To an Old Friend and an Alma Mater
Reason and revelation: revelation and reason. It is the great bane of all Christian education to have to endlessly participate in academic gymnastics in order to properly define the two in relation to each other. Issues of precedence and exclusivity are extremely important to clearly delineate. Many approaches to the proper arrangement of reason and revelation can be seen. Some end up emphasizing one at the expense of the other. A few emphasize one to the benefit of the other. Still more choose one and leave the other out completely. But that is not what interests me today. What interests me is the content of each.
Reason seems clear enough. It is generally being smart about stuff. Knowing the causes of hurricanes and the flu, the proper taxonomy of flora and fauna, and the differences between the id and the superego fit quite nicely under Reason. Many liberal arts also fit here, like Spanish and philosophy, art and drama. In my experience, Christian education either ignores this side entirely (see bible colleges) or excels at it. Those that excel at it often do so to their own detriment. Academic discipline makes traditional Biblical piety seem empty. "Meaning" in the text is no simple thing any longer. Evidence, proof, suspicion, epistemology, metaphysics, history, and language come into play. The text is no longer "ours" but "theirs", and we are left to guess and question each other without the possibility of real answers.
So by the time we arrive at revelation, our faith is often wounded. The only source of revelation we have ever known has been challenged. The Bible may not be what it has always seemed (nor what the church has always taught it to be). Even if we say that we still hold revelation to be truthful and accurate, we are left holding a book that seems far from perfect. Our reason has overcome our conception of revelation. Why did this happen? How did this happen?
I can only answer that question by way of personal testimony. Christian education did indeed radically alter my faith. I have never read the Bible in the same manner as I once did. But I still count myself as a faithful Christian, for I have been fortunate enough to become immersed in a world that my Christian education dared not tread. Theology. I have discovered the joys of Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, John H. Yoder, and Stanley Hauerwas. These wonderful theologians have taught me more about the faith than 1,000 sermons ever did. But this was not part of my "Christian" education. It seems that there is no room for the Christian tradition in Christian education. The only revelation most Christian educations include is a brief survey of all our extremely complicated texts in the form of Old & New Testament survey courses. It seems to me that what should be just as important is the centuries of reasonable scholarship devoted to making sense of the text. Theology has been my guide in understanding how to apply rational principles to matters of faith. Training in theology enables students to apply their new skills to their faith.
Tomorrow (or the next day) I will continue this monologue. I will discuss why theology has been left out, what the results of its exclusion have been, and make a recommendation for Christian education.
Reason seems clear enough. It is generally being smart about stuff. Knowing the causes of hurricanes and the flu, the proper taxonomy of flora and fauna, and the differences between the id and the superego fit quite nicely under Reason. Many liberal arts also fit here, like Spanish and philosophy, art and drama. In my experience, Christian education either ignores this side entirely (see bible colleges) or excels at it. Those that excel at it often do so to their own detriment. Academic discipline makes traditional Biblical piety seem empty. "Meaning" in the text is no simple thing any longer. Evidence, proof, suspicion, epistemology, metaphysics, history, and language come into play. The text is no longer "ours" but "theirs", and we are left to guess and question each other without the possibility of real answers.
So by the time we arrive at revelation, our faith is often wounded. The only source of revelation we have ever known has been challenged. The Bible may not be what it has always seemed (nor what the church has always taught it to be). Even if we say that we still hold revelation to be truthful and accurate, we are left holding a book that seems far from perfect. Our reason has overcome our conception of revelation. Why did this happen? How did this happen?
I can only answer that question by way of personal testimony. Christian education did indeed radically alter my faith. I have never read the Bible in the same manner as I once did. But I still count myself as a faithful Christian, for I have been fortunate enough to become immersed in a world that my Christian education dared not tread. Theology. I have discovered the joys of Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, John H. Yoder, and Stanley Hauerwas. These wonderful theologians have taught me more about the faith than 1,000 sermons ever did. But this was not part of my "Christian" education. It seems that there is no room for the Christian tradition in Christian education. The only revelation most Christian educations include is a brief survey of all our extremely complicated texts in the form of Old & New Testament survey courses. It seems to me that what should be just as important is the centuries of reasonable scholarship devoted to making sense of the text. Theology has been my guide in understanding how to apply rational principles to matters of faith. Training in theology enables students to apply their new skills to their faith.
Tomorrow (or the next day) I will continue this monologue. I will discuss why theology has been left out, what the results of its exclusion have been, and make a recommendation for Christian education.
posted by matt at 5:51 PM
4 Comments:
I must disagree on one point. You claim the arts fit nicely under reason. Yesterday I was listening to Beethoven's 7th and one of the movements brought tears to my eyes. Those that know anything of this great composer know that he was deaf when composing this particular orchestration. What most people don't know however, is that the origonal manuscripts are completely and entirely without error. He didn't need to rewrite a single note to a single chord in order for it to work perfectly. Even the most educated, talented, and trained muscians would admit that this feat is humanly impossible. Reason says that he would have needed to hear what he wrote in order for it to be so perfect. Reason says that he might have missed a chord progression or even a sharp or flat in the thousands of notes that he put to paper. What he created, completely without error the first time around, does not follow any law of reason.
Eldredge claims that God's character is one of wasteful creativeness (he spares at no expense with the glory of His creation). Once in a while we see that reflected in a painting, a poem, or a symphony. The artist defies reason simply because he would be unable to rest at night without bringing his reflected creativity to surface.
Unless you want to put the arts under revelation (which I most certainly do not) I do not understand the nature of your disagreement. I am not wishing to speak of the different levels of reason involved in the liberal arts. The arts are a learned skill. Talent is surely involved. But what we are talking about is something that is still human at its center. Revelation is something that comes from the divine and testifies to the divine.
Perhaps the misunderstanding is that I neglected to define revelation. I am not trying to detract from Beethoven. I am only trying to draw a firm line between what Beethoven does and what God does in Jesus.
Granted for 99.9% of the population, the arts are a learned skill, but maybe you don't understand my argument. What I am saying is that this composition that Beethoven has created wasn't the result of a "learned skill," or for that matter even "human at its center." If I were to play what he wrote, because of years of practice on the flute, I could come close to what he wrote, but would never completely communicate that which he had intended.
This is totally something that testifies to the divine for the divine is inherently a creative being, if that's how you wish to define revelation. Is revelation reserved only for the written word? I believed that once....but now I'm not so sure. I think that this example I have illustrated may prove differently.
While you are moving towards a working definition of revelation, it is not one I would choose. I feel that the only divine revelation is God's self-revelation. (aka Jesus) Beethoven may reveal a great deal about our human nature (and this is helpful especially to Christians), but his work cannot reveal God. Our efforts to reveal God cannot begin to describe a God who is radically "other" than humanity. If we feel that we see God in our art and music, perhaps what we are discovering is our yearning for God, or our hope for goodness in the world. But that is still an expression of human desire and not a revelation of God.
Post a Comment
<< Home