Returning to the question of double-truth, it might be argued that such dualities, paradoxes, or dynamics (which are so problematic to many) are the result of a severance which occurred with the Edenic Fall. On the one hand these inconsistencies and living contradictions (if that's what they are in fact) present a dilemma, but one that is solved with the eschaton, when all such tensions and dynamics are removed and with the reconciliation that occurs – the ultimate unity or holistic reality we seek, will become manifest in Christ. As such any kind of duality is not something inherent in the world but a sundering, a tragic result of sin.
And while such a realm or dimension of existence (as some
might prefer) is real, the possibility of misinterpretation and deception must
necessarily run high as we are (to put it simply) out of our element. For
Christians our experience of that realm is solely within the Holy Spirit. Only
at the eschaton will we experience this in its fullness.
Another consideration for this line of discussion could
concern our understanding of things like sacraments or something like the
Kingdom. An inherent duality (as opposed to absolute dualism) helps us to
apprehend how these mysteries work and interact with us in this present age.
Once again, these dualities will lose their meaning with the
eschaton as we won't eat spiritual meat and drink in the form of bread and wine
but we'll have these things in their true form – union and communion with
Christ, and presumably the Tree of Life. The Kingdom will no longer exist in
terms of a dynamic with tensions between the duality of the already and not yet
but will exist in its fullness alone – the aspect of not yet partial or
provisional duality removed in the New Heavens and New Earth. Even more basic
dualities that now exist such as the insurmountable tension between human volition
and decretalism will at last be resolved. Might we presume that as glorified
sons and daughters there will be no conflict between our will and the Divine?
And yet even this hope of unity does not provide all answers
as this kind of living dynamic seems to be also present in the Triune nature of
the Godhead. Surely there will be no 'reconciliation' of the Trinity. Likewise,
we are forced to reflect upon the mystery of the Incarnation as it would seem
the Son's holy and theanthropic dynamic of divinity and humanity is permanent.
What this means when it comes to cosmology and how this order is affected by
eschatology ranges into realms of discussion we cannot hope to penetrate.
This is not mysticism but a hearty embrace of mystery – they
are not the same thing. Mysticism seeks religious experience and revelation by
means of certain actions or inaction. Truths are revealed through sensation and
out of the ordinary experience. Mystery in the Christian context is rooted in
revealed truths, further elucidated by means of Word-based reflection and
edificatory perception and insight by means of the Holy Spirit. Doxological (at
times dizzying and euphoric) to be sure, such Spirit-wrought gifts entail
walking in the Spirit, and an actualisation of the Beatitudes – a living faith.
It is to see and experience the Kingdom of God. It is not about ranging beyond
the revealed word but instead finding rapture, fullness, and joy in what it
reveals, hints at, and commands. If there are any mystic rites, they are found
very simply the spiritual food of the Supper, the waters of Baptism, and in the
wonder of prayer – once again the dualities and dynamics are all present in how
these doctrines are taught.
For the scions of Scholasticism and Enlightenment such
thinking is nightmarish, prima facie erroneous, and others believe it represents
an assault on the very nature of God. But they have relied upon and formulated
logic on the basis of fallen human experience in space and time – comparing
spiritual with natural. They have not wrestled properly with the nature and
extent of the fall. True, our logic is not utterly shattered as it is necessary
for even basic communication – propositional or otherwise. The basic ability to
relate must still exist and yet the Scriptures reveal that this too has been
affected and is limited in scope – the laws of logic cannot hope to penetrate
the supernatural, let alone tame it by means of propositional statements and
empirically dependent laws of logic. Apprehension is possible but comprehension
will only be found at the eschaton – and even that must necessarily be limited,
or so it seems.
The Scriptures reveal Christ and in the Incarnation and in
Him we have the ultimate revelation of the nature of knowledge, of
epistemological function in space and time – a duality, dynamic, or even
paradox that stares us in the face testifying to the interaction between
post-Edenic creation and the eternal realm. The Incarnation is not subject to
the laws of logic and must be believed and apprehended, not comprehended or
dissected by means of philosophical enterprise or subject to reduction by the
linguistic limitations of propositional formulation. And through Christ an even
greater dynamic is revealed in the nature of God Himself. These are high
mysteries that we can only hope to know through revelation and in that
revelation we are taught not just what to think but how – and how we are
limited. Rather than view such limits as a hindrance, problem, or dilemma, instead
we are called to doxology and faith with is ultimately an expression of trust
and obedience.
Many sincerely believe that in pursuing a scholastic model,
seeking to shape, craft, and reconcile Scripture as data to be formed into a
coherent propositional framework, they serve God. But instead they subordinate
Scripture to human limitation and temporal commitments, and terms that are
limited by man's ability to conceive, comprehend, and communicate. There are
real dangers in this approach that few understand.
At this point, some might envision the spectre or echo of
Barthianism in what has been said but this is not the case. Barth spoke of
paradox to be sure and as is well known he took exception to historic forms of
natural theology. However, his both/and approach sought to find peace between
revelatory claims and the empirical reading of history. The historicity of
miracles for examples could be dispensed with in light of empirical observation
and yet the truth could be retained as a spiritual-revelatory reality. His
both/and model capitulated to the naturalistic claims of the world when it came
to supernatural events and claims interacting with history. The both/and of
Barth accepted most of the assumptions of theological liberalism and sought to
re-infuse them with a kind of recast and revivified supernaturalism – hence
Neo-Orthodoxy.
What's being suggested here is not that evolution is true,
the sick were not healed, or the resurrection did not take place. On the
contrary, we reject the naturalist reading in
toto as a reductionism that must be repudiated and at the point of its very
epistemological assumptions. The world is more than we know and man in fact
cannot construct or deploy an epistemology that can fully interact with it. Our
best and only hope is revelation that at least grants us a framework for a true
interaction – rather than one rooted in fog or lies. The both/and dialectic of
Barth is not a fideism rooted in a transcendent coherence but an existentialist
call to embrace an idealist construct – in the end, a coherent fantasy that
attempts to retain historic and traditional forms that have become (for someone
with Barth's modernist assumptions) all but meaningless and absurd.
There are lessons to be learned from Barth, what he hoped to
do, and how he interacted with the compromised theological liberalism of his day.
Evangelicalism has worked diligently to shed its Fundamentalist roots and many
in that camp think they have avoided theological liberalism by means of a
Barthian escape. They too are deceived and unfortunately this development only
adds yet another facet or layer to an already complicated discussion.
If anything, reflecting on these questions reveals that most
of the debates that dominate today's ecclesiastical forum are misguided, and
often a waste of time as they do not address the real points of division which
must be addressed at the level of prolegomena. Unless basic questions of
epistemology, revelation, and the nature of doctrine and theology are agreed
upon, there can be no real discussion or resolution.
Psalm 19 is like a thunderclap, raising deep questions
concerning the nature of revelation, hermeneutics, and how epistemology is to
be shaped and formed by Scripture. Creation testifies to the power of God and
His rule and even a type of natural theology, but one wonders if misguided and
misled by the philosophical-theological tradition, many Christian thinkers have
gone astray at this point and posited a category of laws and epistemological
assumptions that in fact do not exist. The foundations they would build on for
their culture and worldview projects are in fact nebulous forms and incomplete
shadows that testify to an inescapable reality but do not provide enough
substance (all the more given the Fall) to predicate and build something that
is non-temporal or real. They forge a worldview, but it is not Christian and is
in danger of being little more than a counterfeit.
The result is at best a kind of morality, a weak and
inconclusive theism, and apart from revelation and the Holy Spirit – idolatry.
Creation testifies to the God of revelation whose Word is law, not to a
post-edenic nature meant to serve as an epistemic foundation or a ratification
of man's ability to probe and predicate regarding the nature, mechanisms, and
meaning of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment