Secularism Agnosticism and the Loss of Objective Truth in Religion

Models of Revelation Summary

Summary

How one views the topic of revelation depends upon what model one chooses as a framework. The five models of revelation are: revelation as doctrine, revelation as history, revelation as inner experience, revelation as dialectical presence, and revelation as new consciousness. Each model represents a unique view of revelation, yet after the first model, subsequent models all reflect influences from evolutions in thought and theory found in the modern world since the 16th century. Thus, whereas in the revelation as doctrine model objective truth is emphasized, all subsequent models tend to emphasize subjectivity more and more, elevating the role of the personal over the importance of the doctrinal.

The revelation as history model begins this trend of deviation away from objectivity insofar as it emphasizes Scripture as a witness to inspired events rather than as revelation itself. The revelation as inner experience model further moves the framework towards the subjective experience, emphasizing one’s feeling and sentiment. The revelation as dialectical presence emphasize the interaction of the person with the text and the transformation that takes place. The revelation as new consciousness model emphasizes the need for the individual to move beyond Scripture and to see the divine as existing everywhere, in all cultures in different ways, and even in secular society where there is no strict emphasis on religion. At this point revelation is viewed more as an act of transcendence than as an objective fact that is meant to be respected with dogmatic certainty and commitment. Rather than seeing revelation as an act of God through Scripture and tradition, one is told to see revelation as an experience happening all around oneself even right now.

Introduction

Revelation is the removing of a veil so that a thing is seen. In terms of Scripture, revelation is the Word of God given to man through the intermediaries (the writers of Scripture) over the centuries. Other religions, such as Judaism and Islam, also have a similar understanding of revelation—but they view their texts as God-given and exclusive. For people who have not come to Jesus, the question is how God is revealed to them? Prayer, worship, belief and self-denial are some of the ways people come to revelation. Yet models of revelation are helpful for showing how God’s truth is revealed to people, and this paper will explain those models.

Models of Revelation

Avery Dulles proposed five models of revelation: revelation as doctrine, revelation as history, revelation as inner experience, revelation as dialectical presence, and revelation as new consciousness. Each of these models reflects some aspect or time in the evolution of thought regarding revelation, from revelation being regarded as an action of God to revelation being regarded as an objective deposit of truth, apologetically delivered both by Catholics and Protestants in the 16th century onwards to combat the arguments of Deists, who posited that all essential truths of religion were knowable by reason and that no supernatural revelation was in effect of any real assistance in the matter.

By the 19th century, revelation was caught in the midst of a battle with agnostics and philosophical skeptics on one side, and orthodox believers and Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) on the other. Kant and Schleiermacher were at the forefront of the agnostic movement, with the former arguing that human knowledge was confined to phenomenology and that transcendence, since it could not be directly experienced, could not be known even through revelation; and the latter arguing that faith (as sentiment) was more important than revelation—in effect arguing that revelation (objective truth) had little place in a world that stressed subjective experience.

Coming out of this evolution of thought, Dulles proposes the five models of revelation, with the first—revelation as doctrine—reflecting the beliefs of the 16th century Christians who opposed the movement of the Deists with respect to revelation’s (lack of) significance. The final model—revelation as new consciousness—reflects the essential point of Schleiermacher, which is that it is all just sentiment in the end—so why fight about it?

Revelation as Doctrine

Revelation as doctrine (objective truth) is associated with neo-scholasticism; Catholics assert that both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are sources of revelation, whereas Protestants tend to view Scripture alone as the deposit of revelation. Christian theology is approached differently by these two groups, but essentially they both hold the view that revelation was an act by God and that what has been revealed is now to be respected as truth.

In the Protestant group, Scripture is interpreted by the individual but nonetheless it is recognized as the source of revealed truth. In the Catholic group, doctrinal statements from the teaching Church aid in the interpretation of Scripture, and tradition (oral) also expresses revealed truths that were not written.

Not everyone accepts either view: George Lindbeck argued that it is wrong to assume that one can definitively state anything objective about God. Medieval theologians were also somewhat circumspect in that they regarded their work as a perception of divine truth, and that propositional revelation is not exclusive; i.e., one can adhere to the model of revelation as doctrine while also adhering to other models. Modern theologians, such as Karl Barth, have muddied the waters of this model by arguing that Scripture is not to be taken as revelation but rather as a witness to the revelation of the Word of God in Christ, to which Scripture is the witness, and of which the Church proclaims in its mission.

Revelation as History

In the model of revelation as history, there are two forms—salvation history and universal history. In salvation history, Scripture emphasizes the role of Israel and the God Who made covenants with His people, which were fulfilled through Christ and the Church, which asserts that Christ remains present through the Sacrament. Universal history applies to the whole of humanity.

The view of revelation as the history of inspired events, with the text of Scripture serving as a record of those events, is held by John Ballie, James Barr and others. Archaeological evidence is often used to support this view. In it, Scripture is seen as the record of revelation—but not as revelation itself (which accords with the view of Barth). In viewing revelation in this manner, that is at one remove from the act of revelation, one distances oneself from the insistence on objective truth (doctrine and dogma) that characterizes the first model. This model also sets the stage for revelation as inner experience.

Revelation as Inner Experience

In this model, doctrine is seen as the expression of personal feeling. It is not associated with objective truth but rather with personal conviction. Intuition plays a large role in this feeling. It does not necessitate formal explanation, but instead relies upon personal experience and the subjective. If one feels it is so, then it is so. Mysticism and the views of Schleiermacher would come into play in this model. Schleiermacher resisted doctrine; mystics—such as St. Thomas Aquinas (a scholastic)—are not necessarily opposed to doctrine, however.

The emphasis upon inner experience as the most essential aspect of revelation is given more weight in modern theology. This is consistent with the general emphasis on subjective truth—personal truth—often found in common discourse in today’s world. The de-emphasis on objectivity and universal truth since the rise of Deism and the agnostics has coincided with the rise of the notion of revelation as inner experience of God.

Revelation as Dialectical Presence

This model proposes that there is a dialectical relation between the text of Scripture and the person reading it. The Word of God is in Scripture and when a person encounters that Word it offers an experience of transformation. Barth is typically linked with this model, but essentially it is a further evolution of the previous model with some throwback to the first model in that it still emphasizes the importance of the Word of God insofar as it evokes a reaction in the person encountering it. The concept of truth is still uttered by Barth in this context, but more emphasis is placed on the individual’s transformation in terms of being healed and justified. Scripture is thus seen as the vehicle by which one comes to be saved—but whether one has to necessarily believe in any doctrines is somewhat unclear and perhaps irrelevant.