Methodology: Daniel Day Williams (PhD
Edit)
Methodology: Daniel Day Williams
Daniel Day Williams (1969) comments
that there are certain broad foundations of the empirical method that can
perhaps be agreed upon.[1] One, experience in the
empirical method is the felt, bodily, organic action of human history.[2] This experience includes
sense data, but is not limited by it.[3] Williams writes that
there is a mysterious disclosure of God by which God is revealed
metaphysically, and he reasons that human faith cannot survive without
interpreting this metaphysical experience that is manifested in all things.[4] Traditional Christian
thought can agree that, in a sense, God reveals things about himself outside of
revealed Scripture. Through creation God provided sufficient evidence for his
existence, and therefore persons would be accountable for denying this revelation.
This is known as natural revelation and is distinguished from special
revelation. Special revelation would include Scripture and the gospel message
and therefore natural revelation would provide natural information concerning
God, but not specific information in regard to salvation. The knowledge
of God for humanity is limited when restricted to natural theology. It is
not the same knowledge of God that is revealed supernaturally in
Scripture. James D.G. Dunn (1988) writes it is clear that within the Romans
text the concept of God revealing himself through natural theology exists.[5] This natural theology
has always been apparent to humanity, and has been present as long as the
cosmos have existed.[6]
Two, God is experienced as a power and
process, immanent, and therefore working within the world, creating ways in
which God is experienced by rational communities.[7] Williams asks that if
there is a way of getting knowledge outside of science, what is it?[8] Conservative Christians
and some liberals would of course answer that God has revealed spiritual
knowledge through prophets, apostles and scribes through Scripture. Williams
recommends the phenomenological method, which deals with understanding and
clarifying human experience.[9] For Williams, human
beings are animals, but a special kind of animal that needs to be understood in
the context of human suffering and how this impacts the human relationship with
God.[10]
Three, the knowledge of the character
of things is derivable from a disciplined and critical analysis of the
structures in experience and testing of the theological propositions concerning
God and humankind.[11] Empirical theology has
often denied religious claims that are deemed to be private or related to a
church.[12] Williams admits,
however, that this view is problematic as every empirical theology stands
within a historical religious perspective.[13] Even though Williams
states that each empirical theology is coming from a historical perspective,[14] it does not mean that
claims and doctrines within a historical approach should be beyond criticism.[15] Ganzevoort explains that
for the empirical method, Scripture is not limited to its original
understanding, and it may be directed to uncover interpretive potential for
today.[16] Doctrines and creeds
within tradition will be questioned,[17] as will overall
religious worldviews.[18] Ganzevoort reasons that
for Biblical theology, other disciplines are often used in the process, such as
linguistic and literary sciences, archeology, and of course history.[19] The other disciplines
can yield insights on Biblical texts,[20] the implication being
that empirical theology is a discipline outside of Biblical theology, which can
also assist in the understanding of Biblical texts.[21] Philosophically, I
reason that for the sake of religious truth, a member of a faith group, and in
particular a scholar such as myself, must be willing to, while striving for
objectivity, examine his historical religious perspectives and doctrines, and
this can occur through the use of disciplines other than Biblical studies,
theology, and philosophy. This work of empirical theology will provide the
opportunity to examine the views and doctrines of free will, sovereignty, and
soul-making theodicy, and also to evaluate the criticisms of these approaches
as well.
Four, empirical theology has a formal
structure that is tentative with correctable assertions.[22] This would seem to be
essential as empirical theology by nature is awaiting data[23] and reviewing the
quality of that data in order to form conclusions.[24] To form conclusions,
based on theological deductions, before empirical data exists,[25] would be the work of
philosophical and not empirical theology.
DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans,
Dallas, Word Books.
GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘van
der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’,
in Hermans, pp.53-74. C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds.), Amsterdam.
GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2005) ‘WYSIWYG:
Social Construction in Practical Theological Epistemology’, in R. Ruard
Ganzevoort, R. Ruard Ganzevoort, Amsterdam.
WILLIAMS, DANIEL DAY (1969) ‘Suffering
and Being in Empirical Theology’, in The Future of Empirical Theology,
Chicago, the University of Chicago Press.
[1] Williams (1969: 176).
[2] Williams (1969: 176).
[3] Williams (1969: 176).
[4] Williams (1969: 177-178).
[5] Dunn (1988: 56).
[6] Dunn (1988: 57).
There is no assumption here that human beings existed at the creation of the
cosmos.
[7] Williams (1969: 176).
[8] Williams (1969: 178).
[9] Williams (1969: 178).
[10] Williams (1969: 178).
[11] Williams (1969: 177).
[12] Williams (1969: 180).
[13] Williams (1969: 180).
[14] Williams (1969: 180).
[15] Williams (1969: 180).
[16] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005:
4).
[17] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005:
4).
[18] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005:
4).
[19] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005:
4).
[20] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005:
4).
[21] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005:
4).
[22] Williams (1969: 177).
[23] Williams (1969: 177).
[24] Williams (1969: 177).
[25] Williams (1969: 177).
