Methodology: Daniel Day Williams (PhD Edit)

Facebook

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). 

 

Wales, Travel+Leisure-Facebook