"Experiential" Theology?

Hi Friends.

A couple conversations that took place in the wake of my last post (“Systematic” Theology?) have lead me to write a follow-up. As we continue to experience this cultural shift from modernism to postmodernism, a key debate, if not the key debate, is the one concerning the nature of truth. In my last post, I asserted my distaste for a “systematic” view of truth, which for the purposes of this post, I’ll refer to the right side of the truth spectrum. Here’s what I had to say:

“I'm not rejecting the absolute nature of truth; rather, its systematic nature is being called into question here. For the last 500 years or so, we've lived in a culture that values science above all else. Something possesses the quality of being "true" if it is measurable, observable, and able to be put into formula.”

Basically, I argued that truth can and does exist outside of the observable, measurable, formulaic bounds of science. My mom, who so often plays the role of theological anchor for me, offered the loving response that I might be misunderstood as suggesting the opposite extreme in this debate, and to that point I write this post. The temptation, once one begins to stray from a strictly systematic view of truth, is to move to the far left end of the spectrum, to the land of “experience” and “relative” truth.

It might be useful to track the development of a cancerous trend in humanity which relates very closely to the idea of relative truth: independence. At the fall, Adam and Eve chose independence from God over dependence on him. Since the Enlightenment, we have seen the rise of individualism, in which the individual chooses independence from the community. In postmodernism, we begin to see so much importance placed on the individual that the individual determines truth.

Here’s how this might flesh out: in my experience, no one has ever been raised from the dead, therefore the resurrection narratives in the Gospels must be allegory, because my experience dictates that resurrection is neither possible nor true. If another has experienced resurrection, then that person might affirm the historicity of the resurrection narratives, and I can’t question that, because I can’t question another’s experience. The truth of resurrection is relative to the individual, based solely on the individual's experience.

As I stated in my first post, the fallacy of the systematic view of truth is that it does not allow for any truth outside the limits of the observable, the measurable, and the formulaic. On the left end of the spectrum, the fallacy is that truth is found in experience, and anything not experienced to be true cannot therefore be true. This is why truth has to be relative for one on the left, because one has to allow for differing experiences while at the same time affirming one’s own experience as the sole indicator of truth.

The problem here is that we begin to apply the Bible to our own experience, shifting and molding it so that it might fit into the “truth grid” of our experience. Rather, we should seek to find our place in the story God has written in Scripture and continues to write today. We know that God is truth, so we must not define truth first and then allow that to define God. We must allow God to define truth, and then defend that truth with our lives.

I’ll finish with re-affirming the absolute nature of truth. As finite creatures, we have differing perspectives on what is true, but the truth itself remains unchanged. Infinite truth cannot be contained by either our finite systems of logic or our finite experience. God is writing a grand narrative across history, and he has graciously chosen to include us in that narrative. We should accept this with the humility it brings, rather than be arrogant enough to believe ours is the central story in history.

Hope this helps clear things up. Until next time, grace and peace to you all.