In our skeptical
culture it has become unpopular to assert that we can know anything with
certainty, especially religious truth. Since the denial of any particular fact
is also an assertion of some other fact (about which we must also be skeptical)
no religious view can be correct but neither can any be denied. Therefore, all
religious views are considered objectively false but each contains elements of
the truth and so are equally valid. One of the most popular illustrations used to
try to show how such divergent religious opinions can all be equally valid is
the “God is like an elephant” analogy.
The analogy
is that there are four (sometimes six) blind men who happen upon an elephant.
These men have never encountered an elephant before and are attempting to
describe it to one another. The first man reaches out, grabs the trunk, and explains
that it is like a snake. The second grabs one of the elephant's legs and insists
that it is like a tree. The third feels the elephant's tail and explains that
it is like a rope. Finally, the fourth blind man walks forward, encounters the
elephant’s side, and concludes that it like a wall.
The idea is
that each of the men is wrong in an ultimate sense but all are communicating
some truth about the elephant. The elephant is supposed to represent God and
the blind men are supposed to represent various religions that, while all
limited in an ultimate sense, are all actually describing the same thing. The
assertion is that no religion fully understands God and yet all religions
contain some truth about God. Therefore, all religions must be recognized as
limited but since none are complete they each should be accepted as equally
valid.
From a
logical standpoint, there are many problems with the underlying argument. My
goal in this post is not to work through those issues but if you are interested
in that kind of analysis I recommend you check out William Lane Craig’s work in
this area. My purpose instead is to turn the illustration on its head and use it
to argue for, rather than against, the Christian view of religious knowledge. When
looked at from a slightly different perspective, the analogy highlights the necessity
of God’s revelation and provides an important lesson for modern evangelicalism.
Let me explain.
First,
notice that the people in the illustration are blind. They are deprived of the
natural function that would allow them to clearly see and evaluate the
elephant. They are therefore limited in their perspective and must grope at the
object they are trying to understand. This is an accurate description of fallen
humanity and the Bible also describes the spiritual condition of humans as
blindness. Because of sin, we no longer have the natural ability to see God as
He is. Apart from His grace, the best we can do is grope in the darkness in our
effort to know and understand Him. Like these men we are not completely without
knowledge of God but the knowledge we do have is limited and distorted.
Notice also
that the elephant exists apart from the experience of the men. There “is”
actually an elephant and although they do not accurately describe the creature,
it is there and its attributes are objectively real. This too is an accurate
picture of the human condition. Many may deny and distort the knowledge of God
but the fact is that He is there and He is not dependent upon our assessment of
Him. In the same way that the elephant remains every bit an elephant despite
the errors of the blind men, God remains every bit God. We may be mistaken
about Him but that does not change the objective reality of who He is. Perhaps
though, we should not be too critical of the men at this point. After all, what
they did was reasonable considering the situation they were in. The only way
for them to get information about the elephant was to do what they did. Their
mistake was not in the attempt but in assuming that the creature was defined by
their subjective experience.
The crucial
difference between what is happening in this illustration and our ability to
know the truth about God is that we are not completely reliant upon our
religious experience. Think about how the lesson changes if there was someone
who could see the elephant and explained to the men what they were not seeing. What
if, even having this information they continued to insist that they were
correct based upon their limited experience? Obviously, we would see them as
fools for clinging to opinions based upon incomplete and unreliable experience
while rejecting better information.
Sadly, this
is often what many people do. Personal experience too often becomes the basis
by which people try to understand God. The inconsistent and fluctuating
feelings of the limited human intellect become the filter for all that is
transcendent and divine. This is not just an issue in unbelieving society. The
emphasis on subjective religious experience has continued to grow and influence
evangelical churches and seminaries. As a result, it permeates worship styles,
teaching methods, and counseling sessions. God, however, has not left His
people to grope in darkness. He has spoken to us in His holy Word and through
it has communicated the truth about Himself.
He has also sent an unbroken line of witnesses including God the Son as
very man and His church to testify to who and what He is.
The lesson
for us should be obvious. The Bible is of paramount importance to the Church. Without
this revelation from Him, we are in the same position as those blind men; each one
grasping some small but ultimately incomplete or inaccurate glimpse of the
divine majesty. Personal experience is a wholly inadequate basis for knowing
God, especially the experience of fallen creatures like us. The modern emphasis
on religious experience in our churches is dangerous. If we are to know God, we
must interpret our experiences in the light of His holy and inerrant word and
not the reverse. When evaluated in light of the Word, religious experience
magnifies the glory of God in our lives. Divorced from the Word it is nothing
more than groping in darkness.
No comments:
Post a Comment