Ordinary Time
A pastor of a local church has recently caused quite a stir with public proclamations of his relativism. I discovered this when I stumbled upon the blog of another local church planter who quit writing about his mission work in favor of being a full-time watch blogger.
One the one hand, the first pastor argues since all religions are human articulations of a (potentially) universal "God experience," to say that explicit faith in Jesus is the only way to "God" is to deny the validity of someone else's "God experience."
On the other, we have an "inerrant" Bible insisting that Jesus is the only way to God.
I think, generally speaking, that folks who hold the first position consider themselves faithful interpreters of that bit in John because they will maintain that Jesus is indeed the only way to God, but explicit faith in Jesus is not the only way to access the benefits of what God has done through Jesus. And, after all, isn't Christian exclusivism just a way of arguing that my own personal "God experience" is legitimate, and that someone else's "God experience" is not?
Ah, the wonders of foundationalism.
Both sides of the argument are based on two imaginary concepts that I don't think are real: a universal "God experience," and an inerrant Bible. But you knew that, right?
That doesn't mean that I don't think I've had some experience of the Christian god, but I don't go about constantly seeking to consider and judge the tradition in terms of whether it matches up with "my experience." I also have no problem questioning, doubting or outright disregarding someone else's experience or their interpretation thereof. I know it sounds a bit rude, but I think my experiences and my own interpretation of them are quite suspect, so it would be silly to insist on granting some kind of epistemological priority to somebody else's, just to be polite.
And the other thing... I think it's pretty amazing. See, when I have been asked, "do you believe the Bible is inerrant," I actually hear, "Do you believe that the Bible is [contrived post-Enlightenment foundationalist concept]?" And I think, no, I don't believe the Bible can be understood and entirely encapsulated in terms of some contrived invention of modernity. "Oh, then do you believe that the Bible [insert opposite of contrived post-Enlightenment foundationalist concept]?" And I think, well of course, not. I just happen to think that it's the wrong question to be asking.
N.B.: I'm thinking out loud here. This is not a formal essay. If you want me to take any of this further, or some bit of it just don't make no earthly sense, do let me know. But do be polite...
Comments
5 comments:
Kyle,
Why are you so leery of subscribing to a universal "God experience?" Does not tradition and orthodoxy guide us to a universal "God experience" so that when we claim our own experience is of God, we can base it on the tradition that we hold to. Has not the Christian tradition guided the faith to an universal experience of embracing God as Triune?
It seems that the Christian faith understands God as Triune, so that claiming my own "God experience" as orthodox would necessitate it being revealed from the Triune God. If I do not experience God as Triune, then I am not sharing in the universal “God experience” that has been revealed as the tradition teaches.
What is the purpose of orthodoxy if not to guide us to a universal understanding?
dr
It may just be me but I find the first several paragraphs very difficult to understand. It may be a problem with my reading, but I can't determine what is in the voice of the pastor and what is in your voice.
I have a suspicion that I would understand you much better if we were talking about it. Alas, states separate us.
Yeah, stupid states.
Joshua, I disagree with every opinion articulated in the first 4 paragraphs of this post. :0)
Danny, I wouldn't describe the purpose of the Christian tradition to bring us to a "universal God experience," but rather a restored relationship with the triune God through Christ. It's a reality that I may or may not "feel" anything about at any particular time. It's a reality, a true condition, that isn't always going to have much to do with my felt "experience."
I don't think the language or intention of the Bible is to get us talking about having "experiences."
When you say "experience," I hear it as "something I feel to be true - someone's own emotionally affective, kind-of intuitive sense of the way things are. It's a bit new age-y and feel-good for me.
I have often spoken of something like a "universal God experience" when looking at ascetical writings from a variety of faith traditions. From what I have read, mystics of a variety of traditions offer much the same initial sensory description of their experience: darkness leading to brightness, a sense of embrace and communion, awe and peace. Now, they're interpretations of the experience vary significantly; but the initial sensory language is much the same. I often say the mystics have it most accurately, and the rest of us are wrestling with how to talk about this within the limitations of language and culture.
Perhaps that's not how many others speak of a "God experience" that is somehow "universal;" but that's what has been of interest to me.
Again, it sounds good to me, Blake. I think it would be cool if you wrote a couple of paragraphs on "the covenantal structure of revelation." I think I get what you mean in terms of God working through one kind of life agreement after another with various biblical characters, but pretend you're teaching Bible 101 in a local Sunday School class and indulge us. :0)
I'd also like to note that (have I said it enough?) postmodernism as such is more a critique of the modern tradition and the realization that certain ways of thinking, like foundationalism, have exhausted themselves. Like Lyotard says, it's incredulity toward metanarratives, rather than being its own.
I wouldn't consider myself "anti-foundations," but the issue for me is, do I think there is a set of "first principles" that can be "objectively" ascertained through human reason (whether you involve some kind of natural revelation or not) that will let me reason out the truth of the Christian faith. Of course my answer is a resounding no. But I certainly believe that the "foundation" of our theologizing is the biblical revelation, which is grounded(!) in the person of the Triune God.
Is this still making sense to anyone?
Welcome back, Fr. Marshall. That's a good point, and deals with a different angle than I was thinking of - I think it's one thing to say that certain sensory and intuitive experiences seem to be "universal" in ascetic religious practices, and another to insist that there is a universal "reality" that is directly behind the sensory experiences of all these people.
The former is an observation, the latter is a dogma, and it's the latter that I read in the aforementioned pastor, and was challenging.
Thanks, guys.
Post a Comment