Religious Experience
Last week we talked about reasons to believe in Christianity. This week I want to focus on religious experiences. I think a genuine religious experience is a very strong reason to accept some religious belief. In fact, I question the weight of a religious belief that completely lacks any sort of experiential component.
Yes, Paul says that “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:22-23), but I don’t think Paul is objecting to religious experience, but rather showing that the heart of Christianity is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s own life testifies to the marked change of being “alive in Christ” and “dead to sin” – I take these statements as metaphors for the tangible change in his life, which he believes is possible for all Christian believers.
I think it’s wrong to restrict the realm of religious experience too tightly. While the “warm fuzzies” in chapel may not be an exceptionally good confirmation of Christian belief, they shouldn’t be written off immediately. Even something like a sense of strong conviction while reading a Bible passage could count as a religious experience. The difference between that and seeing a vision or hearing God speak is, I believe, a difference in intensity rather than in type.
Over the last few years at Trinity I’ve being dealing with a fear of religious experience. This started when in my first year when I was taking Rels 102 and realizing that the Bible was not an answer book as I had previously imagined it to be. I believed that God revealed himself through Scripture, but I began to question using the Bible as the basis of Christian belief. Why was the Bible reliable and authoritative? I didn’t have a good answer to this question. So I figured that if God somehow experientially confirmed this for me, then I’d be sure, or at least have a high level of confidence in my belief. So I prayed. As I listened, I was filled with a fear that God might actually speak to me – I could accept him mediated by Scripture, but to be confronted by God’s words, of which I had no interpretational sway, that is truly terrifying. I knew that when God speaks I could have no leverage against him – I could not twist his arm to hear what I want to hear.
So my dilemma was this: the only way I could see God confirming my faith in him would be some sort of experience, but to do that would require me to be confronted directly by God, and thought was terrifying.
Of course, religious experiences need not be so intense. I distinctly remember once being in church hearing a pastor talk about his recent mission trip in Iraq (or Iran; I forget exactly where, but it was in the Middle East). He presented a slide show, and described how the team had prayed for God’s angels to protect them. Sure enough, in one of the photos were the outlines of angels on either side of the group. They were barely visible – as if they were some translucent substance – but looked like the typical picture: humanoid, with wings. The only reason I think this is not some false memory I have conjured is that the family behind me also saw them; the mom asked her young son if he could see the angels in the picture. (A few years later, I asked the rest of my family about the night, and none of them recalled seeing the angels, and had no idea they were there.) I’ve often pondered the significance this incident has had for my faith, and I think my honest answer is that it has had virtually no impact on the strength of my conviction that Christianity is true. My greatest conviction, surprisingly to me, has come from the fact that I’m scared of something when I’m afraid to receive a direct religious experience.
What about you? Have you had any religious experiences? Do you think they are something we should try to receive / prepare for, or will God just give them as he sees fit? How much would your Christian faith be strengthened if you had some religious experience?
I think that “religious experiences” are fine in themselves, but it’s important to be aware that Christians aren’t the only ones who have them. Mormons, I understand, depend upon an experience called “the burning in the bosom” to confirm to themselves that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God. They use this experience to confirm or deny the truth claims that come their way.
I think that we need to be very careful in our understanding of this topic. What’s more is that if we are to understand this issue “from the inside” of Christianity, then we must include an understanding of the Spiritual Realm in our discussion of experience. There are at least three sources: God, Satan/demons, and ourselves. Given 1 John 4:1, I think we’re supposed to subject the experiential to the authority of Scripture.
I completely identify with you here: “As I listened, I was filled with a fear that God might actually speak to me…”
This can be used as a barometer, perhaps, but a compass? Can we really be sure that we wouldn’t feel this fear if we were to read the Qur’an and pray? We need something to inform our experiences, some way of knowing whether they are of God. Outside of Scripture, I know of no way to do so.
I also question the use of fear, since God “hasn’t given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind” (2 Tim 1:7). But there is also Luke 12:5, in which Jesus actually tells us to fear the Father, so, there’s certainly more to it than what I’ve said here.
Yeah, a huge question in religious experience is how mutually conflicting religions both claim the support of transcendent experiences. However, I’m not sure how much of a defeater these are. Christians certainly aren’t required to accept every instance of religious experience, and I think most people generally recognize that testimony from a religious experience has much less weight than an experience itself. I may be justified in believing in Christianity in virtue of some experience, but if I tell my friend about it, he may not be justified in virtue of believing my testimony (if he doesn’t know whether I’m trustworthy, or something like that).
I agree that we should read Scripture alongside our experiences, and that they should be mutually supporting. Where I may differ from you is that I believe that since Scripture is also revelation, it is not essentially all that different from personal revelation from God. Both genuinely reveal God to us. And if we say that religious experiences must be confirmed by the authority of Scripture, then I think we also have to ask Scripture to be confirmed by some authority, and how else but by revelation from God? So I think Scripture and experience go side by side, but I’m not sure I can submit one to the other as a test. But perhaps this is a pretty controversial position – what do you guys think?
Great Question….but wow, you could take off in so many directions from this. But if I can shortly add, I would say that for me, The Gospel is the ultimate religious experience. I think it important to consider the comment above – there are certainly other people/religions/cults that have religious experiences and so I, too, would say that it is an area requiring very mindful discretion.
As you say Toph, Paul’s life was marked by a significant change, and I will link that to the christ’s gospel. To actually live the gospel is so counter-intuitive, opposed to my nature, and impossible to do without the efforts of Christ, that I think there are few if any other religious experiences (like seeing angels) that can confirm it.
Religion tells us that “I do good therefore I am saved:, whereas the gospel is reverse: “I am saved, therefore I do.” When there is no more forgiveness in my heart I am asked to forgive again, when there is no more grace, I am told to have grace again, where there is no love left in my heart, I am asked to love. I can only love my enemy when I understand that I was once an enemy of God and was loved, that I screwed up so much, but God forgave me, that I was resentful of God and He showed me more grace.
If I actually live the gospel then I am experiencing God’s Kingdom, if only a sliver of it. Warm fuzzy’s and decpetive cadences in the latest worship ditty don’t top loving your brother. You can sing all you want, wake up with the fleece covered in dew outside your tent, but if you hate your brother you WON’T walk in the light. So in this regard I think Paul’s assertion of “Christ Crucified” is his way of confirming this type of gospel living as the ultimate religious experience. I don’t think emotional fervor or religious experiences can sustain this type of gospel living. Gospel living isn’t spectacular or flashy. Its hard, it often sucks, and it is really humiliating. Daily human life/passions/greed/lust/anger are all I need to know that the Gospel is truly the greatest religious experience.