General and Special Revelation

MuD and PhuD touched off an interesting, and pleasantly civil (so far) discussion about “theistic evolution.” David Mobley responded with a couple of thoughtful posts (on which I commented) and Randomize followed with his own insightful thoughts.

I’d like to follow up a bit more with some thoughts on the relationship between General Revelation and Special Revelation. Before I do, I’d note that I wouldn’t necessarily define my position as “theistic evolution,” and that although I make some references to young earth creationism, they aren’t intended to reflect the views of any of the bloggers with whom I’m engaging, or to disparage anyone who holds those views.

To me, whatever position you take about how and when God created, a central question and often-ignored question is how information we learn from the world around us impacts our understanding of what we read in scripture.

As summarized in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology:

There is a possibility of some knowlege of divine truth outside the special revelation. We may understand more about the spcially revealed truth by examining the general revelation. . . . Since both creation and the gospel are intelligible and coherent revelations of God, there is harmony between the two, and mutual reinforcement of one by the other. The biblical revelation is not toally distinct from what is known of the natural realm. Genuine knowledge and genuine morality in unbelieving (as well as believing) humans are not their own accomplishments. Truth arrived at apart from special revelation is still God’s truth.” (Erickson, Systematic Theology, at p. 198.)

I view “science” — a term that actually requires, I think, substantial definition (maybe in a later post) — simply as one way of knowing, not the only or even always the “best” way. Yet, although general revelation does not take precedence over special revelation, neither, I think, should we think of special revelation as “superior” to general revelation. In fact, I believe that “all truth is God’s truth,” and that there is no real conflict between the two sources of revelation, so the question of one taking “precedence” over the other is misplaced. There are only apparent conflicts, because we (a) misunderstand the “text” of general revelation; (b) misundestand the text of special revelation; or (c) misunderstand both.

Some Biblicists accuse those who believe in theistic evolution of elevating “science” over the Bible. I think this sets up a false dichotomy. In fact, it suggests a radical view of both revelation and the capacities of human perception and reason. In essence, it suggests that our perceptions of the world around us, our use of observational and mathematical tools to understand general revelation, are corrupted beyond any reliability whatsoever. I can’t really trust measurements of red shift, parallax, background radiation, and the like, which clearly establish an ancient universe, or my observations of genetics, the fossil record, and geology, which strongly suggest if not establish biological descent with modifications. They are merely fallible human perceptions of nature, so I’m not free to reexamine an interpretation of special revelation that seems to suggest a younger universe.

One critical problem with this view is that it undermines the reliability of special revelation. If my ability to perceive general revelation is so irredeemably corrupt, why should I trust my perception of special revelation? Why is my ability to receive, read and understand the words of the Biblical text (or any commentaries on the Biblical text, including those written by YEC proponents) any more reliable than my ability to understand mathematical calculations that give an old age for the stars and galaxies?

It seems to me that the highly limited view of general revelation taken by some, and by implication its reductionistic view of the faculties of human reason and perception, ultimately would destroy any confidence in the reliability of special revelation and the truthfulness of Christian faith claims. Young earth creationists in particular never seem to be able to grasp this point. In this way, their position reflects an extreme form of postmodernism, or perhaps a form of Eastern Buddhist or Hindu thought, which asserts that nothing can truly be understood through the use of human perception and reason and that what we perceive as reality is only “apparent” and not real.

In contrast, I think a more orthodox view of general revelation affirms that human beings can perceive reality and can use reason to arrive at true statements about reality. This means that, when I observe and study the heavens, I can have some degree of confidence that what I’m observing is real, that the events I’m seeing really happened, that the logical chains of causation leading to and arising from those events correspond to reality, that “reality” isn’t only “apparently” as it appears. I likewise can have confidence that when I read the text of special revelation, it is a real communication that I can use my facilities of reason to understand with some degree of perpiscuity.

Of course, this doesn’t mean human perception and logic are unaffected by the Fall. We are prone to misperception and to errors of reasoning, and thus it is appropriate for us to constantly reevaluate our conclusions. Moreover, our preception and logic have limits; there are some things we can never fully understand, since we are merely human and not God. These limitations, however, apply to our understanding of special revelation as well as to our understanding of general revelation. I’d cite the case of the Earth-centered universe as a textbook example of how we can misinterpret scripture to be making claims it doesn’t make.

What does all this mean for the relationship between general and special revelation with respect to the creation account? It means that if observation and reason from multiple lines of data suggest an ancient age of the universe, and the Bible doesn’t explicity address the matter, we are justified in concluding that an interpretation of the Biblical text that requires a 10,000 or so year old universe is incorrect. This isn’t pitting one form of revelation against the other, or exalting one form over the other; it’s seeking to harmonize them appropriately. Here, I think Wayne Grudem’s perspective in his Systematic Theology, another widely used text from a conservative (inerrantist) evangelical viewpoint, is helpful. Grudem notes that

. . . the lesson of Galileo, who was forced to recant his teachings [about heliocentrism] and who had to live under house arrest for the last few years of his life, should remind us that creful observation of the natural world can cause us to go back to Scripture and reexamine whether Scripture actually teaches what we think it teaches. Sometimes, on closer examination of the text, we may find that our previous interpretations were incorrect.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, at p. 273.)

I also appreciate Grudem’s Systematic Theology irenic spirit. Although Grudem leans towards a young earth view, his position is well balanced:

Although our conclusions are tentative, at this point in our understanding, Scripture seems to suggest (but not to require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favor an old earth view. Both views are possible, but neither are certain. And we must say very clearly that the age of the earth is a matter that is not directly taught in Scripture, but is something we can think about only by drawing more or less probably inferences from Scripture. Given this situation, it would seem best (1) to admit that God may not allow us to find a clear solution ot this question before Christ returns, and (2) to encourage evangelical scientists and theologians who fall in both the young earth and old earth camps to begin to work together with much less arrogance, much more humility, and a greater sense of cooperation in a common purpose. . . . [Y]oung earth proponents have too often given the impression that the only true ‘creationists’ are those who believe not only in cretion by God but also in a young earth. The result has been unfortunate divisiveness and lack ofcommunity among scientists who are Christians — to the delight of Satan and the grieving of God’s Holy Spirit.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, at p. 308.)

I hope at some point, regardless of our particular views on this difficult issue, each of us can find this balance ourselves.