The Truth (?) of Sacred Narratives
By Tim King

What is reality and how do we know that our version of it, our understanding of it, is the way it really is? How do we come to understand something as true?

These are questions that for millennia have plagued philosophers and theologians, sociologists and psychologists, scientists and even those of us who, from time to time, find ourselves lost in reflective thought.

The technical word for such a pursuit is epistemology. Epistemology is the philosophical discipline that deals with how we know things, and how we know that we know them. It deals with how we see, interpret and make sense of the world around us. We all have a filter, a grid through which we interpret the world that tells us what information is important, and then helps us structure that information into a coherent view of the world and our place in it.

Whatever theological tradition we call home, our theologies are heavily influenced by the culture in which we live. How can we read the bible and not have culture play a significant influence on its interpretation?

In our time and place, theology is linked to rationalism and scientific method. While fundamentalism can sometimes be anti-intellectual, it is more often seeking to prove that belief (which of course means the specific belief system of the theologian in question) is more rational than the alternatives. It is not uncommon, in fact, for theologians – especially systematic theologians – to think of their craft as a science.

Renowned Princeton theologian Archibald Alexander Hodge defined systematic theology as “the science of religion.”1 The same goes for H.O. Wiley, Alvah Hovey, and W.G.T. Shedd.2 As well, Lewis Sperry Chafer noted that “Systematic Theology [is] the greatest of all sciences.”3 A.H. Strong defined theology as “the science of God and of the relationships between God and the universe.”4 R.B. Griffiths even went so far as to write in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation an article entitled, “Is Theology a Science?” His conclusion: Yes.

What are we to make of all of this? Why has there been such an ardent attempt to link theology and scientific process? Simply put, science is attractive in its empiricism. Science operates in a systematic fashion to build upon accepted foundations. We are children of the Enlightenment, and Reason sings her siren song even into the ears of the pious. Many theologians, heeding the call of rationalism and scientific inquiry, set out to construct undeniable epistemological foundations for their own systematic theologies.

This made good sense in the throes of the Enlightenment, when the mechanistic world of Newton seemed ready to give up its secrets, when Reason ruled the day so that even God had to pay homage.

The rules of engagement changed, however, and if Einstein’s physics posed a considerable challenge to Newton’s model of the universe, the developments of quantum mechanics made even Einstein uncomfortable. And even as I write, physicists working on something called “string theory” (as well as other advanced models) are continuing to reshape how we think about the universe.

If you’re sitting under an apple tree, Newton is still able to help you explain the bruise on your forehead, but if you’re firing particles into each other at near-light speed, the universe becomes a confusing place. Even the explanations are confusing: at the subatomic level particles can only be explained in terms of their probability of being in a given place at a given time. We can’t know for sure. Material reality consists of intersecting probability streams. (I told you it was confusing.) And it makes the modernist claim – there is an objective, “out there,” a reality that anyone can plainly see – ring a little hollow.

That’s just the scientific end of things. In philosophy and linguistics, thinkers like Derrida, Baudrillard, Saussere, Foucalt and others have also challenged our assumptions about objective reality. Everything has a context, and everything is interpreted. Suddenly “hermeneutics” is not just a class preachers take in seminary, but a field of inquiry applied to every aspect of life. This has presented a serious challenge to the way Christ-followers understand the text and narratives of our faith, leaving the world of believers as stunned and confused as many in the scientific community.

Answers Beyond Sacred Scriptures

In the past, theologians often turned to what Paul Heibert refers to as an “idealist” system of interpretation. Among other things this simply means a more “literal” way of interpreting things – you know, “our sacred literature says what it means and means what it says.”

Meanwhile, today’s generation is shifting toward a more “critical realist” approach to interpretation. Critical realism views the teachings of sacred texts more as pointers, than facts. The most important thing to see is that which is beyond the text – that to which the narrative points.

As the various streams of the world’s sacred narratives continue attempts to discover, and sometimes merge, toward a more cohesive view of the Unnamable’s dealings with humankind, it will be helpful to have more dialogue about the issues of ‘truth,’ what it is and how best to seek it. Otherwise we’ll continue speaking past one another and end up merely reflecting the same static that exists within the global religious world as a whole.

Just looking at the state of affairs regarding the limited and sometimes narrow narrative(s) of the U.S., we might heed the words of Heibert: “An understanding of the various epistemological positions can untangle some of the current debates… that often lead to confusion rather than clarity. We must distinguish between debates over the epistemological foundations of theology and those over the content of theology…when an idealist and a critical realist disagree, confusion sets in because one is playing chess and the other playing checkers on the same board.”5

Witnessing the numerous and conflicting views coming out of religion at present, a good game of chess might just be what the great physician ordered.

Bio:

Tim King is President and CEO of The David Group International. He lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado with his wife and three grown children. As an internationally known author and lecturer, Tim is involved in numerous peace and reconciliation initiatives with a focus on the sustainability of sacred narratives.

email: tim@davidgroupinternational.com

2 – H.O. Wiley, Christian Theology (1940; reprint, Kansas City, Mo.: Beacond Hill, 1969), 1:14-15; W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888-94).

3 – Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48), v.

4 – Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1994), p 19.

5 – Heibert, Anthroplogical, pp 33-34.