Suppose that the office at which you and 99 other people work asks each of you to individually write down the directions from your respective houses to the office.\u00a0 Suppose further that from these accounts – and only from these accounts – somebody then tries to make a detailed map.\u00a0 How reliable should we expect such a map to be?\u00a0 What purpose should such a map serve that the directions themselves could not?\u00a0 What details should we expect to find in the written directions but not in the map (or vice versa)?\u00a0 Most importantly, which would you rather have if you were simply trying to get to the office from some person\u2019s house?<\/p>\n
These two tasks and the relationship between them, I submit, are exact mirrors of the relationship which exists between revelation and theology, or (R)eligious and (S)cientific approaches to the divine.\u00a0 I submit that revelation consists primarily in directions or instructions on how to get to heaven whereas theology consists in descriptions of the \u201cspace\u201d between us and heaven.\u00a0 In this post I wish to further unpack the difference which exists between these two.<\/p>\n
Purpose<\/em><\/p>\n The first and most obvious difference between revelation and theology lies in the purpose which they each serve.\u00a0 While both revelation and theology both consist in information that is in some sense about the divine, the former helps us approach<\/em> the divine while the latter helps us understand<\/em> it.\u00a0 Revelation leaves out many details which would only serve as a distraction along the path, focusing instead on the more salient signposts that clearly indicate whether we are on the right track or not.\u00a0 By contrast, theology tends to get caught up in details which are of questionable relevance to any such religious journey because the primary goal of theology is to describe the path rather than keep us on it.\u00a0 One side sees the second as directionless while the other side sees the first as myopic.<\/p>\n Consistency<\/em><\/p>\n While all true revelation is certainly united by a common destination (not unlike 100 different workers commuting to the same office), that is really the extent to which we can expect to find uniformity within it.\u00a0 Sometimes God will say, \u201cThe smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever,\u201d and other times he will say something very different.\u00a0\u00a0 Such is revelation.\u00a0 Theology, on the other hand, assumes a significant amount of consistency from the very start.\u00a0 Since a map treats each and every point as if it were a potential destination, its consistency must be systematic in nature.\u00a0 Indeed, an inconsistent map would be difficult to conceptualize, let alone use.\u00a0 Thus, whereas revelation assumes consistency in the one, universal destination to the many individual journeys, theology requires a much stronger consistency in the many individual destinations to the one, universal journey. \u00a0One side sees the second as mingling the philosophies of men with scripture, while the other side sees the first as irrational.<\/p>\n Universality<\/em><\/p>\n Since revelation is aimed at a contextually unique audience, it must tell them what to do and where to go from that particular point in space and time.\u00a0 Accordingly, we should not be surprised to see Joseph Smith teaching 19th<\/sup> century Americans some things which differ from what Paul taught 1st<\/sup> century Greeks or what Moses taught the Jews over 2500 years ago. Theology, however, tries to uncover the universal principles by which all of these specific instructions \u2013 along with any hypothetical instructions which \u201cmight\u201d have been given – can be seen to \u201chang together\u201d.\u00a0 Theology thus takes the contextual and hypothetical imperatives of revelation (you should do \u201cx\u201d if you want to get to heaven) and tries to make universal and categorical imperatives out of them (everybody should do \u201cx\u201d, period).\u00a0 Accordingly, whereas we see Jesus saying, \u201cit was said of old\u2026 but I say\u2026\u201d we see Orson Pratt, John Calvin and Saint Augustine all debating timeless truths.\u00a0 One side accuses the second of being too abstract to be of any use while the other side accuses the first of being arbitrary.<\/p>\n Dialectic<\/em><\/p>\n Since revelation is intended for a particular audience which is contextually situated in a specific time and place, we wouldn\u2019t expect the public sharing or arguing over these directions to heaven to be of much use.\u00a0 It is for this very reason that personal revelation should remain personal.\u00a0 It is for this reason that we trust \u201cour\u201d prophets rather than \u201ctheir\u201d prophets. \u00a0To paraphrase a classic, if any of you lack wisdom, let him stop and ask God for directions.\u00a0 Theology, on the other hand, would have us lay all of revelation, personal or otherwise, out on the table so that it can be subjected to \u201cpeer-review\u201d.\u00a0 After all, the theologian argues, how could this mechanism of self-correction do anything other than help our quest for understanding?\u00a0 One side sees the second as a quarrelsome mess while the other side sees the first as being too undisciplined and lenient.<\/p>\n Past Revelation<\/em><\/p>\n Revelation aims at, and thus is solely bound by whether it gets us to heaven or not.\u00a0 Of course our beliefs concerning the world and what God has told other people certainly function as constraints in this process, but no doctrine or instruction must of necessity be beyond revision.\u00a0 It\u2019s all up for grabs: God\u2019s grabs.\u00a0 Theologians, by contrast, take an approach to doctrinal truth in which they use logic and publicly corroborated empirical observation too \u201cfill in\u201d the gaps in our understanding.\u00a0 Indeed, continuing revelation is itself just one more form of this filling-in process.\u00a0 Since the idea that God gave insufficient or inaccurate information to past prophets is morally objectionable, the theologian is forced to judge modern doctrines by ancient standards which are themselves taken to be timeless and universal.\u00a0 Consequently, theologians think it convenient but unnecessary that we have modern day prophets to fill in the gaps in their understanding.\u00a0 One side sees the second as worshipping whited sepulchers of dead prophets while the other side sees the first as being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.<\/p>\n Future Revelation<\/em><\/p>\n Since revelation just is directions to get to heaven from each individual\u2019s particular context, the idea that it will continue in the future really is quite obvious.\u00a0 Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.\u00a0 This is simply the promise that we will never be left without a guide in our individual journeys to heaven and that the Lord will always give to all men liberally what they need to know, when they need to know it.\u00a0 For the theologian, however, that phrase has almost the opposite meaning.\u00a0 Rather than being an assurance that we will always have sufficient instruction and directions, it becomes a caveat that our map is still incomplete and as such cannot yet be fully trusted.\u00a0 Indeed, the theologian sometimes goes even further, pointing out specific topics that they take to be in need of \u201cfurther light and knowledge.\u201d\u00a0 In this way, they hold the Lord accountable to their reasoning rather than the other way around.\u00a0 One side sees the second as being a doubting Thomas while the other side sees the first as being a know-nothing fundamentalist.<\/p>\n Scriptural Support<\/em><\/p>\n Perhaps the most important difference between revelation and theology lies in the fact that one is fully endorsed in the scriptures while the other is regularly rebuked.\u00a0 The Lord calls us his sheep and asks us to follow him lest we become lost.\u00a0 He gives us liahonas, iron rods and stars in the sky to follow.\u00a0 He even calls Himself \u201cThe Way\u201d.\u00a0 None of these things suggest an interest in giving us a detailed description of anything.\u00a0 Alternatively, the warnings against applying the rules of liberal science to the things of God are almost too many to list: the craftiness, thoughts or philosophies of men; contention, strife and disputation; doctors, lawyers and scribes; etc.\u00a0 The scriptures have never spoken kindly of those who have \u201cused all the powers of both reason and sophistry to \u2026 establish their own tenets and disprove all others.\u201d<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n Let us now return to a slightly modified version of the questions with which we began this post:\u00a0 How reliable should we expect theology to be?\u00a0 What purpose should theology serve that revelation cannot?\u00a0 What details should we expect to find in revelation but not in theology (or vice versa)?\u00a0 Most importantly, which would you rather have if you were simply trying to get to heaven?