It has been a long time since I've posted, and I feel I ought to apologize for the long lull in conversation. I fully intend to pick up my conversation on the ecclesial role of women with at least one more post, but I have some more pressing thoughts on my mind at the moment.
At one point in my recent life, as I had spent 4 years in a fairly intense undergrad program studied biblical hermeneutics, theology and the distant fringes of philosophy, I thought I was beginning to see the world through the rose-tinted lenses of my own "enlightenment." I thought I had an adequate working vocabulary on theological issues, and a base knowledge of philosophical terms. After all, my most recent philosophy professor sometimes taught from the full lotus position. It doesn't get more stereotypically philosophical than that!
But this summer has challenged my idea of one topic in particular: epistemology. Epistemology is technically the philosophical pursuit of the complex issue of knowledge. By its very nature, it is a very complicated branch of philosophical study, since it is metaphysical. The other clump that muddies the water of epistemology is that it is an intricate study of knowledge itself, and therefore how can you ever know that you're anywhere close?
This issue is particularly mind-numbing to me in the area of theology, and specifically soteriology (the doctrines of salvation). What is the epistemology of salvation? How do we know the truth of Christ's gospel? These are not questions that I mean to ask in a potentially universalist or non-exclusive way. I'm not implying that because the knowledge of salvation is so broad that there are any other ways than Christ, but instead, how do we come to experience that knowledge? The question is really one centered on a couple of huge assumptions that developed in post-Enlightenment philosophy.
After the Rational Revolution known as the Enlightenment, reason was elevated onto the altar of god-hood. The basis of reality became the knowledge that was acquired through intellectual pursuits. As this emphasis on logic fully consumed itself in an individualistic focus, questions of life in community began to be asked. Thinkers such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant and even Rene Descartes all began to assume that if reason was foundational for each individual, then its conclusions could be imposed on all mankind. Therefore, there must be a logical standard of interpersonal relationships and ethics. If a truly "enlightened" individual could figure out the moral codes appropriate to such a person, than those could be determined on a corporate and legislative level.
And thus began the myth of a Christian nation. It was assumed that Christianity, the religion of the majority of the Enlightened, was the only language that was truly logical. After all, these Enlightenment thinkers themselves were all Christians, and they were bloody brilliant. Ethics and religion became common sense and could be imposed on national levels without compromising the freedom of religion.
At this point, modern philosopher, political commentator, theologian and ring-leader of the elsewhere described Don of the Hauerwasian Mafia, Stanley Hauerwas became a popular voice in the Academic Christendom (of Post-Christendom) of America. Hauerwas, following the lead of Alistair Mcintyre, claimed that such thinking had led to the "privatization" and therefore the utter degradation of distinctively Christian faith. The gospel of Christ lost its meaning when it became simply a logical code of ethics. This is partially because the gospel, for the most part, is not rational. It asks its followers to turn the other cheek, to forgive, to love and to serve others with the tiniest regard for oneself.
This very old debate leaves me wondering about soteriological epistemology. When we hear the gospel, how do we know that it represents the God who is Truth? Is it rational? Is it logical? Is it intuitive?
Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion in days (weeks, months, years) to come.
