the meaning of revelation (systematic theology I)

this is a continuation of my Systematic Theology critical log (see 1/28/05 for explanation)

The Meaning of Revelation and its Reception In Different Historical and Cultural Contexts - 2/4/05

Initial Thoughts
My definition of revelation up to this point in my life has been based on Jesus’ words of John 14:6-7 and Colossians 1:15. The starting point of revelation is Jesus Christ as the way to know the Father and as he serves as the image of the invisible God. The basic notion of looking at Jesus, as described in the Bible, and ascertaining God’s actions from his actions serves as my first way of understanding God. The specific revelation from God through Jesus Christ comes from an interaction with the Bible and the community of believers applied to the specific circumstances of the one whom God reveals himself to.
My view of general revelation has been based on Romans 1:20 (God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen), Romans 2:15 (since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts), and Ecclesiastes 3:11 (he has also set eternity in the hearts of men). These verses display how God is available to everybody through creation and the conscience.
I started to raise questions in college about how different people responded to general revelation and how this played out apart from Jesus Christ. The classic question of what happens to a person on a deserted island summarized these questions. I didn’t, however, consider the roles of different cultures in my understanding of revelation.

Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (106-137)
Tillich’s definition of revelation is different than any description I have encountered. I need to utilize this log entry to wrap my head around his view of revelation. It is built upon a set of concepts diagrammed below. He describes revelation is a special and extraordinary manifestation which removes the veil from something which is hidden in a special and extraordinary way. The hiddenness is often called “mystery�. The concepts flow from this relationship and sub-relationships. The descriptions are detailed in this log as a foundation for future discussions in the log about revelation as described by Tillich.

mystery – characterizes a dimension which “precedes� the subject-object relationship and the term should not be applied to something which ceases to be a mystery after it has been revealed. Revelation always is a subjective and an objective event in strict interdependence.
miracle – mystery appears objectively in terms of what traditionally has been called “miracle�.
ecstasy – mystery appears subjectively in terms of what has sometimes been called “ecstasy�. Ecstasy points to a state of mind in which is extraordinary in the sense that the mind transcends its ordinary situation.
inspiration – the cognitive element of ecstasy which emphasizes the pure receptivity of cognitive reason in an ecstatic experience. Original revelation is a result of inspiration.
illumination – the divine Spirit, illuminates believers individually and as a group, and brings their cognitive reason into revelatory correlation with the event on which Christianity is based. Dependent revelation is a result of inspiration.
Overall, Tillich describes revelation, whether it is original or dependent, as having revelatory power only for those who participate in it, who enter into the revelatory correlation. He accounts for the reality of objective (miracle) and subjective (ecstasy) elements of mystery while also accounting for the foundation (original) and ongoing (dependent) aspects of revelation. I still do not see, however, how Tillich accounts for the tendency for humans to create their own agendas and projects in his method of correlation. The existential questions and context need to be incorporated into the ‘equation’ but I still haven’t seen how his method can stand unless a check is added to the method. In terms of revelation, this check would need to be applied to the dependent revelation that results from the subjective elements of the encounter with the mystery of God.

Questions:
Are there any constraints to what falls into the realm of dependent revelation? How does the Bible and tradition play a role in defining whether a revelation to an individual or group relates back to the original revelation? Again, who judges whether a dependent revelation relates to the original? If someone (whoever that is) makes a decision, then is this classified as a new original revelation? If so, then is Mormonism an example of new original revelation or is it a dependent revelation?

Cone: God of the Oppressed (36-56)
Cone presents his thesis that all Christian theology is human speech about God and is always related to historical situations, and thus all its assertions are culturally limited. He supports this thesis by first appealing to Feuerbach, Marx, and the sociology of knowledge (Mannheim, Berger, Luckmann). He then applies his conclusions to white and black theology.
Feuerbach asserts that theology is anthropology and that the idea of God is humanity itself projected to infinity. Marx goes further by utilizing sense data to show that the task of philosophy is not merely to interpret the world but to change it. He posits that the ruling class promotes religion to justify the present material relations and that religion should be addressed as a means to remove unjust societal conditions. Lastly, the social of knowledge states that ideas do not have an existence separate from life but arise out of a framework of reality constructed by people.
Cone’s application of these ideas to white and black theology is eye-opening. Two attacks on Christianity that many friends and co-workers over the years have thrown at me is Christianity’s oppression of women and support for slavery. These predictable questions have always challenged me but I have not researched a strong response. Cone’s assertions expose my limited and shallow view of the slavery issues, especially within Christianity.
Cone states what I often have stated with regard to Christianity when he says that “the gospel grants people the freedom to transcend their cultural history and to affirm a dimension of universality common to all peoples.� He says this in relation to the white theologians who openly condemned slavery. I have always thought that “true� Christianity overcomes all the accusations that Christians are against women, blacks, the environment, etc. Cone’s quote shows that the gospel has the ability to do just that.
At the same time, Cone raises the reality that most (if not all) of the world does not allow the gospel to grant people that very freedom he described. In fact, the opposite is still true. His most poignant critique of the Christianity that I know is when he said “that is why they spend time debating the relations between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith than probing the depths of Jesus’ command to feed the poor.� The ideas of Feuerbach, Marx, and the society of knowledge applied to white theology show that whites, when not open to the gospel’s power to grant the freedom to transcend, only care about white issues and the status quo that favors them.
Cone fairly applies the same matrix of critique to black thought on Christianity. He admits that it has been influenced by its social context. My respect for Cone increased when I read this because I am growing tired of people with agendas who do not apply their criteria to themselves. His application reveals that black theology is expressed in the style of story and its content is liberation. He doesn’t state, however, any weaknesses in this view. Instead, he reasserts that “black folks tell tales� without citing any missing pieces to that mode of theology.

Questions:
Cone states that “blacks simply appropriated those biblical stories that met their historical need�. What does black theology do with the biblical stories that do not meet their historical need? How do they account for groups that utilize other biblical stories for their own historical need? Do these outputs ever conflict? If so, then is one historical need greater than the other?
Cone also states earlier that “what people think about God, Jesus Christ, and the Church cannot be separated from their own social and political status in a given society.� Is there any consistent content (even one word) that is shared by people of different social and political statuses? Are the differences more in the application of a consistent set of base truths or are there no base truths?

Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (43-58)
Calvin asserts that there is an awareness of divinity within the human mind and that even idolatry is ample proof of this conception. He stresses that if a person does not know God, then he or she degenerates from the law of their creation. Furthermore, he posits that only 1 in 100 humans receives the seed of religion but, instead, create superstitions, turn away from God, fashion God in our own religions, and only consider the seed of religion if compelled to do so. He adds that humans are further accountable because of God’s self-disclosure in creation and in humanity itself.
Calvin incorporates sin into his argument for how God’s revelation is obscured in this world. His references to Romans 1 show that he sees anything that is too human-focused is an idol fashioned by humanity for its own purposes. Calvin rightly accounts for the danger of humans playing too large a role in describing God, whether apart from the Bible or using the Bible for their own agenda. On the other hand, I do not see how Calvin wuld apply his view of revelation to account for specific issues that are outside of the tradition of the church.

Questions:
Is Calvin restricted in his view of revelation or are the groups that contextualize theologies restricted by their view of revelation in their specific social and cultural situation? Which one is more limited? What role does sin, as defined as self-promoting actions apart from God, play in understanding God’s revelation?

Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation (27-46), Introduction to Job
Gutierrez describes theological thought about God as thought about a mystery. He refutes the arrogance displayed by those whose God-talk is sure that it knows everything there is to know about God. He contrasts this arrogance with the humility that comes from considering the very difficult question of where is God when innocent people are dying and oppressed in Latin America. How are these people supposed to talk about God? I am starting to extend beyond the space allowed for this section of the log so I will pick this subject up next week.

Final Thoughts:
I plan to record a short, hypothetical discussion between the writers every few weeks to capture where I see them coming from on the topic. This initial discussion will include a set of preliminary questions. The responses will be addressed as the semester goes on. Let’s meet the participants (in no specific order):

John Calvin:
Paul, the consideration of existential questions in your method of correlation, if applied without error, could provide the right answers. I do not see, however, how you account for the reality that human beings, because of sin, fashion religions for their own purposes. What prevents an individual from using your method of correlation to fashion God in their own religion as driven by his/her own personal questions or problems?

James Cone:
Let me take that question and respond with my own questions. John, what is your definition of “right� answers? Do your right answers consider only questions from a while theologian’s perspective? How does your definition of sin play out in a different context than your own? Do you realize that I am not concerned about God’s self-disclosure if that disclosure results in oppression?

Paul Tillich:
James, good use of a contextual reality that displays that we cannot believe that we can theologize apart from the existential questions we face. John, revelation is found in both original and dependent forms based on inspiration and illumination respectively. Dependent revelation, if fashioned after a personal agenda, will not speak to the specific group or individual and will no longer be considered. My main example are the Greek gods and the views of Mary. Do you believe that you can stand apart from revelation and judge which will remain and which will not?

Rosemary Ruether,
The context and the sources of revelation should be tested for patriarchal attitudes. All of these questions point to the tension between tradition and existential questions but are there issues with both of these ideas that need to be addressed, namely, feminist concerns? We need to step back from this discussion to make sure that we are not moving forward without this voice.

Gustavo Gutierrez:
I agree with Rosemary in the sense that all God-talk must not suppose that the speakers know everything there is to know about God. John, do you mention that depravity clouds the view of God’s natural revelation but do you see the sin in the suffering of the innocent? How do reconcile real problems with a theological system that doesn’t address specific issues? If your theology addresses these issues, then I am looking forward to that discussion in the coming weeks.