The Narrow Path Ministries

I have a question for anyone willing to ponder it. I've heard the following two statements at one time or other in my life, and I often wonder which statement contains the most truth. So my question is: Which of the following statements rings most true for you?

"Experience should never inform theology."

OR

"If your experience doesn't match your theology, you need to go back and re-examine your theology."

i dont like either particularly because neither option is wishy washy enough. i suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

however, if i was forced, on pain of death, to choose, i would choose option 1. i guess i'll always be a conservative at heart.

TK

TK wrote:i suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Doesn't it always? Both statements have been applicable to me at differing points in my life, and yet, on first glance, they seem to be polar opposites.

I'm just curious as to a person's experience in forming their theology.

Experience should never inform theology.

Hi Royal, The experiences that affect my theology are things like listening to people like SG and others who are open minded talk about things of the bible and reasoning out what makes sense with what i do see in the natural world. My experiences in the natural world which God did create has motivated me to look at sacred cow theologies of Christianity more critically and line it up with a God of love and justice.

I would say that experience can in a way inform theology. But certainly not all aspects of it. In the sense that theology doesn't line up with scripture, scripture should have predominance. Joseph Smith let experience inform (form?) his theology and well, we know what happened with him.

Many people that fall into Mormonism and various other cults depend upon a "burning in the bosom" and let a subjective experience reign in their thoughts in the face of clear scriputures that speak against their theology.

Royal Oddball 2:9 wrote:I have a question for anyone willing to ponder it. I've heard the following two statements at one time or other in my life, and I often wonder which statement contains the most truth. So my question is: Which of the following statements rings most true for you?

"Experience should never inform theology."

OR

"If your experience doesn't match your theology, you need to go back and re-examine your theology."

(My statements assume experience is defined as occurrences to which a person has witnessed or been involved in.)

In my mind, these don't seem to be polar opposites but rather complimentary guides to finding the truth. The reality of experiences and truth are always in agreement.
However, our understanding and interpretation of experiences may not be the correct interpretations of reality, and the theology (worldview) that we believe may be misinterpreted ideas of truth.

For example, if I believe that the Bible teaches that all Christians should be physically healthy all the time, but I've been sick and people I've prayed for didn't get better, my theology would need to be re-examined. It may turn out that my theology is incorrect or that there are mitigating facts that would need to be assimilated into my theology.
On the flip side, if I experienced God telling me to divorce my wife, that would need to be weighed in the light of some objective source for truth (i.e. the Bible or my wife ) outside myself.

It seems to me that when people gravitate towards one or the other of these statements as if they were polar opposites, they can become somewhat close-minded to the truth.

Hey Derek - I was reading this thread and planning to respond almost exactly as you did, even thinking of the Mormons as an example, and then I read your post with which I heartily agree. 8) I think experience is a factor, but a very minor one. I think revelation and reason are important but for some people reason = experience but they are not the same. Some "make up" doctrine to fit their experience, or even worse, their desires, such as those pushing the homosexual agenda.

I will tell you that for the past 3 years or so, my theology is changing to accept some things i previously would not have considered, namely, the willingness to accept more of the "charismatic" elements of the faith. this has evolved because of a large number of sermons/lectures i've listened to by teachers (including steve g) who are charismatic (or at least not hostile to the idea) and whom i have grown to trust in regard to their theology. i am not talking about the preachers on TV, w/o mentioning names.

so i have gone from being very conservative along those lines to wanting to experience more of the Spirit. the problem, however, is that i have always been in fairly conservative, non-charismatic churches. but i am learning!

TK

TK wrote:I will tell you that for the past 3 years or so, my theology is changing to accept some things i previously would not have considered, namely, the willingness to accept more of the "charismatic" elements of the faith. this has evolved because of a large number of sermons/lectures i've listened to by teachers (including steve g) who are charismatic (or at least not hostile to the idea) and whom i have grown to trust in regard to their theology. i am not talking about the preachers on TV, w/o mentioning names.

so i have gone from being very conservative along those lines to wanting to experience more of the Spirit. the problem, however, is that i have always been in fairly conservative, non-charismatic churches. but i am learning!

TK

I am a Charismatic. I will admit that I first became open to the idea after meeting some Godly people that held to Charismatic doctrines. But at the same time, I searched out the scriptures to see if it could be for real before I really accepted and later practiced the gifts of the Spirit. But I will say that there are many wierd and unscriptural things that go on in Charasmatic circles so searching the scriptures before accepting something as from God is a must in my opinion.

good call, derek. i couldnt agree more. believe me if i hear/see something weird happening red flags shoot up all over the place. but my definition of what is "weird" is what has been changing. i mean, there's biblical weird, and then there's weird weird.

TK