Donovon begins the book by stating that Religion today has to move
away from a doctrine based faith to one that is centred on first hand
experience which leads to conviction (p1). Religions have stories
and "cases" of experience in history which they use to set the boundaries
of the faith. For Christianity, this is the Bible. However this suggests
that it is religion that defines experience and in particular what
is authentic experience.
Religion
Religion has the task of defining what is appropriate experience,
and of setting the boundaries of the experiences that are acceptable
and influential for the religion and for the community. The religion
also sets the rules and boundaries for the interpretation of experiences,
(p21), understanding them not simply as personal experiences but the
property of the community. The "rules" of interpretation are set through
precedent (e.g. the Bible) and by the religion providing the images
and the language for interpretation. Consequently religion controls
the interpretation and authenticity of experiences and people who
do not know the rules or language cannot interpret authentically!
"People who lack all familiarity with the language, imagery or world-views
of a religious system can hardly be said to be capable of having religious
experiences, for they lack the habit of mind and the awareness of
significance which make religiously interpreted experiences possible."
(p23)
Consequently non-religious people will have experiences which they
will describe as "chance" "providence", "paranormal" etc.
[What does Jesus have to say to this situation? Surely he would understand
that as God is revealed to all people who seek, so they will have
the means of interpretation. One of his problems was with the Pharisees
and religious leaders who controlled the images and the interpretations,
and so marginalised the ordinary people. Note also the similar context
of the OT Prophets. Amos is challenged and marginalised by the religious
community because he has experiences (visions and oracles) but is
not part of the religious community so should not be interpreting
them.]
This is an anthropocentric approach, relating the experiences simply
to the human context and not accepting that they are the intervening
of the Divine into the human realm. From the incarnational approach,
it must be possible for anyone to have a religious experience. Cf
the shepherds on the hillside at the incarnation!
Religion also provides theology which is an attempt to interpret
and explain experiences and relate them back to the religious tradition..
Theology provides the religious faith-system to enable this. (p35).
Religion, theology and belief systems change and adapt to new environments
and so the interpretation of religious experiences will also depend
on the context.
Experiences
Experiences need to be interpreted but this is difficult because
there is inadequate language. However they are generally considered
to be a source of information about the Divine (C.D. Broad), or as
people attempting to come to terms with the cosmos (T.R. Miles), Intuitive
understandings of God (H.P. Owen) which lead to faith - cf the Bible.
Yet an experience will only be described as religious if the person
can reflect on the experience from a religious background or world-view.
A person will interpret an experience in the light of previous experiences.
cf John Hick who understands experiences as "neutral" and interpretation
depends on how they are seen, or from the perspective from which they
are approached.
Experiences are the essential part of religious understanding because
to know God is not a primarily cognitive function but one of relationship.
Relational concepts are experiential (p66), yet the two are related.
"A great many experiences in human life produce what has come to
be interpreted as a "sense of knowing God". The occurrence of these
experiences is important to questions of knowledge and truth, not
because by themselves they guarantee the rightness of the interpretations
given by those who experience them, but because they are the facts
of experience, which would be explained if those interpretations were
correct." (p72)
Experiences, then become the building blocks of faith, but the question
still remains as to their value for building a faith system. To understand
an experience as religious, necessitates first a belief in God, or
the Divine and that the Divine can communicate. Therefore religious
experiences cannot be "proved to be religious" for they depend first
on the premise that God exists. Therefore they cannot be used as proof
of Faith. Alternative explanations of RE are e.g. emotional crises,
subconscious feelings, paranormal phenomenon, natural experiences,
coincidence.
Types of experiences:
Mystical including passive, ecstasy, non-sensory
Paranormal including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition.
They are considered to be "less intense" than mystical experiences
Charismatic the exercise of spiritual gifts and often associated
with saintly living.
Regenerative or conversion experiences including emotional
experiences and deliverance.
Conclusions
This author is seems much more ready to accept religious experiences
and to deal with them as reality. He surveys a number of other writers
and criticises their approaches. He understands that they can be explained
as encounters with God, which can lead to greater knowledge and understanding,
but does not limit their purpose to the communication of truth and
knowledge, saying:
"some must also be sources and instances of those truths."
