The Gospel of John provides several examples of this interaction between question and answer, such as the concrete dialogues in John 3:1–21 and John 4:1–42; it is also illustrated by the use of the “I am” statements and the basic symbols, as we shall see in chapter 6 of this book.
The Five Languages of Religion
Some years ago Martin Lönnebo argued that there are five different languages in the world of religion, each language with its own specific mark. All these languages are known in Christianity.24 The first is that of experience, which includes mysticism and prophecy and emphasizes the importance of the guidance of the Holy Spirit; in its foreground stands the subjective affirmation of what may be seen as objective in Scripture and tradition. The second language is that of cult, that is the worship of the church, its gospel, its prayers, and its sacraments. The third language is that of action which includes love and the ethical dimension. The fourth language is that of doctrine, the teaching of the church that gives knowledge and transmits the tradition. In this language the focus is on the objective aspect of Christianity. This mode of speaking is often despised but it is indispensable for authentic Christianity. Each of these languages is important, and they are united in a fifth language called the language of unity, which reflects a holistic view of humankind and the world. Unfortunately, the church often expresses itself in the language of disunity. Spirit is dissociated from matter, love is separated from justice, fear of God is separated from love of our fellow beings, care for people is separated from responsibility for the created world, faith is separated from knowledge, the individual is separated from the structure, and science is separated from devotion.
The order of the five languages is not random. Nor is the space allotted to their various descriptions. The language of experience is mentioned first. In his preface to a book on Christianity and new spirituality Lönnebo claims that no one is short of spiritual experiences but they often lack the language to describe them. The experience of life as being more than the material and visible world is true for all people—from small children to the elderly, from the intellectually gifted to the mentally disabled. The language of experience is the most important language of all, and it therefore has to be developed and delineated. If this occurs, a liberating and mature spirituality may be created, which in turn can make us more human and lead us to a sense of community, to peaceful co-existence, and to taking great pleasure in all things in nature. The most important method is an open and respectful dialogue—both within Christianity and between Christians and representatives of other faiths. The more we open ourselves toward others, the greater is God. We will discover new well-springs in our own Christian tradition.25
Experience and Theological Reflection
In his description of experience Lönnebo highlights individual experience and mysticism. By contrast I wish to underline collective experience, as well as point out the interaction between practice and theory. This interaction is seen in many New Testament texts, two of which deserve our attention.
The first is the Emmaus story (Luke 24:13–35), which has three phases: (a) The experience of the disciples saddened at the events of Passover week. (b) The emergence of a stranger who shares his reflection on biblical texts with the disciples, and (c) The turning-point of reflection into the new practice of fellowship at the Eucharistic meal. It is essential that this experience be shared with others, and so the disciples return to Jerusalem and from this city the Christian mission takes its start (Luke 24:44–47).
Reading the Emmaus story we learn that understanding the Bible is more than just an intellectual exercise. Gesture and action have a similar importance, with the real change occurring at the breaking of the bread. Here Jesus discloses his identity, the eyes of the disciples are opened, and they recognize him. There is a problem, however, when it comes to transmittance and communication; it has to do with the relation between the experiences of the first communities and what is experienced in later generations. We cannot just repeat the first followers’ experience of faith. This problem is reflected already in the New Testament, and it brings us to the second text.
The passage of 1 John 1:1–4 has four aspects that are expressed in various ways. The first aspect is the experience of the disciples: “what we have heard,” “what we have seen with our eyes”; “what we have looked at and touched with our hands.” The second aspect is the Christ event: “what was from the beginning”; “the word of life”; “the eternal life.” The third aspect is the communication: “we have seen it and testify to it”; “and declare to you.” And finally the fourth aspect which is the goal: “so that you also may have fellowship with us”; “and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”
This introduction to the First Epistle of John gives expression to the foundation of all Christianity, namely the concrete experience of Jesus, the Word that was incarnated. It is a new experience of what life is. At the same time the text poses a specific problem of the relationship between such alien experiences and our own. The experiences of Jesus in the flesh came at a specific time and cannot be repeated. But they can be proclaimed for another group of people who in their specific situation can enjoy fellowship with Christ and other Christians. Here we see how the text must be transmitted in a double sense. It has to be a bridge over the distance in time, and it has to create a new fellowship.
Experience undoubtedly plays a significant role in reading and understanding biblical texts—in particular the Fourth Gospel (see also the paragraph “Come and see!” in Part Two). But it is also important that we do not overlook the interplay between experience and reflection, for there is a risk here of overemphasizing the role of the experience.26
In a comment on the document Tro i lære Niels Henrik Gregersen rightly warns against the risk of what he calls the “fundamentalism of experience.” We each have all kinds of experiences in many different contexts, yet we are all responsible for considering which of them are the most important. When encountering spiritual currents we may be tempted to reduce Christianity to a religion of experience or to say along with one of the conversation partners in the book who says: “[W]hat is real Christianity is the experience of what has an effect on us. People have a claim on experiences. Christianity is a religion of experience.”27 However, according to Gregersen, Christianity cannot be defined as a religion based on experiences, for “if that were the case, it would have become a backward-looking religion, based on experiences from the past—instead of being open to the present time in the hope of a new future.”28
There is a need for a balance between experience and theological reflection. The dialectic between “the text” of life (experience) and the text of the Bible is the kernel of the interpretative enterprise.29 Without the interaction between the two entities we have either a theology from above which neglects the present context, or a theology from below which uses the Bible to illustrate and validate a predetermined activity. There is a need for a perspective that involves a view from above and below simultaneously.
1. For a full list of the characteristics of the classical Christian faith and new spirituality respectively, see Mortensen, “For All God’s people,” 476.
2. Ibid., 476.