(Part V) Religious Experience and Doctrine

   Over the last month we have taken a fairly in-depth look at religious experience from the perspective of philosophy and apologetics.  Today, we’ll focus on the theological implications of religious experience.  Should religious experience reinterpret doctrine at any level?  Should it change our lives?  And what does the Bible say about it?

  Obviously we wouldn’t have the Bible without religious experiences, because prophecy necessarily comes from religious experience and the Bible was written by prophets.  However, the question remains—“can modern-day people experience the same kind of religious experience as the Biblical writers did?”  The answer is pretty obviously no.  The Bible is absolutely clear on this subject: 

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”  (NIV)

  Its pretty apparent that John is talking about the Holy Spirit will make clear what Jesus had already said.  W. Hall Harris claims, “…in light of the connection with ‘all the things’ Jesus said to them, it is more likely that the teaching function of the Holy Spirit is not intended to reveal exhaustive truth to the disciples, but rather the full significance of what Jesus did and said while he was with them.”

Hebrews 1:1-3 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.  The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”  (NIV)

   The point here is that God communicated His Word twice—first through their forefathers and prophets and secondly through His Son.  Adam Clarke says it best, “This Son, in the fullness of time, was manifested in the flesh that he might complete all vision and prophecy, supply all that was wanting to perfect the great scheme of revelation for the instruction of the world, and then die to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Jude 3  “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” (ASV)

  Here we see that the faith (or Word) was delivered once and for all to the saints (ourselves).   Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states, “No other faith or revelation is to supersede it. A strong argument for resisting heretical innovators.” 

1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (emphasis added)

  This verse clearly states that what is written is more important than anything anyone says later.  Charles Hodge says, “That is, not to esteem minister above the scriptural standard. As Paul had been dealing with this subject, ‘nothing beyond what is written’ might seem naturally to refer to what he himself had just written. But as the phrase elsewhere always refers to the Old Testament, which were the ‘writings’ recognized as of divine authority, that is probably what he is referring to here.”

1 Corinthians 14:3 “…the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.”

  It’s clear that prophecy is for upbuilding and encouragement. 

These verses make clear that God’s Word is already written and that the role of prophecy in the church is for encouragement—not for doctrine.  Thus, we can see that religious experiences, i.e. the ones that are prophetic, are not meant for the creation of new meaning in Christianity.  However, these experiences can and should be uplifting.  

  In most cases, these experiences can change our minds, change our hearts and always remind of us of what is already written in the scriptures. 

  

Conclusion…

  We’ve entered the heart of modern Atheism, empiricism, and argued that we can know that a supernatural realm exists.  This in turn proves that naturalism is false.  This in turn proves that supernaturalism is correct.  Finally, we looked at what the Bible says about modern religious experiences. 

What is theology?

     Theology is the study of God and religion.  Christian theology then is the study of the Christian God and the Christian religion.  I really like the way Alister McGrath further develops the definition of theology in "Christian Theology: An Introduction"; he does so by including four stages to the study of theology: sources, development, relationship and application.  Sources may include the Bible, natural revelation, the Church or the church fathers.  Development deals with the way in which theology develops, i.e. its evolutionary history into what it is today.   This is a lot like historical theology in its approach to new ideas.  Relationship is how Christian ideas relate with each other and their total coherence.  Finally, application is about theology’s pragmatic value to believers and theologians.  (McGrath, 2011)  McGrath’s definition gives a good foundation for studying God and religion because it gives us four places to begin our study.  (You can checkout part of his book in the links.)  We must start with the revelation, watch the idea develop, watch the relation of the idea to others and finally check its applicability.  I will attempt to use this structure in discussing theology.

  An important question related to the first things…

  “How do we study theology?  What tools should we bring to the table to further our understanding?”  Many wide and varied suggestions have been made.  Indeed, this is quite possibly one of the seminal questions facing modern theology.  Some have argued that we must look at theology in a completely scientific way.  Others have suggested that we must attack the questions with only logic.   Both of these approaches come down to a basic idea that theology must be some kind of scientific study of religion. 

I believe this approach has many problems – one of which is focus. 

      For example, while science may be able to study the way civilizations think about God, it doesn’t have anything to do with the metaphysical relationship people have with a spiritual world.  To think that science is a necessary prerequisite to studying theology is arbitrary, not only because it isn’t pragmatic, but also because it means that religion must somehow subjugate itself to science.  Which ultimately means that we are studying religion under a microscope (like studying an ancient text) and that we have closed our eyes to anything outside of our visual stimuli.  This, I think, most theologians would reject because religion isn’t like any other subject; it is tied to something deeper than the mere flesh and bones that make up our body, it is tied to our being.  Many theologians have sold their metaphorical souls for legitimization of theology in the eyes of others and by doing so they have put blinders over the study of theology.

    I believe that this approach is wrong; my suggestion is that we approach theology with an open heart and mind.  We must approach it not merely as scholars but as believers. What I mean is that we must use all available paths to understand more about God and religion.  In this way, I guess I’m like Søren Kierkegaard, we live in a society that wants to study religion with a microscope, but we cannot study spirituality with anything but an open heart.

McGrath, A.E. (2011). Christian theology: an introduction. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.