Introduction: There are
probably many sources/factors of theology, and some of which may operate
unconsciously and as such, we are not even aware of them. We shall briefly consider six factors, viz.,
experience, revelation, scripture, tradition, culture, reason. These sources would seem to be almost
universally operative in theology.
1 Revelation: This is the primary source of theology. Essential to the idea of revelation is that
what we come to know through revelation has a gift-like character as seen below:
(a) Gift-like Character: What we come to know through revelation
has a gift-like character. (i) In general terms, if we say that what is
disclosed in revelation is the dimension of the holy, then in the revelatory
experience, it is as if the holy ‘breaks in’ and the movement is from beyond
man toward man. (ii) Natural phenomena may take on the dimensions
of a revelatory situation. Especially in
primitive religion, the holy is believed to manifest itself in nature. (iii)
In the Christian religion, a person, Jesus Christ is the bearer of
revelation. Because of its gift-like
character, revelation is of a different order from our ordinary matter-of-fact
knowing of the world.
(b) Basic pattern of revelation:
(i) Claim of recipient: Some may have claimed to have received
revelatory experience (e.g. Ordinary matter-of-fact knowing of the world). It is not surprising that recipients of
revelatory experiences, which they try to describe them, may seem to be using
quite fantastic languages as they try to communicate to us the ecstatic
experience in which, as they believe, a holy reality broke in upon them. But in spite of the astonishing variety of
such experiences, a definite pattern runs through them, and this basic pattern
of revelation seems to be common to all religions of the world. For instances, revelation granted to Moses
(Ex.3:1ff.); to Arjuna who received a theophany of the god Krishna
(Bhagavadgita xi) etc.
(ii) Analysis of basic pattern of
revelation: The basic pattern of
revelation may be summarily analyzed on the following points: a mode of
meditation or pre-occupation; the sudden in-breaking of the holy presence,
often symbolized in terms of the shining of a light; a mode of self-abasement
in face of the holy; a more definite disclosure of the holy, perhaps the
disclosure of a name or a purpose or a truth of some kind; and the sense of
being called or commissioned by the holy to a definite task or way of life.
(c) Revelation-Experience: Revelation has much in common with experience. Revelation is a mode of religious experience,
while our experiences of the holy as judging, assisting, addressing etc., all
have a revelatory element. It is,
therefore, difficult to draw a hard and fast line between revelation and
experience, but in practice it is desirable to keep these two sources distinct
in our theological thinking. Because we
do not normally dignify our day-to-day experiences of the holy by the name of
‘revelation,’ and no theology properly so called could be found on private
revelations as theology expresses the faith of the community.
A community of faith, within which a theology arises,
usually traces its history back to a classic or primordial revelation. This classic revelation, a definite
disclosive experience of the holy granted to the founder of the community,
becomes the paradigm for experiences of the holy in that community.
2 Scripture: The scripture or the sacred writings of
the community of faith have played a large part in the Christian religion. The scriptures provide for the community a
kind of memory, by which it can reach back to and recall its past.
(b) Stability and objectivity: Scripture, as bringing again the disclosure
given in the primordial revelation, has stability and a certain kind of
objectivity as over against the vagaries of individual experiences in the
community. The scriptures of a community
are a major factor in maintaining stability and a sense of continuing identity
in the community itself. We find
therefore that Scriptures become a norm in the theology of the community, and
along with tradition provide a safeguard against the subjectivity excesses that
arise from placing too much emphasis on the deliverances of present
experience. In the Christian community,
any theology which claims to be Christian theology must maintain close and
positive relation with the Bible.
However, as over against the exaggerated regard for the Bible, it must be
claimed that the critical study of the Bible, and the recognition that other
factors too have their place in theology, will in the long run do more justice
to the biblical teaching and will not run encounter to any reasonably conceived
doctrine of inspiration; for such a critical attitude accepts our own
responsibility in face of the Bible.
3 Tradition: Tradition has long been a bone of contention
in Christian theology; Catholics have held that revelation in Christ has been
transmitted to us both in Scripture and tradition, while Protestants have
acknowledged scripture alone.
(a) Tradition not rival to Scripture: Nowadays, it would seem that many Protestants
are willing to acknowledge some positive role for tradition. But whether acknowledged or not, the fact is
that tradition always has had its place in helping to determine the doctrine
and practice of the Christian community, and that tradition is no rival to
scripture but is its necessary complement.
Because tradition is something that comes alive in the ongoing life of
the community which first gave birth to Scripture and has since proclaimed and
interpreted the teaching of Scripture.
The earliest Christian scriptures were preceded by and
based upon the tradition that was handed down and in turn received in the
primitive Christian community (1 Cor.11:23; 15:3). Jesus was remembered not
only in the Scripture but in the Sacraments of the Church (1 Cor.11:24) and of
course, Eucharistic worship from the outset was based not on Scripture but
solely on tradition. It was the
community which eventually decided about the canon of the NT, thereby setting
what writings were to be regarded as authoritative Christian Scripture, and
this decision was based on the traditional usage of the Church. Doctrines that are stated only obscurely and
implicitly in Scripture were eventually brought to explicitness in the dogmatic
pronouncements of the Church, so that today we read the Scriptures in the light
of the traditional interpretation.
(b) A bulwark: As we have seen above, tradition is another
bulwark against individualism and enthusiasm in theology. Scripture needs the complement of tradition
in order to guard against private interpretations of Scripture. Sometimes there are enthusiasts who break
with tradition either for the sake of being modern of the sake of going right
back to the OT, as if all the intervening development could be left out. Sometimes both of these errors occur in the
same person. Tradition is meant to guard
against this, because in either case there is a break in the life of the
community, or rather, the community has been abandoned and a new one set
up. Therefore, a Christian theology can
no more fly in the face of the mainstream of tradition.
(c) Interpretation: As in the case of Scripture, so with
tradition there can be an uncritical and excessive regard that leads to bad
theology. Tradition can become dead and
mechanical, so that all growth and healthy development are inhibited. If tradition itself becomes dead, there we
get a rigid fixity of the theological expressions of a religious faith that is
harmful. The function of tradition that
has been stressed here is interpretation, and interpretation needs to be done
over and over again. Each generation
must appropriate the tradition, and in order to do this it has to interpret the
ancient formula, or whatever it may be, into its own categories of
thought. This means that one has to ask
what the formula was trying to express in its own historical context or what
error it was trying to guard against, and then rethink this in our own
situation. This needs more insight and
patience. Such re-interpretation is
needed if the tradition is to be carried on critically and responsibly as a
living and growing tradition.
4 Experience: In this area of experience we seek to ‘make
sense’ of our experience, and the process of bringing the content of the
faith-experience to clear expression in words embarks us on the business of
theology.
(a) Form of experience: Our experience of the life of faith comes
from participation in a community of faith.
However, the form of this experience varies from individual and even
from one particular community to another.
For some, experience is associated with a moral struggle; for some with
an intellectual quest.
(b) Basic elements: Though the form of experience varies, there
may be certain basic elements common to them all:
(i) Quest: In the very constitution of our human
existence there is a quest for the holy.
In the community of faith, the quest is met by the opening up of the
holy, which is experienced as addressing, judging, assisting, renewing and so
on. Unless the quest does not have its
roots in experience of this kind, theology deals in abstractions and becomes a
mere scholasticism.
(ii) Religious experience: This is certainly important. The specifically religious experience
concentrates elements which can then be recognized as diffusely present in wide
areas of experience, such as awareness of finitude, freedom, creativity,
transcendence etc.
(iii) Existing as human being: Experience of existing as a human being
constitutes a primary source for theology.
This implies that faith meets what seems to be a quest in the very
constitution of our human existence. But
this remark further implies that although it is only in faith that we become
conscious of the quest, the roots of the quest are prior to experience since
they belong to the very structure of human experience. In short, the quest is the quest for
self-understanding and it has theological significance to the extent that it
comes to grips with the religious dimensions of experience.
5 Culture: The sources considered so far have all
belonged to the life of faith, and represent that element in our definition of
theology which spoke of theology’s ‘participation’ in faith. Now, we are turning to the source that has to
do with theology’s character as an intellectual discipline, and with its
intention of finding expression ‘in the clearest and most coherent language
available.’ If theology is to be
intelligible, it has to use the language of the culture within which it is
undertaken. Actually no one can escape
sharing in the mentality or intellectual climate of his own culture.
Recognition
of the culture is equivalent to acknowledging that there is no final
theology. The work of theology needs to
be done again and again, because its formulations are culturally conditioned,
and therefore need re-interpretation as cultural forms change.
Many expressions in the
NT were intelligible in the psychology or social conditions of the first
century of our era, but have become unintelligible in terms of our modern
understanding of these matters. While
the primordial revelation remains, and, as we have seen, Scripture and
tradition together act as check to prevent wanton and irresponsible theological
innovations, there is also a variable element in theology as it addresses
itself to its own day and generation in terms of the prevailing cultural forms.
6 Reason: The last source of theology to be considered
is reason. This is, again, a factor that
has to do with theology’s character as an intelligible discipline. Reason can be divided into speculative and
critical exercises as follows:
(a) Speculative reason: In its speculative exercise, reason
endeavors to construct a metaphysics or theology of reality. Within speculative reason, there is further a
distinction between a priori theories
based on the pure reason alone and on the concepts which belong to it apart
from the experience of the world; and a
posteriori theories where reason constructs its theories on the basis of
experience of the world. Some
theologians held that metaphysics constructed in this way offer confirmation of
the content of revelation; while in some cases a rational metaphysic has been
allowed to determine the entire shape of theology, notably in some of the 19th
century theologies which relied on speculative idealism. However, nowadays there is widespread
suspicion of any speculative role for reason in theology. Therefore, a theology addressed to our time
would seek to avoid any heavy dependence on speculative reason.
(c) Critical reason: The critical reason may be subdivided into
(i) elucidatory and (ii) corrective exercises of reason as follows:
(i) Elucidatory exercise of reason: In its elucidatory function, reason sifts
analyses, expounds and brings into the light the content of revelation. According to those theologians who reduce
reason to its most lowly status, the use of reason would not be an autonomous
exercise, but would always be subject to the revelation itself and perhaps even
to divine illumination, so that reason here is entirely ancillary to
revelation. But other theologians would
hold that reason must interpret revelation according to the same canons and
hermeneutic principles that it works out for the guidance of interpretation in
general.
(ii) Corrective reason: Corrective reason (which would be rejected by
those who restrict reason to an ancillary function) is directed upon the
revelation or alleged revelation itself, questioning its credentials,
submitting it to scrutiny and criticism, removing from its content whatever may
be involved in irreconcilable conflict with other ell-founded convictions that
may be held.
Conclusion: We have seen that sources for theological
reflection are many and varied. Those
resources should be responsibly used in our interpretation, correlation, and
assessment of the meaning of things from the viewpoint of faith in God.
No comments:
Post a Comment