Is Experience Theologically Significant?
A long-held interest of mine is the relationship between experience and theology. It is my view that experience (both personal and shared) plays a crucial and influential role in the development of theological understanding. Several factors lead me to this conclusion.
The first is the very nature of theology. The English word theology arises from two Greek terms, Theos (God) and logos (word, teaching, study). Hence theology means " the teaching concerning God" or the " study of God ". Danny Migliore defines it as “a continuing search for the fullness of the truth of God made known in Jesus Christ … faith seeking understanding.” 1 We achieve this considering four main sources of information: scripture, reason, tradition and experience (often referred to as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral). It is important to note that tradition may be described as corporate or historical experience, reason is strongly influenced by our personal experience and we interpret scripture using both personal and corporate experience. In other words, experience plays a significant part of all four sources of theological understanding.
A second factor is the concept of experience. What is it and how are we to interpret it? Possibly the best description is that experience consists of events, physical sensations and thoughts that impinge on the consciousness of the individual (personal experience), community (corporate experience) and historical contexts (including traditions). If that sounds somewhat confusing, let me encourage you that many theorists consider experience as “probably the most difficult philosophical or religious term to define or describe. 2 There is a long history of philosophers and theologians seeking to explain the way in which the world is accessible through experience and, at some later date, I intend to reflect on the sources and nature of experience in greater detail. At this point, my focus is simply that how we navigate life and think about God is dependent on the various aspects of experience – and, therefore, experience has great theological significance.
Consequently, the third factor is the relationship between theology and experience. One example may illustrate this relationship – that is, the debate regarding the comparative authority of Scripture and personal experience. In simple terms, if Scripture and experience appear to be in conflict, which is more authoritative? This was a debate that raged among the students at a recognised Bible College in 1974-5. While many students were adamant that Scripture is the supreme authority, others argued that the interpretation of Scripture is dependent on the content of personal experience. 3 The continuing impact of such a discussion is demonstrated by Angelo Cettolin’s 2004 survey of a number of Australian pastors. On the one hand, ninety-eight percent of the pastors surveyed reported that they spent “significant time in ‘private bible reading’”, highlighting their view of the importance of Scripture. On the other, one respondent focussed on the role of experience, declaring that “Experience will beat theology any day.” 4 The reality is that Christians employ both Scripture and experience – and that both are interpreted. In the Influence magazine, George Wood states:
As Pentecostals, we intuitively approach the biblical text in a manner different from most of our evangelical brothers and yes, sisters. We factor in the element of experience as a lens through which we look at Scripture. 5
It is not my intention to debate the merits or difficulties of these two views. I am arguing, however, that (at least for some) what appears to have been an unspoken concept of religious experience was at variance with a clearly stated theological declaration. Rather than attempting to address the many examples of this, I will simply offer two historic issues that arose as a result.
Issue 1
In the mid-seventies, a debate arose regarding ‘dancing in the Spirit’ as evidence of spiritual freedom. 6 This had become an issue within Australian Pentecostalism because those who chose not to dance or were in some way uncomfortable with that particular expression were considered spiritually bound and not yet enjoying the freedom found in Christ. As Barry Chant points out, most “found themselves caught between the two” positions. 7
While dancing in worship is not unknown in Scripture, 8 the relevant passages are descriptive rather than directive; so that, while the practice may be acceptable as a manifestation of joy, it is not mandatory. This was an example of the proponents of a spiritual experience seeking biblical justification for their practice and their opponents considering the practice as merely a spiritual experience.
Issue 2
A second issue found its origins in a particular view that identified a distinction between logos and rhema. The concept, as expressed, was that the logos (the spoken or written Word of God) was authoritative but, for personal direction and a living experience of God, one needed the rhema (the experienced message of God or the speaking Word of God). The clear implication was that the rhema, while not necessarily superior to the logos, supersedes it. 9 This became such an issue that the AOG in the USA issued a position paper related to it.
A distinction is generally made by proponents of this view between the words logos and rhema. The first, it is claimed, refers to the written word. The second, to that which is presently spoken by faith. According to this view whatever is spoken by faith becomes inspired and takes on the creative power of God. … The distinctions between logos and rhema cannot be sustained by
Biblical evidence. The Word of God, whether referred to as logos or rhema, is inspired, eternal, dynamic, and miraculous. Whether the Word is written or spoken does not alter its essential character. 10
My point is that these proponents had noted that there is something special about the immediacy of the Word that lifts the Scripture from a place of objectivity to that of a subjective experience – something that many have sought to describe, define or explain theologically.
In Conclusion
These two issues illustrate the significant influence of experience on the theological process and suggests the need to develop a clear and practical theology of experience. I intend to further develop this consideration in future essays.
