The Models of Revelation A somewhat in-depth view Of Avery Dulles’ work
The Models of Revelation • Revelation as • Propositional (Literal Words) • History (The Acts of God) • Inner Experience (Mysticism) • Dialectical Presence (Hegelian Paradox) • New Consciousness (Self-participation)
Model 1:Revelation as Proposition • Aka the Doctrinal Model • Long standing history • Prominent with Conservative Evangelicalism and Catholic Neo-Scholasticism
Doctrine Model • Maintains that supernatural revelation is given in the form of words having a clear propositional (doctrinal) content. • It comes to us in a clear body of doctrine. • Most literally the Bible, Tradition and the magisterial teachings of the Church. • Every word of it.
Strengths and Weakness? • Biblical? Witness in Tradition? • Evident in teaching of prophets, apostles • Body of Doctrines and Dogmas • Clear and apparent, black and white. • No Doubt • Propositional and sensible; “Scientific.” • Example: This is the premise, therefore that.
Criticism • Bible doesn’t claim such propositional infallibility for itself. • Nor did ancient or medieval exegetes. • Modern Biblical Scholarship • Doesn’t account for “historical-criticism” • Dis-avows “theology has a sociology.” • Does not account for Biblical imagery or symbolism of the Tradition. • Exclusive, esp. in Ecumenical Dialogue.
Model 2: Revelation as History • A response to the Doctrinal Model of Revelation • Popularized by Biblical Theologian: Oscar Cullman, referred to by Pope Benedict XVI • Prominence in Mainline Protestantism
Historical Model • An emphasis on “event” or “actions” of God as opposed to the “words” • The event yields the supernatural significance, seen especially through the eyes of faith. • The naked event occurs for the believer and nonbeliever • The disclosure of the divine plan to the prophet • Event is put in context of the rest of “salvation history”
Applications • The Bible is revelation • Not because it accurately recounts history from a human point of view • BUT because it NARRATES and INTERPRETS the action of God in history. • The Bible is a collection of STORY, not doctrine
Strengths and Weakness? • Biblical and witness in the Tradition? • “Actions speak louder than Words.” • Picks up Biblical themes missing from Doctrinal Model • Model is more Organic and Dynamic, refers to the pattern of God’s love in history (honors sociology). • Allows for gray • Less authoritarian, Critical thinking encouraged
Criticism • Is there a disconnection between God’s Word and Action? • What about the Books of Wisdom? • That’s not history or events • Modern Biblical Scholarship: Bible is NOT written as a strict history (as we understand it today) • No witness to early Tradition • Lastly: WHAT is an “act of God”? • This needs clarification
Model 3: Revelation as Inner Experience • A response to Enlightenment’s attack/critique on Religion. • Popular among “Born Again” Christians • Perhaps among young Catholics • Liberal Protestantism, Mystical Catholicism
“Mystical” Model • Recognizes “experience” as the basis of existence. Therefore, religious experience is the basis of Religion. • The Experience of Grace. • God speaks to us directly. • Bible, Tradition are not revelation until God speaks to us in experience.
Strengths and Weaknesses? • Biblical or witness in Tradition • Appeal to the Holy Spirit in Scripture • Revelation is not a science, it’s a different type of truth. Not factual or conceptual knowledge. • Supports Catholic Mystical tradition and devotion. • Common ground with other religions.
Criticisms • Selective use of the Bible. • Users of this model fell back to the first or second models. • What determines the Bible as authoritative? What about other religious texts? • (e.g. Koran, Hindu and Buddhist texts) • Individualistic, relativistic and syncretic.
Last Critique • Experience has to be interpreted. • There’s clearly a sacramental element to revelation. Model does not account for this. It’s definitely NOT either, or.
Model 4: Revelation as Dialectical Presence • Response to Liberal Theology and the “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” • Developed around World War I. • Attempts to utilize other models. • Theologians that used this method eventually abandoned it. • (Bultmann, Barth et al)
Dialectical Presence • God reveals himself, but he’s also concealed. ABSOLUTE MYSTERY. • “Paradoxical.” Presence in absence. Words can’t sufficiently express. • Culminates in Christ, the ultimate expression of revelation. • Bible or Tradition isn’t Revelation in true sense except insofar it preaches Christ.
Strengths • Biblical and witness in Tradition? • Barth and Bultmann were leading Protestant Theologians. Biblically centered. Influenced Protestant thought after 1920s. • Not worried of scientific inquiry: • Faith is not plausible, nor doesn’t have to be. • What historical research finds doesn’t matter. • Acknowledge God as ABSOLUTE MYSTERY. Accounts for His “transcendence and immanence.”
Critique: No one liked it. • Conservative and Orthodox theologies displeased with its circumventing of clear teachings. • (Early Century) Liberal theologies didn’t like its implicit appeal to the authority of Scripture. • Exclusive. Christocentric which doesn’t help ecumenical dialogue.
More Critiques • Catholic principle of “Faith and Reason” is ignored. This model throws out Reason. • The Historical Jesus must be taken into account for a genuine faith. • Faith guided by reason • But reason within the bounds of faith • The theologians that used this method abandoned it for the other models.
Model 5: Revelation as New Awareness • Derived from subjective idealism of the nineteenth century. Philosophically, traced to transcendental idealism of Kant. • Elements of Rahner, Tillich and Vatican II (Though not entirely).
New Consciousness • Revelation as a participation in the divine life. • Subject not passive (like in other models), but actively. • Revelation “occurs when human powers are raised to their highest pitch of activity.” • Like a radio finding the reception of God.
Strengths • Biblical and Witness in Tradition? • Gospel of John? Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution. • Flexible, avoids questions of history, honors sociology, honors the “subject.” • Full active participation of person • Looks at history as “evolutionary.”
Critiques • Hardly Biblical • No foundation in EARLY Tradition • Potentially Relativistic • Individualistic • “A new Christian Gnosis”—Karl Barth • He didn’t like this model
Questions for consideration • What model have you identified yourself into? • How does the “symbolic mediation” approach rescue each model?
