One of the theological sticking points amongst Christians is the concept of continuing revelation. While this is mostly applied today to LGBT inclusion, from a historical perspective, what at one time is seen as “continuing revelation” beyond the Bible eventually becomes the plain reading of Scripture.
Varieties of Revelation
The doctrine of revelation refers not to the last book of the Christian Bible “The Revelation to John” but instead to God’s act of self-disclosure: who or what is God and how is God best known?
Faithful Christians disagree in fundamental ways as to how God self-discloses. Some see…
- …the Revelation is through Jesus: For many theologians (ie. Barth, Luther, Pannenberg) penultimate knowledge of God is through Jesus Christ (incidentally, though, Pascal places God’s clearest self-revelation in the Eucharist itself).
- …the Revelation is through the Bible: For some Protestants, The Bible is God’s self revelation and fully reliable even though there are human errors in transmission and translation of the Bible.
- …the revelation is through participation in the kingdom of God: 20th century theologian Albrecht Ritschl believed revelation centered on humankind’s involvement in the kingdom of God, primarily through prophets who speak with the voice of God and authenticate themselves by miracles and other signs which God provides. Jesus was the one who was most perfectly involved in the kingdom of God (this also has echoes in Process Theology).
Revelation is different from inspiration or interpretation (as one commenter pointed out recently) in that revelation is God’s self-disclosure. The common denominator of the above is that God’s revelation is complete within the context of the Bible: whether it is Jesus, the prophets, or the Bible itself.
However, there’s a fourth understanding called “Continuing Revelation” which claims that God reveals more divine disclosure beyond the Bible, or beyond Christ as known in the Bible. You see it clearly in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who claim continuing revelation through Joseph Smith. You hear an echo of it in the United Church of Christ’s slogan “God is Still Speaking” or their bumper sticker “never put a period where God put a comma” (weird since the Hebrew Bible has no punctuation, but whatever). But in short: God’s self is made known through individual or common experience through the Holy Spirit which continues beyond biblical times. Of the four, this one is the most trinitarian, but also the least supported by mainline institutions or evangelical movements.
Not Clear Divisions on Revelation
Progressives and conservatives find themselves in conflict over whether revelation has ceased or whether it is ongoing, though the lines are not clearly drawn:
- Conservatives tend to say no, that the sufficiency of what God has to say to humanity is found in the Bible, be it sola scriptura or a prioritizing of Scripture over other sources of authority. There are some evangelicals (primarily pentecostals) who believe otherwise.
- Progressives tend to agree but a sizable minority say yes, God continues to reveal aspects of the divine nature in the continuing human story. The Bible is a few chapters of the human story, and they are important, but God is not confined to a few centuries of activity in the Middle East.
In my own denomination of the United Methodist Church, its founder John Wesley is squarely in the Bible-only camp. In “Thoughts Upon Methodism” he states that the fundamental doctrine for Methodists is:
“The Bible is the whole and sole rule both of Christian faith and practice.”
Revelation and LGBT Inclusion
But so what? Why does this matter?
It matters a great deal when it comes to LGBT inclusion.
When LGBT persons claim to have felt a call to ordained ministry or to Christian marriage, the allegation is that “clearly” the Scripture does not support such things and “never” has. Thus the support is called a continuing revelation and heretical or at least wrong.
So most often, it is conservatives claiming that progressives are promoting “continuing revelation” when they claim God’s acceptance of LGBT persons as an allegedly extra-biblical revelation. In the words of one conservative activist:
Fundamental Methodist doctrine contrasts sharply with such liberal ideologies as faith in “continuing revelation” which can even directly contradict Scripture…
Revelation: a Matter of Dates
The biggest criticism of continuing revelation is that it allows personal experience to trump Scripture. But such criticism ignores that it is collective experience that has changed the reading of Scripture time and again.
- The majority reading of scripture said that women could not be clergy. People who promoted women’s ordination were accused of promoting continuing revelation that God had revealed ordained ministry being open to women. In fact, it was shut down early on as a Christian heresy (Montanism). But when it became a reality in many denominations, then they saw it as the plain reading of Scripture, pointing to Scriptures that overcame the letters of Paul.
- The majority reading of Scripture in the South said that slaves were permissible. People who were abolitionists were accused of not believing in the Bible. But when it became abolished, many framed the scriptures supporting slavery differently. It became the plain reading of Scripture—almost universally now—that Scripture does not support slavery.
- So it will be with LGBT inclusion. The majority reading of Scripture is currently that the Bible condemns homosexuality. People who see it differently are accused of promoting continuing revelation that God had revealed ordained ministry being open to LGBT persons. And yet mark my words: when we are on the other side of this debate, it will not be seen as “continuing revelation” but the “plain reading” of Scripture.
Continuing revelation, it seems to me, is a placeholder criticism when the minority reading hasn’t overcome the majority yet. And when it does, it ceases to be “continuing revelation” and instead becomes the plain reading.
A Set Canon with Emerging Interpretations
Even within a set canon of the Bible, there is room for God to continue to reveal its meaning over time.
Conservatives who accuse “that’s…continuing revelation!” to progressive movements over LGBT inclusion do so without acknowledging its historical precedents. Far from being driven by personal experience, such movements include entire churches, cities, and whole regions of Christianity that have come to a different understanding of the Bible, which is not dependent on extra-biblical revelation.
Eventually, perhaps, we will no longer see continuing revelation as beyond the Bible and instead see revelation as how God continues to bring amazing new things and emerging understandings even millennia later through the Bible that we have already. And that will be inspirational indeed.
Thoughts?
Jeremy, you reference both, but what is the development of a set canon and the development of the Trinity if not, in their times, continuing revelation?
Of course, even here there is diversity of thought between branches of Christianity, with some Christian “denominations” (such as those in Persia and India) missing the invite to the early “ecumenical” councils, and canonical differences between and in the branches of Christianity.
Some non-Trinitarian churches seem to become Trinitarian (Community of Christ), and others newly reject Trinitarian beliefs (United Pentecostal Church).
That’s a good point, Thomas. The very canonization process and the Councils that cemented Trinitarian thought are beyond the biblical times and yet point directly only to what happened in that 200 year period.
I think some folks would point out the difference between inspiration (the canonization process) and revelation (the actual event–Jesus Christ, Biblical writings which became the Bible).
Fun Methodist followup: This was discussed heavily in 1999
Among the evangelicals that I run with, no one can deny the Holy Spirit’s prerogative to speak beyond Scripture. Once we agree on that, two problems/questions emerge:
1. Is it in keeping with God’s character to reveal or command something that contradicts an earlier revelation in Scripture? (a lot of disagreement here)
2. If the Holy Spirit decides to speak beyond Scripture, how in the world could the church, as fractured as we are, ever believe that we could honestly suss out the Spirit’s call for us?
That’s a pretty fair question, so many evangelicals choose to play it safe and stick with Bible alone. That may be safer, but is faithful?
Good post and good thoughts.
1. There are different viewpoints as to whether or not the earlier revelation could have been imperfectly understood and interpreted by human authors, opening revelation to further clarification even correction. If the Word is understood to be incarnated in Christ rather than inscribed in scripture then the record in scripture, while holy, need not be received as static and final. It is not disturbing to me that human authors would contextualize incarnated revelation, and 20 to 70 years after the fact.
Fascinating…I think you’re spot on in terms of how Christians perceive the righteousness of social movements and whether Spirit led convictions are “continuing revelation” or a “plain reading” of Scripture (or can at least be supported by Scripture in some manner).
As Ric said, where this gets complicated, is when you have a bunch of individual and collective Christians stating with certainty, that the Spirit is speaking in new ways. The result of which, is a contradictory hot mess of the will of God. Then again, we already have that in a number of ways, one of the most crazy areas being Christian convictions surrounding violence and nonviolence.
The other interesting dynamic for me personally, is how the neo-charismatic movement, particularly in it’s more gentle forms like Bethel in Redding, CA–advocates for such a strong emphasis on revelation and intimacy with God, that within it’s own culture, God is continually at work–revealing insight, wisdom, direction, and power. While Bethel certainly bucks a sort of “status quo” mentality, and it also is known for some pretty weird stuff, it’s still maintains a more conservative social culture. All to say, some of my favorite people in the world, are the few openly LGBT persons who are also highly charismatic…people who are so in love with Jesus, but actually have the holistic witness to back it up. The fact that they’re condemned in Leviticus, is growing increasingly irrelevant to me. And for me, that’s not necessarily “continuing revelation,” so much as it is, seeing the bigger narrative of how God is at work in the world, and giving laser focus to the life and witness of revelation of God through Jesus Christ.
For slavery to be analogous to our present crisis over sexuality, then not owning a slave would have to be condemned as sin in the strongest possible terms in both Testaments. See what I mean? The ordination of women, likewise, would have to be condemned in similar terms.
Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose God wanted to communicate to us that, indeed, the unanimous verdict of two thousand years’ reflection on the subject is right after all, and God intends sexual activity between a man and woman only within the bounds of marriage. What else would God need to say? How else could God have said it? What else would the Bible need to say?
It seems to me that your way of interpreting scripture on this subject rules out the possibility of God’s wanting to tell us that.
Jeremy,
This is one of your better blog postings in my estimation. Kudos to you in hitting at the real issue or ‘problem’ facing the UMC today. We don’t have a problem or issue so much with human sexuality, as we do with how we understand God’s revelation. It matters if we see Adam and Eve as real, historic people. If we believe in the Fall, and the Flood, as historic events. Or to name another Jonah being in the belly of a great fish for three days. It also of course matters, how we view the Old and New Testaments and how we ‘fit’ them together as both being special revelation.
The fact, is that people who disagree about matters of human sexuality, generally disagree because of a greater disagreement about how we know the heart and mind of God. Human sexuality disagreement then is merely a symptom of a greater disagreement.
Good article. You express the phenomenon well, IMHO. I find the Roman Catholic approach to be helpful. Their approach is that God is revealed in the Kingdom onset, Redeeming acts, and Personal Presence of Jesus the Word of God. Now this is the Deposit of Faith, which is at first oral tradition, and part of become inscripturated. Since it is the earliest Tradition, it is Canonical, or the Standard for all other approaches. Now this is where I find the most help: the Faith or the Original Tradition is forever given, but the Spirit works through the Church to unfold the full meaning of this Original Faith. In other words, ‘God hath more light to break forth from [God’s] Word.”
Thus Scripture has an unique and decisive role, but it is the entire arc and pattern of God’s Revelation in Christ that forms our understandings of what God is doing now. The ramifications are diverse, varied, and theoretically, almost inexhaustible. Thanks.
Jeremy,
I’m a new reader for your blog, and as a Software Developer who attends a Methodist church, this blog was an easy sell. I’ve found your discussion of LGBT/faith issues very compelling and helpful.
I am persuaded by an interpretation of scripture that supports monogamous LGBT relationships according to the same basic norms and standards to which we hold other relationships. Naturally, this leaves me hopeful for a future in which “the majority reading of Scripture” is that LGBT marriages are not sinful or unwelcome.
With that in mind, I wonder how you’d respond to this criticism of the model of collective experience as continuing revelation:
It’s easy enough to accept that continued revelation will result in a changed collective experience. How, though, can we be confident that a change in collective experience is evidence of new revelation? That is, how can we be sure that a paradigm shift in the church’s understanding of scripture is not a shift toward a less accurate interpretation, rather than more?
For a simple example, suppose that a new movement arose positing that cats are better than dogs, and that there was biblical support for this. The growth in popularity of such an interpretation doesn’t inherently increase the validity of it. In other words, the popularity of a theory is not causal to its accuracy (a more popular theory is not made more accurate by being more popular).
So, one who disagrees with LGBT inclusion based on their reading of scripture might argue that the onset of inclusion as the majority reading does not validate that reading.
Is the response to this criticism simply to return to exegesis and explain why we agree with our reading? Is there any more that should be done to respond to the “just because it’s majority doesn’t mean it’s right” critique?