depend upon authorities. Special revelation assumes natural endowments and usually involves a covenant arrangement between God and a given people at a given time.

Instrumental Means

The instrumental means of general revelation are all natural. In addition to reason, experience, intuition, and authority one might add conscience, the flow of history, and the natural world. Special revelation, as mentioned above, utilizes supernatural means. Such as: angelic visitations; dreams; ecstatic states; trance states; auditions; visions; prophetic oracles, oral and written; appointed and/or anointed leaders.

Function

The function of general revelation is to awaken us to our need for special revelation. Hence, general revelation is considered insufficient in itself, being understood as a pre-requisite to special revelation. The function of special revelation is to complete and fulfill all our needs, especially the deepest need we have as humans, according to a theistic perspective, namely, a satisfying union with the divine creator. The above contrasts between general and special revelation are illustrated in chart form, see Figure 7B. The following familiar story helps to illustrate these contrasts, especially this last one on the functions of general and special revelation. According to Matthew 2: 1-12 when Jesus was born a star appeared in the sky guiding the Magi to the home of the infant Jesus. A careful reading of this passage indicates that the star, here understood as a part of nature and hence, general revelation, did not lead the Magi directly to the Christ-child. In other words, general revelation by itself is insufficient. The passage reveals (see especially versus 2-6) that the Magi came to Jerusalem first, prior to discovering that Bethlehem was the birth place of the Messiah. The star apparently led them to Jerusalem, awakened their need to know more, and at Jerusalem they were informed through the Scriptures (special revelation; particularly 8

Micah 5:1) where the birth place of the Messiah was to be. This story illustrates how general revelation (the star) and special revelation (Scripture in this case) work together.

MODELS OF REVELATION

Five models compete with each other in current academic discussions on the topic of revelation. This debate is, for the most part, an intramural debate within the Judeo- Christian tradition. However, the positions represented by these five models have implications and applications for Islam and Eastern religions as well. The reader is referred to Dulles (1983) for a book long explanation of these models and their implications in the arena of world religions (see especially pages 174-92). The five models are referred to as: (1) the Word Model; (2) the Event Model; (3) the Inner Experience Model; (4) the Preaching Model; and (5) the Social Action Model. Definitions for these models are given by Dulles (1983, p. 115) as follows:

(1) Word Model: Revelation is divinely authoritative doctrine inerrantly proposed as God's word by the Bible or by offical church teaching; (2) Event Model: Revelation is the manifestation of God's saving power by his great deeds in history; (3) Inner Experience Model: Revelation is the self-manifestation of God by his intimate presence in the depths of the human spirit; (4) Preaching Model: Revelation is God's address to those whom he encounters with his word in Scripture and Christian proclamation; (5) Social Action Model: Revelation is a breakthrough to a higher level of consciousness as humanity is drawn to a fuller participation in the divine creativity.

Only the first three models will be pursued in the systematic analysis which is to follow. This limitation will keep this lesson to manageable size yet adequately illustrate for the reader the complexity and richness of this interesting topic. The following questions will be asked of each of the first three models:

a. What relational image (i.e., between God and humanity) is suggested by the model? b. What form does revelation take? c. What is the content of revelation? d. What is salvific about revelation? e. What is the appropriate response? f. What are the strengths and/or weaknesses of this model?

Answers to these questions will proceed, in part, from what is either explicit or implicit in the definitions given for these models. Much of the substance of the answers given here reflects the author's reading and interaction with full length books, such as the one recommended by Dulles (1983), on the topic. The overall purpose of presenting this 9 rapid and succinct overview of these models is to bring the reader to an awareness of the importance of this topic for religious epistemology and to provide a sense of direction for subsequent study. One insight that the reader should leave this lesson with is this: These various models of revelation may all be valid, complimenting and supplementing the other models as needed, but it makes a critical difference to the systematic implications of a given worldview which model is given priority in relationship to the other models.

The Word Model

This is the traditional model most often presupposed when one mentions the concept of revelation. It is sometimes referred to as the propositional model. As the definition given above indicates, propositional statements "inerrantly" found in the Bible or in Church teaching constitute revelation. This suggests a relational image between God and humanity comparable to that of a teacher to students. Information is given by God for the instruction of his people. Revelation is therefore meant to be studied, analyzed, understood, and reflected upon. The task of theology in this model is to explain the meaning, implications, and applications of God's propositional revelation. The form revelation takes is clear: inerrant propositions in the Bible or Church teaching. The content of revelation is the meaning which may be discovered through an analysis of the form and context of the writings. One usually adheres closely to the grammatical- historical, or literal, meaning of the text in this model. The information given in the correctly interpreted meaning of this model's propositions is usually held to be at least potentially salvific. Actual salvation occurs when the information is accompanied by the appropriate response of faith. Faith often is explained as involving not only an intellectual assent to the content of the information revealed, but also including a conviction of its truth and a commitment to submit one's life to it. What strengths or weaknesses might be apparent from this brief sketch of this model? The Word Model has several apparent strengths. Most significant is the fact that revelation so understood provides specific and detailed answers to life. God's plan for history, past, present, and future is revealed. The way of salvation, worship, and service to others is made clear. A coherent tradition of authoritative teachings is provided for many generations to come. A sense of mission and purpose is fostered by this model, resulting in a spirit of unity and cooperation among adherents. The Word Model is the traditional model of the three major Western religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. What in the world could be wrong with it? Well, a moment's reflection should cause one to agree that the above mentioned strengths have been operative throughout the histories of the religions just mentioned. Here, however, is the flip side of the coin. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have competing and apparently mutually exclusive truth claims. Who is the true seal of the prophets, Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed? In what body of writings does God's revelation most clearly express itself in propositional form? In the TaNaK, the New Testament, or the Koran? Countless other questions begin to emerge. The weakness of the Word Model is this: Specific demand a binding adherence which often results in intolerance and/or condemnation of other competing views. This may be understandable 10 when one is stressing the essentials of their religious faith (e.g., faith in Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed), but all too often divisions and strife revolve around incidental details (e.g., should the Christian Eucharist be observed daily, weekly, monthly, or annually?) as well. The strength of authority provided by the Word Model quickly melts into authoritarianism. Adherents of this model are often characterized as intolerant bigots at odds with the "unbelieving" world, those of other religions, and especially those heretics of the same religion who just happened to get the correct interpretation of the revelation wrong.

The Event Model

This is a recent model in contemporary theology. Names associated with this model are: William Temple; G. Ernest Wright; Oscar Cullman; and Wolfgang Pannenberg; These theologians suggest that God's revelation occurs primarily in and through special events of history. For example, in Judaism the call of Abraham, or the Exodus, are given special significance. Christianity has a vested interest in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Mohammed's flight to Medina and the subsequent victory over Mecca are critical to Islam. But, these events are also essential to the Word Model. How does the Event Model differ from the Word Model? The Word Model not only recognizes these events as essential, but also claims to interpret them correctly. It is on this last point that the Word Model and the Event Model most sharply differ. The Event Model is committed to the revelatory primacy of the the Event. The "interpretive word" is viewed not as revelation, but as a witness to revelation. Theologians of the Event Model do not believe that God's revelation can be contained by the "fallible," but helpful, interpretations recorded in sacred texts. Hence, the Event Model suggests that God's revelation is mediated through the prism of signficant events. Interpretations can and do vary, functioning primarily as witnesses to the reality of the revelation, rather than as infallible interpretations. With this sketch before us let us proceed with answering our stated questions for this model. The Event Model portrays a relational image between God and humanity comparable to that of Actor to audience. The fact of God's divine existence is discernible through mighty deeds on the stage of history. Like many audiences we are moved by the performance, but may differ on specific interpretations. The form revelation takes is clear: mighty deeds in history. The content of revelation is less specific than that of the Word Model. Rather than specific and detailed propositions, the Event Model communicates the convincing presence of God, comforting and challenging the audience with an awareness of God's power, purpose, or care. In this model the action of God is considered salvific. As in the Word Model, the appropriate response is faith, but a faith less demanding with regard to specific details. What assessment should be given of this model? The Event Model is very concrete and realistic. It appears to be less engrossed in details, and hence, simpler. Few doubt the monumental historical significance of events like the Exodus, the crucifixion of Jesus, or Mohammed's victory at Mecca. The Event Model inspires its adherents with confidence and trust. God's actions are allowed to 11 speak louder than words. The real language of love, actions, is evident, putting the emphasis where it belongs. Since precise interpretations are not demanded by this model petty arguments, divisiveness, and inevitable authoritarianism are avoided. The Event Model seems to offer a corrective to some of the unhealthy emphases of the Word Model. But what flaws may be pointed out with regard to this model? If the Word Model carried with it too much authority, the Event Model may have too little. The Event Model lacks clarity when it comes to interpreting the great events of history. Allowing for differing interpretations may avoid conflict and division, but may also sacrifice the unity and cohesiveness provided by a clear and unambiguous statement of truth. The Event Model may be neglecting the "inner unity" demanded by word and event, giving too much emphasis to the latter. Warfield (1948, p. 442) cautions: "Revelation is but half revelation unless it be infallibly communicated; it is but half communicated unless it be infallibly recorded." Warfield would accuse those advocating the primacy of the Event Model of adhering to an irresponsible God. The biblical tradition amplifies the idea that God has consistently revealed the specific meanings of the great events of history to the prophets. Such appears to be the meaning of Amos 3: 7: "Indeed, the Lord God does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants, the prophets" (New American Bible, 1987). Finally, but not exhaustively, the Event Model may alienate those religious which do not share a linear view of history. In some religions (e.g., Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism) a cyclic view of history prevails. It is not particular events of history that are salvific. Rather, in their view, it is transcending the meaningless repitition of history that produces salvation.

The Inner Experience Model

This model is quite popular. Revelation in this model does not take place "out there." It takes place "in here." It is private and personal. Disputes about who is correct, or how, or why seem to be set aside. Advocates of this model preach inner contentment. This promise explains much of this model's popularity. Distinctions between this model and the previous two models may be more easily grasped by answering our stated basic questions for each model. If revelation is private and personal, taking place within us, then the relational image between God and humanity may be compared to that of a guest and a host/hostess. The form revelation takes, although difficult to describe, as it may vary from person to person, is an inner experience. This may be a heightened state of consciousness, or just a simple awareness. The Inner Experience Model does not put restrictions or qualifications of this kind upon its adherents. The content of revelation in this model may vary. A simple awareness of the divine presence perhaps representing the common denominator. If revelation occurs within, representing the favorable presence of God, then this experience would in and of itself be salvific. The appropriate response, again, would be faith, but here understood merely as an openness, or acceptance of this divine presence. Admittedly, this is a popular understanding of revelation, perhaps providing certain correctives to both the Word and Event Models. But what more could be stated with regard to this model's strengths and weaknesses? 12

The Inner Experience model, when seen as primary to the Word and Event Models, has certainly avoided both the pitfalls of detailed interpretations and ambiguous events. In fact, this model does an end run around all religious authorities which would lay claim to be the mediators of God's revelation, by allowing each individual to be the recipient of an "unmediated" revelation. This model has much to offer those interested in a dialogue with "other religions" as the emphasis is no longer placed upon words or events. Those from differing religious traditions can be accepted as others who also have had a revelation. Certainly, nothing which sounds so good can be entirely true. What then are the criticisms of this model? Although some people are inclined to have comforting inner religious experiences and revelations, what about the many who are not so inclined? Are they simply to be told to seek out advocates of the Word or the Event Models? Where is there a place for true community, or needed ongoing traditions, within the framework of this model? Basing revelation solely upon inner experiences creates too many leaders and not enough followers. Conflicts inevitably arise among those who advocate this model. What "external" checks or balances are to be given to those who may go too far out on a limb in their claims of revelation? Perhaps the chief criticism of this model is that it tends to produce an elitism or sense of superiority among those who tend to cultivate these inner religious experiences, and often at the expense of those who do not.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

This lesson has provided a brief sketch of both religious and non-religious epistemology. There are five basic epistemologies: reason, experience, intuition, authority, and revelation. From a theistic perspective all of these ways of knowing may be labeled general revelation, or natural theology. A distinction is made in theistic circles between general revelation and special revelation. These two modes of revelation differ as to their scope, specific, content, expected response, transactional basis, instrumental means, and function. Five models of revelation were presented: the Word Model; the Event Model; the Inner Experience Model; the Preaching Model; and the Social Action Model. Only the first three were systematically analyzed. Several questions were put to these models. Our lesson focused upon the relational image, form, content, salvific factor, appropriate response, and the strengths and weaknesses of each model. The following insight was maintained: Each of the models look at the concept of revelation from differing perspectives, and could be understood as complimenting and supplementing one another. But, when one of the models is established as primary over the features of the other models challenges and conflicts arise between and among the models. The challenge of the current debate on revelation is to preserve the strengths of each model without yielding to any of the weaknesses.

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS 13

A worksheet is provided to facilitate a review of the lesson. The three models, Word, Event, and Inner Experience appear in chart form along with the questions that were posed to them. The reader is instructed to complete this chart by reviewing the text. Short, concise, and summary statements are suggested for the appropriate boxes of the chart. In addition, the reader is challenged to creatively and imaginatively enter into the discussion. Additional strengths or weaknesses, not mentioned in the text, may be identified. Additional questions and answers may be posed. The reader will notice that the final stated question of the worksheet, "what is the moment of revelation," serves as an example. This question is concerned about differences in the three models as to when revelation occurs. Readers should be able to ferret this out on their own. Finally, page two of this worksheet challenges the reader to select a model and defend his/her preferences for the primacy of that model. This is to be done in essay form. Extra pages may be necessary to complete the reader's thoughts. If the reader is not satisfied with any of the models presented other models could be constructed.

FIGURE SEVEN A

A CLARIFICATION OF THE TERMINOLOGY USED IN DISCUSSIONS OF RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY

NON-RELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY EPISTEMOLOGY

Reason Experience Intuition Authority Revelation

R E A S O N R E V E L A T I O N

G E N E R A L R E V E L A T I O N SPECIAL REVELATION

14

N A T U R A L T H E O L O G Y SACRED THEOLOGY

FIGURE SEVEN B

GENERAL REVELATION SPECIAL REVELATION

scope universal and always local and occasional

specific the fact of God's existence God's person, plans, content purposes, and principles

expected appreciative awareness repentance and observance response of stated commands

transactional natural endowments covenant basis

instrumental reason, history, nature, apparitions, trances, means conscience dreams, oracles, 15

prophets, leaders

function awaken our need fulfill our need

LESSON SEVEN:

R E F E R E N C E S

Dulles, A. (1983). Models of revelation. Garden City: Doubleday.

Warfield, B. B. (1948). The inspiration and authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

16

BLANK PAGExx

BLANK PAGE 17

LESSON SEVEN

WORKSHEET

Instructions: Complete the chart below using short, concise, or summary answers. INNER WORD MODEL EVENT MODEL EXPERIENCE MODEL ______relational image

form

content

salvific factor

appropriate response

strengths & weaknesses

moment

other 18

LESSON SEVEN

WORKSHEET CONTINUED

ESSAY: Select one of the three models presented in this lesson, Word, Event, or Inner Experience, and state your reasons for preferring the model of your choice over the others. If none of these models satisfy you may construct a new one.